R.K.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) AS all the aforesaid three writ petitions raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) ALL the three writ petitions have been filed by persons having degree in Homeopathy, known as B.H.M.S. They had studied for a period of four and half years and after undergoing one year compulsory rotatory internship, they were awarded the decree. They are also registered with the U.P. Homeopathic Medical Board, Lucknow. For filling up 205 posts of the Homeopathic Medical Officer in the Government Homeopathic Colleges in Uttar Pradesh, the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) issued an advertisement in the Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagran, published on 22-8-1998. The petitioners being fully possessed with essential qualifications, applied. They were called for interview during the period 2-12-1998 to 29-1-1999. They appeared before the Interview Board. The Commission, vide notification dated 23-7-1999, declared the result of recruitment of the Homeopathic Medical Officers. The result contained the names of 200 persons out of 205 vacancies notified. None of the petitioners were selected. Having failed to qualify in the select list, they have approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the selection list dated 23-7-1999 (Annexure-2) which has been prepared in pursuance of advertisement dated 22-8-1998 (Annexure-1) and/or in the alternate seats equivalent to the number of petitioners be reserved for the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition. (ii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to issue any further appointments in pursuance to the select list (Annexure-2) and if any person has already been issued appointment letter and has also joined, he should not be confirmed and his appointment should be subject to the result of writ petition. (iii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration, declaring the Second Amendment Rule, 1997 as void, nullity and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration, declaring the Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation of SC/ST and other Backward Class) Act, 1994 as ultra vires the Constitution and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (v) any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. (iv) award the cost of the petitioners.” As the counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are being heard and finally disposed of at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of Court.
(3.) WE have heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R.K. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State respondents and Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned Counsel for the Commission.;