- (1.) HEARD Sri RS. Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H. N. Singh appears for the U. P. High Education Services Commission. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
(2.) THE U. P. Higher Education Services Commission issued advertisement No. 39 in newspapers and employment news inviting applications for the appointment on the post of Principals of Undergraduate Degree Colleges in February, 2005. Acorrigendum was issued on 23. 2. 2006. THE petitioner appears for selection along with many other candidates. THE selection process was completed and that the names of the selected persons in order of merit under Section 13 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 were notified on 15. 5. 2007. THE list of selected candidates was sent to the Director of Higher Education for placement. Before the Director of Higher Education could exercise his power of place ment, it is alleged that one Sri Yatindra Kumar, Advocate and Sri Sobh Nath Misra made certain allegations againstthe process adopted in the selection. The State Government took notice and entrusted the enauiry to the Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Allahabad. The Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, by his letter dated 16. 6. 2007, sought certain information from the Commission and while endorsing copy to the Director of Higher Education asking him not to make any placements. At this stage, this writ petition was filed on 13. 7. 2007. This Court passed following orders: "we have heard Sri PS. Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri H. N. Singh learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 who pray for and are allowed one month to file counter affidavit. Three weeks thereafter is allowed to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. List there after. Under the order of the State Government the Commissioner, Allahabad DMsion, Allahabad has conducted preliminary enquiry with regard to the con-duct of the members of the Higher Education Service Commission. The Com missioner whi?e holding the preliminary enquiry has directed the Director of Higher Education not to issue any appointment letter with regard to the can didates who have been selected by the Commission. In our opinion, the Com missioner does not have the power to direct the Director of Higher Education that he will not issue any appointment letter to the selected candidates. A DMsion Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal Chairman U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad and othersv. State of U. P. andothers, 1999 (2) UPLBEC 825 has held that the Commissioner has no power to issue any direction to the State Government to stop the interview. If the Commissioner cannot stop the interview, he would not issue any direction to the Director, Higher Education, U. P, Allahabad to issue any such Government order. However, it appears that the selections have been made subject to the decision of this writ petition which are pending before the Court. Connect along with writ petitions No. 38714 of 2003, 41345 of 2003,42992 of 2003, 52411 of 2005 and 70062 of 2006 and list after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel has submitted the en-a quiry report conducted by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. We have returned back the enquiry report to Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned. . Standing Counsel after putting it in sealed cover again. Until further orders of this Court the effect and operation of the order dated 16. 6. 2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed. The Director, Higher Education, U. P. Allahabad is directed to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates within three weeks which shall be subject to the decision of this writ petition as well as other connected writ petitions. 13. 7. 2007. "
(3.) THE State of U. P. filed a Special Leave Petition No. 14057 of 2007. THE Supreme Court passed the following interim order: "issue notice. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav and Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned _ Counsel appears for the respective respondents. Three week's time is granted for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Let the matter be listed for fina? disposal after two months. In the mean time, the impugned order dated 13. 7. 2008, so far as it relates to direction to the Director, Higher Education, U. P. Allahabad "to issue ap pointment letter to the selected candidates within three weeks which shall be subject to the decision of this writ petition as we as other. connected writ petitions", shall remain stayed till fina? disposal of the matter. " Whereafter the matter was heard and that the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition on 12. 2. 2008 with following order: "on the prayerof learned Counsel for the parties, service of respondent No. 8 is dispensed with. At the time of issuance of notice on the respondents, following interim Order was passed: "issue notice. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav and Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned Counsel appears for the respective respondents. Three week's time is granted for filing counter affidavit. Rejeinder, if any, be filed within two weeks there after. Let the matter be listed for fina? disposal after two months. In the mean time, the impugned order dated 13. 7. 2008, so far as it relates to direction to the Director, Higher Education, U. P. Allahabad "to issue ap pointment letter to the selected candidates with in three weeks which shall be subject to the decision of this writ petition as well as other connected writ petitions", shall remain stayed till fina? disposal of the matter. " It is not in dispute that the Writ Petition is pending before the High Court for fina? adjudication and the matter is ready for hearing. Considering the " facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of interim order granted by the High Court which is nw under challenge before us and the interim order we have already passed while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition, we dispose of this Special Leave Petition without going into the merit of the dispute that would be decided in the Writ Petition in the following manner: " (1) The High Court is requested to dispose of the Writ Petition within four months from the date of communication of this order to the High Court. The interim order which has already been granted and which has been quoted herein above shall continue. In the event, the Writ Petition is not decided within the time stipulated herein above, it will be open to the parties to apply for vacation or variation or even for extension of interim order granted by the High Court before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. ";