SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (herein after referred to as the Selection Board) and 14 other private respondents praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the result dated 24.9.2011 published by the Selection Board, in pursuance of the selection held of Trained Graduate Teachers in so far it has selected respondent nos. 3 to 16. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioners while placing them at suitable places in the merit list, after rectifying the result and shifting 14 persons of OBC male into the general category result and declaring the petitioners as selected in OBC male category and for grant of other consequential reliefs.
(2.) The facts relevant for the controversy are being stated in brief herein below; The Selection Board issued an Advertisement No. 1 of 2005 to fill up 399 vacancies of teachers as TGT in the subject of Social Science in different recognised and aided High School and Intermediate Education Institutions on 17.9.2005. After results of the written examination was declared and before interviews took could take place, Dr. Ramesh Chand Pandey and some others preferred the Writ Petition No. 43013 of 2006. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 27.4.2007 (judgment is reported in 2007 (7) ADJ 281) and quashed the selection on the ground that written examination results were declared by using incorrect answer key. A direction was issued for the Selection Board to forward the question papers to a team of experts comprising of teachers of Allahabad University and after correct answers are obtained to re-evaluate the answer sheets of all candidates by itself. On the basis of rectified results / re-evaluated results, interview were to be held in the ratio prescribed under sub clause (6) of Rule 12 of the Selection Board Rules 1998, and in the interview, each member of the interview Board was to allocate marks to candidates concerned separately under each of the indices as provided under Rule 12(4) of the Selection Board Rules 1998.
(3.) The Selection Board got the answer sheets reevaluated and declared the results afresh inviting 620 candidates in the ratio of five each to one vacancy as against 128 vacancies. Since initially 399 vacancies had been advertised, some candidates again filed Writ Petitions apprehending that remaining vacancies had been filled up by resorting to newly added Rule 13 (5) to the Rules of 1998, and prayed for declaring Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1998 as ultra vires. These candidates further sought a mandamus to the Selection Board to declare the results for all 399 vacancies and to complete the process of selection.;