PRAKASH PADIA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vijai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in order to get the benefit of the judgment and order dated 8.5.2019 passed in Writ A No. 1714 of 2019 (Sumit and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) alongwith other connected matters.
(2.) The operative portion of the judgment dated 8.5.2019 passed in the writ petition, referred above, is quoted below- " The writ petitions consequently stand allowed. Clause 2 of the Guidelines dated 19 August 2018 is declared ultra vires the 1981 Rules and unconstitutional. All applicants who had cleared the written examination conducted by the respondents and were ultimately excluded only on the ground of being non-residents of the State of U.P. are therefore, held to be eligible to be considered by the respondents for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the 1981 Rules.
(3.) The Board is hereby commanded to publish notices in leading newspapers having wide circulation in different States inviting all applicants who were non-suited on account of the impugned clause to participate in the further steps which the respondents shall now undertake. Apart from public notices being carried in the leading newspapers, the Board shall also upload notices to similar effect on its official website. The State Examination Regulatory Authority may also take similar steps of uploading notices on its website.;