- (1.) Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondents.
(2.) This intra-Court appeal, under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1952'), has arisen from judgment dated 06.11.2008 passed by learned Single Judge decided connected petition including Writ Petition No. 35563 of 2002 directing to hold fresh selection has attained finality after Supreme Court judgment passed in Rohan Singh Others v. The District Judge and Others, in Civil Appeal No. 2882 of 2012, decided on 26 July 2018. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 5 to 12 of judgment of Supreme Court, which read as under :- "5. Way back in the year 2001, applications for the recruitment of 14 Class-III posts in the judgeship in Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh were advertised. 28 persons who were purportedly selected were appointed. The selection and appointment was questioned before the High Court of Allahabad. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who had heard the matter, by a very detailed order dated 20.11.2008, thought it proper to set aside the entire selection and direct a fresh selection. At this stage it will also be necessary to notice that fresh selection has been held and the selected candidates have been appointed but they have not been allotted any duties, perhaps on account of the pendency of the present proceedings before this Court. 6. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.11.2008 recorded his findings after a detailed and indepth scrutiny of the proceedings of the selection including the answer-scripts of a large number of candidates who had participated therein. The answer-scripts which were scrutinized were principally those of the selected candidates. 7. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are to the effect that no check-list/cross-list/merit list was prepared. Candidates were given enhanced marks by over-writings wherein in some cases marks obtained were reduced by over-writing. All such over-writings were in different inks. Marks were assigned even without examination of answers in some cases. Many of the answer-scripts were not evaluated at all. Some of the candidates had even written their names on the answer-scripts for the purpose of identification. 28 persons were appointed whereas the total number of posts advertised was 14. It is in the above said facts that the learned Single Judge thought it fit to set aside the entire selection and direct a fresh selection. The view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal. 8. The details of the anomalies found in the answer-scripts are in respect of 22 out of the 28 selected candidates. From the order of the learned Single Judge it is evident that answer-scripts of other candidates were also looked into though there is no specific mention of such candidates with roll numbers. Having regard to the gravity of the illegalities that were found to have taken place, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the entire selection process and directing a fresh selection. As many as three Special Leave Petitions filed against the order of the High Court were dismissed. However, in Civil Appeal Nos.10875 and 10876 of 2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.11731/2009 and 28978/2009 respectively, a two Judge Bench of this Court thought it appropriate to take the view that the affected parties ought to have been heard before the High Court had set aside the selection. Accordingly, interference was made insofar as the appellants before the Court in those appeals were concerned. 9. We are told at the Bar that over 4000 candidates had participated in the selection. The examination of the records of the selection and the answer-scripts of the candidates, having regard to the total number, in our considered view, was a sufficiently representative specimen of what had transpired in the entire selection. That apart, the appellants in this appeal claim to be at Serial Nos.15, 17 and 21 in order of merit i.e. beyond the number of advertised vacancies. All the candidates who had participated in the earlier selection which was set aside, in any case, had the option and liberty to participate in the fresh selection even by condonation of the age bar. The said selection has been, in the meantime, completed and appointments on the basis thereof has also been made. 10. Having regard to what we have found as stated above, we are of the view that the order of the High Court as passed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed in Letter Patents Appeal should have our approval. Appeal consequently is dismissed. 11. Before parting, we would like to observe that if the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.10875 and 10876 of 2011 have been appointed, as we are told way-back in the year 2011, our views as expressed above, will not be understood to require the State and the High Court from dispensing with the services of the said appointees/appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.10875 and 10876 of 2011. 12. Subject to the above, the appeals are dismissed."
(3.) In view of above, judgment in question cannot be interfered.;