- (1.) The petitioner complains of the Regional Director of the Staff Selection Commission having virtually set aside a judicial order though the Union of India had accepted such order by not preferring an appeal therefrom. W.P. No. 22678 (W) of 2013 was carried by the petitioner to this Court claiming, inter alia, that the process of certification referred to in paragraph 4(C) of the employment notice was only directory. Upon such writ petition being heard, the primary issue that arose therein was formulated as such at paragraph 9 of the order dated December 04, 2013. It is the second sentence of the relevant paragraph which is of greater significance, particularly in the light of the directions issued at paragraph 17 of such order.
(2.) Paragraphs 9 and 17 of the relevant order of December 04, 2013 are set out: "9. Only question that arises for consideration is whether the process of certification referred to in paragraph 4(C) of the employment notice is mandatory or directory. If the process is held to be directory and a method of convenience to take instant proof of qualification, there is no reason as to why the petitioners should not be considered eligible as claimed in the writ petitions." "17. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Regional Director of the Commission must reconsider the claim of the two petitioners in the light of the observations made above and take a fresh decision. In the event the decision is adverse to the interest of the petitioners, a reasoned order ought to be passed and communicated to them. On the contrary, if the petitioners' claims succeed, follow up steps in accordance with law shall be taken without any delay."
(3.) Upon service of the order dated December 04, 2013 on the Regional Director, the matter was considered again and an order has been passed on January 20, 2014. The candidature of the petitioner has been declined upon making a distinction between the two parts to the relevant certificate though the matter had been considered by Court and, as would be evident from paragraph 9 of the order dated December 04, 2013, it was observed that if the instructions at paragraph 4(C) of the employment notice were regarded to be directory, the petitioner would be entitled to the appointment.;