NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of the prayer, whereby they have sought quashing the result published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short JPSC) in daily newspaper, 'Prabhat Khabar' on 15th January, 2008 and till the pendency of the writ petition, the appointment' process of Lecturers published by the JPSC in the said daily newspaper be stayed/kept in abeyance.
(2.) IT has been stated that earlier the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking direction on the respondents -universities to forward and requisition the identified backlog reserved posts/vacancies of lecturers lying vacant since last many years in the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Physically Handicapped. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 7 as also the JPSC contested this application. It has been stated that the same petitioner had filed another writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2008, challenging the result of successful candidates for appointment of Lecturers selected by the JPSC. The petitioner has made this prayer after filing of the instant writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner has already challenged the result; there cannot be two parallel proceedings for the same relief and if this interlocutory application is allowed, there may be two different orders and it will be against the interest of justice.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since the petitioner has already challenged the result of the same examination conducted by the JPSC, there is no use of addition of the said prayer, which would amount to repetition of the prayer in the writ petition. I find substance in the submission, of the learned Counsel for the respondents that for the same prayer, there cannot be two parallel proceedings.;