- (1.)This writ petition has been filed questioning the authority of the respondent Higher Education Service Commission to hold selections under Advertisement No. 46 dated 21.3.2014 without appropriately applying the law of reservation collegewise and subjectwise. This matter had been taken up yesterday and the following order was passed:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

The order of the Director dated 7.3.2014 has been placed before us. This is a clear issue where we prima facie find that the Director of Higher Education has proceeded to pass a completely misleading order without any reference to the judgments of this Court or the order passed by the Apex Court in relation to the Institution wise reservation in matters of selection even though the said authority has contested this litigation throughout upto the Apex Court involving the same issue as per the decisions noted hereinunder:

(i) Ram Niwas Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 3 UPLBEC 1869.

(ii) State of U.P. v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and another, 1997 9 SCC 662.

(iii) State of U.P. and others v. M.C. Chattopadhyay and others, 2004 12 SCC 333.

(iv) Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board and others, 2008 12 SCC 1.

(v) Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 4 ADJ 373.

(vi) State of U.P. v. Bharat Singh, 2011 4 SCC 120.

We are, therefore, prima facie of the view that the Director of Higher Education Dr. Naved Bahar Khan has interfered with the course of justice and has deliberately omitted to mention the judgments of this Court as well as the order passed by the Apex Court in his communication dated 7.3.2014 thereby generating unnecessary litigation.

Consequently, the Court proposes to initiate proceedings of contempt against the said Director by tomorrow.

Smt. Rathi prays that the matter be taken up tomorrow.

Put up tomorrow.

Dr. Naved Bahar Khan, Director of Higher Education, shall be personally present before this Court by tomorrow for the said purpose."

(2.)Today, an affidavit of the Director of Higher Education has been filed, a copy whereof has been served on the learned counsel for the respondent U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. Alongwith the affidavit which has been sworn by Dr. Naved Bahar Khan, Director Higher Education, who is present in Court, a clarification dated 22.5.2014 has been issued informing the respondent Commission that reservation in terms of the judgments that have been referred to in our order dated 21.5.2014 shall be applied collegewise and subjectwise.
(3.)In view of the said affidavit having been filed by the respondent-Director of Higher Education, we do not find it necessary to issue any direction to the respondents. The respondent Commission shall proceed accordingly to hold selections as per the said corrigendum and the directions contained in the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 4236 of 2014.