Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 753 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Vijay Bahadur

2008-04-03

H.L.GOKHALE, VINEET SARAN

body2008
Judgement VINEET SARAN, J. :- This is a bunch of special appeals arising out of Judgment and Order dated 2-1-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54049 of 2007 reported in 2008 (3) ALJ 89 and several other connected writ petitions. In the said writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge, the writ-petitioners had challenged the Government Order dated 10-7-2007 relating to grant of admissions for Special Basic Training Course (BTC) 2007. Primarily there were two prayers made in these writ petitions, namely : (i) for quashing clause 3(1) of the Government Order providing for district -wise selection and preparation of merit list and further for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to prepare a common State merit list; and (ii) for commanding the respondents to adopt the criteria of selection and preparation of merit list by adding the average of the percentage of marks of practical and theory papers of B.Ed. (or equivalent examination) separately, instead of taking the percentage of both, practical and theory papers together. 2. By the impugned judgment, the writ Court has rejected the first prayer made in the writ petitions and upheld the decision of the State Government providing for district-wise selection and preparation of merit list. However, the prayer of the petitioners for directing the respondents to prepare the merit index of the candidates by separately adding percentage of marks of theory and practical of B. Ed. or other equivalent training qualification has been allowed and the respondents have been directed to prepare a fresh merit list in terms of the said judgment in this regard. 3. The judgment has led to two sets of appeals:- (A) The first set of appeals are filed by the State Government and its authorities challenging the latter part of the order whereby fresh merit list has been directed to be prepared after adding the percentage of marks of theory and practical separately. (B) The second set filed by the candidates, challenging that part of the order whereby preparation of State merit list has been refused and the district-wise selection and preparation of merit list has been approved. 4. (B) The second set filed by the candidates, challenging that part of the order whereby preparation of State merit list has been refused and the district-wise selection and preparation of merit list has been approved. 4. We have heard Sri D. K. Arora, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri K.S. Kushwaha and Sri G. C. Upadhyay, Standing Counsel on behalf of the State Government and its officials; as well as Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel along with Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Sri Shailendra and also Sri Awadh Narain Rai on behalf of the private candidates and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these appeals have been taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage. 5. On 13-2-2008, by a detailed reasoned order, interim directions were issued by this Court which permitted the State Government to declare and publish the list of selected candidates on the basis of district-wise selection and on the basis of the quality point marks awarded in terms of the existing Government Order. However, the selected candidates were restrained from being sent for training. The appeals were thereafter heard at length. 6. To understand the controversy involved in these appeals, the brief background may first be considered. There being a requirement of some 60,000 teachers for the primary- schools in the State of U. P., the State issued a G.O. dated 10-7-2007 (subsequently modified on 13-7-2007) whereby it was decided that six months Special Basic Training Course (B.T.C.) be undergone by 60,000 such candidates who possess B. Ed. or equivalent training qualification and on completion of such training, they would be required to appear in a written examination (as provided in clause 3(15) of the said G.O.) and such successful candidates would be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools. In clause 3(1) of the G.O. it was provided that district-wise selection would be made on the basis of merit. Clause 3(10) provided that candidates residing in a particular district would be eligible to apply in such district alone and they would be required to file the certificate of proof of their residence issued by the District Magistrate or such other officer authorized. Clause 3(10) provided that candidates residing in a particular district would be eligible to apply in such district alone and they would be required to file the certificate of proof of their residence issued by the District Magistrate or such other officer authorized. By a subsequent G.O. dated 13-10-2007 the said clause 3(10) was modified and it was provided that eligible candidates could apply from any district and the requirement of proof of residence was done away with. By the said modification, a candidate could apply from any one or all the districts of Uttar Pradesh. Clause 3(11) provided for the evaluation of the quality point marks on the basis of which the merit list was to be prepared. By the said clause, the total of the percentage of marks obtained by a candidate in High School, Intermediate, Graduation and B. Ed. (or equivalent training qualification) was to be treated as the total quality point marks obtained by such candidate. 7. In response to the aforesaid Government Order, the Principals of District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) of all the districts of the State of U. P. issued advertisements on 17/18-7-2007 inviting applications for the Special B.T.C. course. In terms of the Government Order, the candidates were required to fill up the marks obtained by them in High School, Intermediate, Graduation and B. Ed. (or equivalent examination). As per clause 3(17) of the said G.O. the merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the marks disclosed by the candidate, on the calculation of which the quality point marks of each candidate was to be determined. In sub-clause (20) it was provided that in case if any wrong information was given by the candidate, he would be liable for disqualification and appropriate legal action would be taken against such candidate. Prior to the issuance of the advertisement the U. P. Basic Education Board had issued instructions/check list on 15-7-2007. Besides other things, in paragraph 24 of the said instructions, example had been given as to how the quality point marks would be calculated. 8. Various writ petitions were filed by candidates from time to time and this Court, by separate orders, directed inclusion of candidates possessing certain other training qualifications besides B. Ed. also as eligible for such course. Besides other things, in paragraph 24 of the said instructions, example had been given as to how the quality point marks would be calculated. 8. Various writ petitions were filed by candidates from time to time and this Court, by separate orders, directed inclusion of candidates possessing certain other training qualifications besides B. Ed. also as eligible for such course. The last date for filing the applications, which was initially up to 8-8-2007, was extended from time to time. The final result was to be declared on 20-12-2008, which was stayed by the writ Court till 2-1-2008, on which date the impugned judgment was pronounced. 9. Before coming to the merits of the case, we shall first deal with the preliminary objection of the State with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions as the writ-petitioners had participated in the selection process which they are now challenging after having failed in the selection process. In this regard besides other cases, Sri Arora has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. N. Chandrasekharan (1998) 3 SCC 694 : AIR 1998 SC 795 where it has been held that when all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test, they could not turn around and contend later, when they found that they were not selected, by challenging that very procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports were disproportionately high. There is no quarrel with regard to the aforesaid proposition of law. However, in the present case, since the results had not been declared and prior to that the writ-petitioners filed the petitions before the learned Single Judge, we do not find that such petitions would not be maintainable on this ground. Besides this, the time for filing the applications (after the advertisement had been issued) was so short that the petitioners could not have practically approached this Court. Further, in case if they had approached this Court without filing their applications in terms of the advertisement, they may have been non suited on the ground that they had not applied in response to the advertisement. As such, we are not inclined to hold that the writ petitions were not maintainable on this ground. We thus find it appropriate to consider the appeals on merits. 10. As such, we are not inclined to hold that the writ petitions were not maintainable on this ground. We thus find it appropriate to consider the appeals on merits. 10. Now coming to the merits of these Special Appeals, we would first take up the second set of appeals filed by the private candidates challenging the district-wise selection and preparation of the merit list. The submission of the learned counsel for the private candidates in this regard, primarily is that since the selections are to be made in all the districts of the State, a common State merit-list ought to be prepared, as had been done in the previous selections for such Special B.T.C. Courses. The sheet anchor of the argument of learned counsel for the private candidates is the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Anant Kumar Tiwari v. State of U. P. 2002(2) UPLBEC 1327 : 2002 All LJ 1376 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Anant Kumar Tiwari 2003(3) A.W.C. 2060 : 2003 All LJ 478 against which the appeal filed by the State of U. P. before the Apex Court, was also dismissed. 11. In Anant Kumar Tiwaris case, which related to Special B.T.C. 2001, the advertisement was required to mention the district-wise vacancies and the candidates were entitled to make applications only against vacancies of their home district. The State Government, by corrigendum dated 22-9-2001 provided that a common State merit list shall be prepared, meaning thereby that there was to be only one merit list for the entire State. Subsequently, a few days before the issue of merit list, the State again decided to issue district-wise merit list. It was in such facts and circumstances that writ petitions were filed challenging the G.O. dated 3-8-2001 and the consequential advertisement, and in this background the learned Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench, set aside the decision of the State Government to prepare district-wise merit list. It was in such facts and circumstances that writ petitions were filed challenging the G.O. dated 3-8-2001 and the consequential advertisement, and in this background the learned Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench, set aside the decision of the State Government to prepare district-wise merit list. The Apex Court, while approving the judgment of the Division Bench, noted that the Division Bench had frowned upon the recruitment on the basis of criteria restricted to candidates from specialized local area and thus the restriction of the selection and preparation of the merit list at district level was held to be violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. This was so because both the aforesaid Articles prohibit discrimination against any citizen on the ground of place of birth. Since in the said case, candidates could apply only from their home districts and district-wise merit list was to be prepared, it was held that there was a clear restriction on the ground of place of birth or place of residence of the candidate, which was not permissible on the principles as enshrined under Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 12. In the present case, while mentioning that there could not be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Anant Kumar Tiwari (supra), the learned Single Judge has in the impugned judgment, held that "the question however, is as to whether ratio of the said judgment is to be applied in the selection of 2007. In 2007 selection, as noticed above, by the Government Order dated 13-7-2007 the restriction of applying from home district of a candidate has been withdrawn and a candidate has been permitted to apply against vacancies of any district irrespective of place of birth or place of residence and offending part of earlier restriction, which was frowned upon by the Division Bench of this Court and approved by the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Guptas case 2005 All LJ 1915 (supra) is not present in the Special Basic Training Course 2007" where a candidate has been permitted to apply from any one or all districts of his choice. 13. 13. As such, since in the present case the candidates could apply from any or all of the districts of Uttar Pradesh, in our view, the preparation of district-wise merit list cannot be said to be discriminatory or unjustified. In this case, the advertisements were also issued at the district level by the respective DIETs and not by State Government. Besides this, as submitted by Sri Arora, learned. Additional Advocate General, the past experience of the State Government in this regard was also taken into consideration while arriving at a decision to prepare the district-wise merit list (instead of State merit list) after permitting the candidates to apply from any or all the districts of the State. By this method, a candidate had been given liberty to apply for those districts where he would be wanting to or was agreeable to join as Assistant Teacher, if selected. Sri Arora submitted that in the previous selection, where a common State merit list was prepared, in several cases candidates got selected in districts where they did not want to work and thereafter large scale transfers had to be made, thereby causing grave difficulties and confusion, as a consequence of which, at one place all the vacancies had been filled up, whereas at certain other places there were no persons willing to join. We find good force in such submission of Sri Arora. 14. If the State were to have a State-wise merit list, there could be a case where a person belonging to one part of the State may not like to join at a district in the other extreme corner of the State, even though he may be selected for that district on the basis of State merit list. This time he has the choice of applying for those districts alone where he would like to join after selection. For this reason also, we find that the procedure adopted for the present year selection is clearly more equitable. 15. Since the restriction of permitting the candidate to apply only from his home district has been lifted, the question of discrimination on the basis of place of birth or place of residence no longer exists. In fact, by this method the candidate has been given the choice of the place where he would like to work. 15. Since the restriction of permitting the candidate to apply only from his home district has been lifted, the question of discrimination on the basis of place of birth or place of residence no longer exists. In fact, by this method the candidate has been given the choice of the place where he would like to work. Actually if he chooses not to apply at a district where the merit list may be of candidates having lower than his quality point marks, the same would be of his own choice and cannot be attributed to any fault of the State Government, as such candidate had liberty to apply at such districts also where the persons of lesser merit had been selected. Thus, in our considered view, the preparation of district-wise merit list, instead of a common State merit list, does not suffer from the vice of discrimination. We thus do not find any reason to disagree with the decision of the learned Single Judge in this regard. Accordingly, the special appeals filed by the private candidates challenging the preparation of district-wise merit list are liable to be dismissed. 16. Now we come to the first set of appeals filed by the State and its authorities challenging that part of the order whereby fresh merit list has been directed to be prepared by adding the percentage of marks of theory and practical papers separately, as awarded in B. Ed. or other equivalent training qualification. 17. Clause 3(11) of the G.O. dated 10-7-2007 provides for computation of the quality point marks of a candidate for selection. The said clause 3(11) is quoted below :- (Vernacular matter omitted...........Ed.) As per the aforesaid clause, as well as paragraph 24 of the instructions dated 15-7-2007 where an example of computation of quality point marks has been given, the method to be adopted is that the total of the percentage of marks obtained by a candidate in the four examinations, namely, High School, Intermediate, Graduation and B. Ed. (or equivalent teaching qualification) would be the quality point marks of such candidate. (or equivalent teaching qualification) would be the quality point marks of such candidate. The contention of Sri Khare, learned senior counsel appearing for the private candidates is that different Universities have different marks allotted for theory and practical papers and since generally the marks awarded in practical papers are much higher than those awarded in theory papers, students passing out from such Universities which have comparatively more marks for practical than theory papers would have an advantage. It was thus vehemently canvassed before us that the percentage of marks obtained in the practical papers and the percentage of marks obtained in theory papers be added separately and then the average of the two may be taken as the marks awarded in B. Ed. or equivalent examination for the purpose of determining the quality point marks. In support of such submission, various mark-sheets have been placed for our consideration to demonstrate that in certain Universities the marks of practical papers are 400 and of theory papers 600, whereas in some other Universities the marks of practical papers are only 200 and theory papers 700. From the mark-sheets it has also been shown that the University awards separate percentage of marks for theory and practical papers and separate divisions are also awarded for the two. As such, it has been contended that when the University itself treats the theory and practical papers in two distinct categories, there is no justification for clubbing the two and taking the percentage of marks awarded in all the papers, instead of treating the practical and theory papers separately. 18. On the other hand Sri Arora, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and its authorities has submitted that the decision to take the percentage of marks received by a candidate in High School, Intermediate, Graduation and teaching qualification examination for the purposes of preparation of merit index was taken by the State Government, keeping in view the various difficulties that had arisen in the earlier selections and also in view of the judgment dated 7-11-2006 rendered by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9445 of 2005 Shashikant Shukla v. State of U. P. and the judgment dated 16-11-2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36199 of 2005 Mahesh Prasad Tiwari v. State of U. P., both relating to earlier Special B.T.C. schemes. Writ Petition No. 9445 of 2005 Shashikant Shukla v. State of U. P. and the judgment dated 16-11-2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36199 of 2005 Mahesh Prasad Tiwari v. State of U. P., both relating to earlier Special B.T.C. schemes. It has also been submitted that the said method of calculating quality point marks has been applied uniformly in the case of all candidates and, as such, the said policy of determination of quality point marks cannot be said to be bad or discriminatory. 19. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue of calculation of merit index at great length and has also examined the variation which would occur in case if the marks awarded in the practical and theory papers are taken separately and the aggregate of the same is considered for determining quality point marks, as compared to the existing policy under the Government Order where the marks awarded in practical and theory papers are taken together. In our considered opinion, the said system as directed by the learned Single Judge may be considered by one to be a better mode of calculation of quality point marks but merely because one mode is better than the other, the mode adopted by the State Government cannot be set aside, unless the same is arbitrary or against any provision of law. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi JT 2006 (6) SC 500 : ( AIR 2006 SC 2609 ) while dealing with a case relating to fixation of eligibility criteria, held that while examining the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not to act as an appellate authority nor does the Constitution permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to solemnize any matter, which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment the Apex Court observed as follows :- "11. The correctness of the reasons which promoted the Government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 12. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment the Apex Court observed as follows :- "11. The correctness of the reasons which promoted the Government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 12. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the Judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government." (Emphasis supplied) The Court was further of the opinion that "mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review". 21. In the case of State of H. P. v. Padam Dev (2002) 4 SCC 510 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2477 ) where the Apex Court was dealing with the question arising in the context of two schemes formulated by the State to tackle the problem of rural poverty and unemployment amongst the educated youth, in paragraph 13 it was held that "The framing of administrative policy is within the exclusive realm of the executive and its freedom to do so is, as a general rule, not interfered with by courts unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution." 22. In the case of Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala AIR 1997 SC 128 the Apex Court was considering a case where the constitutional validity of a Circular issued by the Government of Kerala with regard to distribution of pump sets under certain scheme of the Agriculture Department was under challenge. In the case of Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala AIR 1997 SC 128 the Apex Court was considering a case where the constitutional validity of a Circular issued by the Government of Kerala with regard to distribution of pump sets under certain scheme of the Agriculture Department was under challenge. In paragraph 34 of the said judgment the Apex court held as under :- "To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionally. Courts should avoid "embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy." (Emphasis supplied). 23. While dealing with the case relating to recruitments to be made on certain posts of a Bank, where the candidates were to appear in preliminary written examination and were to be called on the basis of merit and where a candidate had obtained marks below the cut-off marks in English paper and was thus not called for interview, the Apex court in the case of The Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras v. V. Ramalingam AIR 1999 SC 2861 held that "so long as the same cut-off marks in each subjects are applied to the papers of all the candidates, there is nothing irregular about fixing different cut-off marks for each paper. The cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the examining bodys view of the importance of the subject for the post in question." 24. The cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the examining bodys view of the importance of the subject for the post in question." 24. From the above decisions it is absolutely clear that the Courts are not to interfere with any such policy decision of the State fixing any such criteria for selection of candidates, unless the same is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or the provisions of Constitution. In the present case, even though we may find that the mode of calculating quality point marks as directed by the learned Single Judge may be found by one to be more equitable or justified, than the one adopted by the State, but the wisdom of the choice of the mode to be adopted for the selection of candidates should be best left to the executive, which is in the best position to know as to which process would be appropriate for the purposes of selection of candidates for the course, or post in question. 25. If the argument of Sri Khare is to be accepted, then the same would not to end here alone, i.e. for the purposes of practical and theory papers of B. Ed. or equivalent examination. Stretched further, then the same method should be adopted for those subjects of High School and Intermediate which also have theory and practical papers. Further, the same thing can be said with regard to the awarding of marks in High School and Intermediate (10th and 12th classes) by different examination Boards. One examination Board may be more liberal in awarding marks, in which case candidates obtaining High School and Intermediate certificates from such Board would be at an advantage as compared to those candidates who pass such examinations from another Board which is comparatively conservative in awarding marks. What is required is that the Board or the University is duly recognized by the competent authority. In the case of B. Ed. or equivalent teaching qualification, the authorities would be required to see that the Universities awarding such degrees/diplomas/certificates are duly recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) or National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). What is required is that the Board or the University is duly recognized by the competent authority. In the case of B. Ed. or equivalent teaching qualification, the authorities would be required to see that the Universities awarding such degrees/diplomas/certificates are duly recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) or National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). In case if such degree/diploma/certificate awarded by a particular University is duly recognized, then if the State Government takes a policy decision that aggregate marks awarded in such training qualification is to be considered for the calculation of the quality point marks, the same cannot be said to be unjustified. The submission in this regard that the University itself awards separate marks and division for theory and practical papers is also not worthy of acceptance inasmuch as in the mark sheet, the aggregate of the total marks of practical and theory together are also mentioned. 26. It may be reiterated that the mode of taking aggregate of the theory and practical papers separately, as directed by the writ Court, may be considered by one to be a better mode but the one adopted by the State Government vide G.O. dated 10-7-2007 also cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary or against any provision of law and thus, in our view, the same ought not to have been interfered with. 27. Besides the above ground on which we are of the view that the mode of calculation of quality point marks, as provided for in the Government Order, is justified in law, on the practicality of the entire process also this Court would not like to interfere. Every case has to be considered on the basis of the attending circumstances in the facts of such case. What we are informed is that in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh there are some 19 lac applications filed. Such a large number of applications are also because one applicant could apply in several districts. What the candidates were required to declare in the application forms were the marks obtained by them in the four examinations, namely, High School, Intermediate, Graduation and B. Ed. (or equivalent training qualification). It was on the basis of such declaration made in the application form that the quality point marks have been awarded, of course, subject to verification of their correctness. (or equivalent training qualification). It was on the basis of such declaration made in the application form that the quality point marks have been awarded, of course, subject to verification of their correctness. The candidates were not required to mention the separate marks obtained by them in the theory and practical papers of the B. Ed. (or equivalent training qualification). If the aggregate of the two has now to be considered for computation of the quality point marks, it would become a stupendous task, as each application form would have to be re-written or the candidates may be required to apply afresh. The Court should refrain from giving such direction at this stage when the results of the examination are almost complete, unless the mode adopted in the calculation of quality point marks is totally arbitrary or against any provision of law. Since we have already held that the mode as provided in the Government Order cannot be said to be arbitrary or otherwise wrong, merely because another mode may be better, taking the practical view, the direction to recalculate the quality point marks of all the candidates (about 19 lacs) and prepare a fresh merit list at such late stage, cannot be sustained on this count also. 28. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions filed by the private candidates challenging clause 3 (11) of the Government Order dated 10-7-2007 deserve to be dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petitions to this extent, deserves to be set aside and the Special Appeals filed by the State and its authorities deserve to be allowed. 29. In the result, the first set of appeals (Special Appeal No. 166 and (Defective) Nos. 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 and 185 of 2008) filed by the State and its authorities, challenging that part of the learned Single Judge whereby fresh merit list has been directed to be prepared after calculating the average of the percentage of marks of theory and practical papers separately, are allowed. The second set of appeals (Special Appeals No. 178 and 142 of 2008) filed on behalf of the private candidates, challenging clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 10-7-2007 with regard to the district-wise selection and preparation of merit list, are dismissed. The second set of appeals (Special Appeals No. 178 and 142 of 2008) filed on behalf of the private candidates, challenging clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 10-7-2007 with regard to the district-wise selection and preparation of merit list, are dismissed. As a consequence, all the Writ Petitions which were filed before the learned Single Judge stand dismissed. In terms of the interim order dated 13-2-2008, the results of the selection have already been declared. The selected candidates may now be sent for training. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.