Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 833 (ALL)

Mukund Bahadur Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-03-04

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner claims that he belongs to reserve category candidate. He has preferred this writ petition for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Maths) in Upper Basic School run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. He has sought the following relief: - "(i) issue a writ order or direction the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to accept the form of the petitiner and permit him to participate in the counselling of the posot of Assistant Teacher (Science/Math) in Upper Primary School run by U.P.Basic Education Board initiated pursuant to the advertisement/Government Order No. 2651(1)/79-5-12-1(04)/13 dated 11/07/2013. ii) issue a writ order or direction the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection procedure in Upper Primary School run by U.P.Basic Education Board initiated pursuant to the advertisement/Government Order No. 2651(1)/79-5-12-1(04)/13 dated 11/7/2013." 2. The respondents issued an advertisement pursuant to Government Order dated 11th July, 2013 calling applications for appointment of Assistant Teacher (Science/Math) against 29334 posts in Upper Primary Schools. 3. The prayer of the petitioner is that since some posts are still lying vacant, therefore, he has made a representation dated 5.1.2016, that he may be considered against the vacant post. Although the petitioner has not disclosed the fact in the writ petition that he has not applied against the advertisement but in one of his representation dated 5.1.2016 (Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition) he has very candidly admitted that he has not applied against the aforesaid advertisement. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 5. I am of the view, that the writ petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner admittedly has not applied against the aforesaid advertisement. In so far as, the subsequent notice calling application is concerned, that is in respect of the vacant post and the applications have been called from the candidates who have applied in pursuance to the advertisement and could not be selected in previous counselling. The respondents are also holding a Special counselling for those reserved candidates who have obtained 82 marks and who were earlier declared unsuccessful but later on NCTE took a decision to declare all the reserved candidates eligible who have secured 82 marks. 6. The respondents are also holding a Special counselling for those reserved candidates who have obtained 82 marks and who were earlier declared unsuccessful but later on NCTE took a decision to declare all the reserved candidates eligible who have secured 82 marks. 6. In pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in various writ petitions the State authorities have taken the decision to hold a Special counselling for all the candidates who have secured 82 marks and have been declared unsuccessful. The petitioner does not fall under the said category, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter under Article, 226 of the Constitution. 7. For the reasons stated above the writ petition lacks merit, and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.