ORDER : Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri. Pankaj Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. The copy of the present writ petition has not been served on the counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the noting that there is no designated counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appear in the Court. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 namely the District Basic Education Officer, District Gonda to hold next round of counselling in respect of the selection on the vacant post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Mathematics) in Senior Basic School in pursuance of the order dated 15.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad. Further prayer has been made to issue a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1.4.2019 for appointment to the Post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Mathematics) in Senior Basic School in District Gonda. 4. The facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner had applied for the Post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Mathematics) in Senior Basic School in different districts in the entire State of U.P. having possessed requisite qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed. and T.E.T. in terms of the Government Order dated 11.7.2013. 5. During the course of selection, total seven rounds of counselling were held in the entire State of U.P. and after 7th round of counselling, approximately 3000 posts notified in the notification dated 11.7.2013 remained vacant, but the respondents did not proceed for further counselling and as such the petitioner could not be selected. 6. A Writ-A. No. 56165 of 2016 (Harendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and another) was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner moved a representation before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein along with the certified copy of the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Writ Court. But no steps to fill the vacant post by holding fresh counselling, had been taken in violation of the direction of this Court. 7. The petitioner moved a representation before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein along with the certified copy of the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Writ Court. But no steps to fill the vacant post by holding fresh counselling, had been taken in violation of the direction of this Court. 7. As a result of it, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition pleading disobedience of the order of the Writ Court dated 29.11.2016, wherein notices had been issued by the contempt Court. 8. It is contended that the last selected candidate in the category of the petitioner had obtained 65.87 marks whereas the petitioner secured 65.21 marks. Had there been further rounds of counselling, the petitioner would have a fair chance of selection being fully eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Science and Mathematics in terms of the Government Orders dated 11.7.2013 and 23.8.2013. 9. It is contended that in similar situation, the order dated 15.2.2019 had been issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the District Basic Education Officers of different districts including respondent No. 3 herein had been directed to initiate further process of selection and to conclude the same in accordance with law. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that he had approached the respondent No. 3 requesting for his appointment in terms of the order dated 15.2.2019 issued by respondent No. 2 but no action had been taken. Various posts notified on 11.7.2013 and 23.8.2013 are still lying vacant in District Gonda. 11. Considering all these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, relevant is to note that the petitioner is not one of those candidates who had participated in the counselling held for selection to the Post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Mathematics) till 7th round of counselling. It is admitted to the petitioner that he had obtained lesser marks than the last selected candidates in his category. 12. The relief in the writ petition is based on the order dated 15.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.2.2019. 13. It is admitted to the petitioner that he had obtained lesser marks than the last selected candidates in his category. 12. The relief in the writ petition is based on the order dated 15.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.2.2019. 13. A perusal of the order dated 15.2.2019 appended at page 29' of the paper book shows that the Government Order dated 14.2.2019 had been issued for completion of the selection process with regard to those candidates who had participated in the counselling held in different districts and who are found eligible for appointment to the Post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Mathematics) by the District Selection Committee after perusal of their qualification. 14. There is no direction to conduct a fresh round of counselling in the order dated 15.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad in compliance of the Government Order dated 14.2.2019. The extract of the directions issued therein are relevant to be quoted hereunder:- 'kklukns'k esa fuEuor~ funsZ'k fn;s x;s gS & 4& ^^------------------------;kph vH;fFkZ;ksa us ;fn rRle; tuin dh dkmfUlfyax esa izfrHkkx fd;k gks rFkk ogak muls lEcafU/kr oxZ@Js.kh esa fjDr ¼vkj{k.k fu;eksa ds vuq#i½ miyC/k gksa rFkk vH;FkhZ p;u ds fy, vU;Fkk vgZ gks rks tuinh; p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls ijh{k.kksIkjkUr fu;ekuqlkj p;u@fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA mDr lHkh dk;Zokfg;ksa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; eas bl lEcU/k esa ;ksftr ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds v/khu gksxhA^^ 15. It is further noteworthy that the Government Order dated 14.2.2019 had been issued pursuant to an order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the contempt Court in Contempt Petition No. 249 of 2018 (Neeraj Kumar Pandey v. Sri. Sanjai Sinha, Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj). 16. Relevant observations of the contempt Court are to be noted hereunder:- "As the Writ-Court had specifically directed that the decision of the State Government for stopping recruitment process was not justified and, therefore, the recruitment process should be brought to its logical conclusion, it is quite surprising, as to how the State Government took such a decision which appears to be in the teeth of the order passed by Writ-Court which was affirmed by the appellate court. The affidavit does not disclose that all notified vacancies have been filled consequent to the counselling and it has also not been disclosed as to whether the counselling for the remaining unfilled posts was duly advertised or not, pursuant to the order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Writ-Court which was affirmed by the appellate court. Under the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to require the Secretary of the Department concerned of the Government of U.P. to file a personal affidavit by or before 26th September, 2018 disclosing whether the recruitment process has been brought to a close by filling up all the notified vacancies or it has been brought to a close before filling up such vacancies. If so, then by which order. The order closing the recruitment process, even before filling up of the vacancies, if any, shall be brought on record and explanation as regards issuance of any such order shall also be offered, particularly, when there had been a direction of the Writ-Court, affirmed by the appellate court, that all the remaining vacant posts shall be filled strictly in terms of the earlier circular mentioned therein." 17. The contempt petition was filed pleading violation of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2017 in Neeraj Kumar Pandey & another v. State of U.P. & others (Writ Petition No. 27870 of 2017) reported in 2017 (4) ESC 2018 as well as the order of the Division Bench dated 12.4.2018 in Special Appeal No. 648 of 2017. 18. A careful reading of the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.11.2017 indicates that the controversy therein arose because of the order dated 23.3.2017 issued by the Secretary, Basic Education Board, whereby the selection process in the State of U.P. pertaining to five different selections including selection on the Post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic Schools in Science and Mathematics were stayed till further orders. 19. The learned single Judge had proceeded to quash the circular dated 23.3.2017 noticing that no plausible explanation could be offered by the Secretary, Basic Education Board for issuing the circular dated 23.3.2017 on the alleged oral instructions given by the State Government for stoppage of the recruitment process. 20. 19. The learned single Judge had proceeded to quash the circular dated 23.3.2017 noticing that no plausible explanation could be offered by the Secretary, Basic Education Board for issuing the circular dated 23.3.2017 on the alleged oral instructions given by the State Government for stoppage of the recruitment process. 20. The conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge and the directions issued to the Secretary, Basic Education Board read as under:- "For the reasons mentioned above, I find that the oral instructions issued by the State Government for stopping the recruitment process is not justifiable. Accordingly, the order of the Secretary dated 23.3.2017, which is bereft of any reason, is set aside. The Secretary of the Board is directed to complete the process of selection against the remaining vacant posts strictly in terms of earlier respective circulars dated 16.6.2016, 19.9.2016, 15.12.2016 and 30.12.2016, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of communication of this order." 21. Before the Division Bench, the State appellant challenged the decision of the learned single Judge on the ground that with the changes in the method of selection post advertisement, it was not permissible for the Board to conclude the selection process. The Division Bench had observed that changes in the recruitment rules for appointment pending selection process would not affect the selection process which was initiated on 11.7.2013. It was, thus, directed to be completed in pursuance to the order of the Writ Court dated 3.11.2017. 22. The relevant directions issued by the Division Bench are extracted hereunder:- "Even if it be assumed that the State Government has actually issued oral directions then we have no hesitation in observing that such oral directions could not have been made a ground by the Board to keep in abeyance the recruitment process. Even the communication dated 23 March, 2017 sent by the Board does not indicate any reason as to why the recruitment process should be put on hold. In such circumstances, there is no good reason to interfere with the directions issued by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment. We also expect that the Board will ensure that the recruitment process initiated by the aforesaid Government Orders dated 11 July, 2013, 15 December, 2016, 16 June, 2016 and 19 September, 2016 shall be completed as expeditiously not latter than two months from today." 23. We also expect that the Board will ensure that the recruitment process initiated by the aforesaid Government Orders dated 11 July, 2013, 15 December, 2016, 16 June, 2016 and 19 September, 2016 shall be completed as expeditiously not latter than two months from today." 23. Having noticed the directions issued by this Court, it is clear that both the learned single Judge in its judgment and order dated 3.11.2017 as also the Division Bench in the judgment and order dated 12.4.2018 had issued directions to the Secretary, Basic Education Board to conclude the selection process pursuant to the circular dated 30.12.2016. 24. A further perusal of the circular dated 30.12.2016 indicates that the Secretary, Basic Education Board, Allahabad had issued directions to all the District Basic Education Officers/Member, Secretary, District Selection Committee to conclude the process of selection in the following manner:- ^^1- izFke pdz esa lkroha dkmfUlfyax ,oa Vh0bZ0Vh0 ijh{kk esa 82 vad ikus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa gsrq vk;ksftr dkmfUlfyax iw.kZ gksus ds mijkUr ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr i= fuxZr fd;s x;s fdUrq muds }kjk fdUgha dkj.kksa ls dk;ZHkkj ugha xzg.k fd;k tk ldk gS] mUgsa tuin Lrj ls fnukad 02-01-2017 dks foKfIr fuxZr djsa ,oa mUgsa ,d volj nsrs gq, fnukad 10-01-2017 rd dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq vafre :i ls funsZf'kr fd;k tk;A 2- mi;qZDr dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr tuin esa vkoafVr inksa ds lkis{k oxZokj@Js.khokj vo'ks"k fjfDr;ksa dks rRle; dkmfUl;fyax esa vgZ ik;s x;s vH;fFkZ;ksa ls ftUgsa dVvkWQ esfjV esa u vkus ds dkj.k rRle; fu;qfDr i= fuxZr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk muls lacaf/kr oxZ dh esfjV ds vuqlkj fjDr inksa dks Hkjs tkus dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 15-01-2017 rd iw.kZ dh tk;A 3- mi;qZDr dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr fjfDr;ksa dk fooj.k ifj"kn dk;kZy; dks fnukad 03-01-2017 rd vfuok;Z :i ls miyC/k djk;k tk;A^^ 25. A careful reading of the directions issued in the said circular indicates that the first directions was to ensure joining of all candidates who had participated in the 7th round of counselling in the first phase and to whom appointment letter had been issued but they could not join for any reason, with the further direction that all such candidates must have attained 82 marks in TET examination and their joining should be completed by 10.01.2017. 26. 26. Second part of the direction was that all such candidates who were found eligible in the counselling held at that relevant point of time, but could not come within the cut-off merit for any reason and appointment letters could not be issued to them, their selection be made after consideration of their merit in the appropriate category to fill up the resultant vacancies. A further direction was there to conclude the entire exercise till 15.01.2017. 27. Lastly, it was directed that the details of vacancies after conclusion of the aforesaid exercise pursuant to the above directions, shall be intimated to the Basic Education Board, necessarily by 23.01.2017. 28. It further appears that this direction issued by the Secretary, Basic Education Board was put to hault on account of holding of the Assembly election and the oral direction of the State Government, which became the reason behind the direction of this Court in the judgment and order dated 03.11.2017. The judgment and order dated 03.11.2017 of the learned single Judge categorically records that the Secretary, Basic Education Board was under obligation to complete the selection process against the remaining vacancies strictly in accordance with the circular dated 30.12.2016. No further direction was given either by the learned single Judge or by the Division Bench to fill the resultant vacancies out of total 29,334 notified on 11.07.2013 by holding fresh round of counselling. 29. It is, thus, clear that the Government Order dated 14.2.2019 and the consequential order dated 15.2.2019, which are the basis of seeking writ of mandamus in the present writ petition, had been issued to give effect of the circular dated 30.12.2016 issued by the Secretary, Basic Education Board in terms of the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the judgment and order dated 3.11.2017 in Neeraj Kumar Pandey (supra) as affirmed by the Special Appellate Court in Special Appeal No. 648 of 2017. The directions therein pertain to those candidates who had participated uptill 7th round of counselling held on 7.1.2015 and 8.1.2015. Admittedly, the petitioner is not one of those candidates who are covered by the directions issued in the circular dated 30.12.2016 issued by the Secretary, Basic Education Board as reiterated in the Government Order dated 14.2.2019 and the consequential order dated 15.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P., Allahabad. 30. Admittedly, the petitioner is not one of those candidates who are covered by the directions issued in the circular dated 30.12.2016 issued by the Secretary, Basic Education Board as reiterated in the Government Order dated 14.2.2019 and the consequential order dated 15.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P., Allahabad. 30. The directions given therein, therefore, are of no benefit to the petitioner. Any direction issued by the Writ Court for decision on the representation made by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be made basis to issue fresh writ of mandamus in the present writ petition. 31. Lastly, it may not be out of place to mention here that this Court has taken note of the subsequent developments brought in the method of selection/appointment to the Post of Assistant Teacher in Science and Mathematics vide notification dated 9.11.2017 i.e. 20th Amendment Rules, 2017 whereby the position as in the original rule namely U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Services) Rules, 1981 (In short "the Rules, 1981") with regard to the source of recruitment to the Post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic Schools being 100% by promotion has been restored. 32. In the original Rule 5 of the Rules 1981, the source of recruitment of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School in Science and Mathematics was by promotion. By bringing 15th Amendment vide U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Services) (15th Amendment), Rules, 2012 w.e.f. 31.8.2012 in the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981, the source of recruitment to the Post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Mathematics) in Senior Basic School had been bifurcated to 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, to be made as per the procedure provided in Rule 15 read with Rule 18 of the Rules, 1981. 33. The notification dated 11.7.2013 for total 29,334 posts in different Senior Basic Schools was issued pursuant to the said amendment in the recruitment rules, which has been termed as a one time exercise conducted by the State Government in view of the scarcity of the teachers in Science and Mathematics in Senior Basic Schools in the State of U.P. being run by the Basic Education Board. 34. 34. In a decision in Pankaj Kumar and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-A. No. 6685 of 2019) as also in Writ-A. No. 6457 of 2019 (Rajiv Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 others) (Reported in AIR Online 2019 All 1160), the position as occurred after amendment of the recruitment rules vide notification dated 9.11.2017 has been addressed by this Court. 35. It has been recorded therein that there is no challenge to the notification dated 9.11.2017 issued by the State Government, whereby it had taken a decision for closure of the process of direct recruitment to the Post of Assistant Teacher in Science and Mathematics in Senior Basic Schools. The resultant vacancies which remained unfilled are to be filled by promotion in accordance with the amended Rule 18 of Rules 1981 i.e. U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Services) (20th Amendment), Rules, 2017. 36. It has further been noted therein that the Government Order dated 23.2.2016 had been issued wherein it was directed in paragraph 9' that no further counselling would be held for selection to the Posts of Assistant Teacher in Science and Mathematics in Senior Basic Schools, as against the vacancy notified on 11.7.2013. 37. The challenge to paragraph 9' of the Government Order dated 23.2.2016 in writ petition namely Service Single No. 9003 of 2016 (Jai Shankar Praad and 65 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Civil Sectt. Lko. and others) has been repelled by this Court. 38. While dismissing the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 29.4.2016, this Court had turned down the challenge on the ground that the candidates cannot claim consideration as a matter of right even after 7th and 8th round of counselling. 39. Relevant observations of this Court in the aforesaid decision are to be quoted herein:- "Assuming that out 29334 posts 3,000 are still vacant as has been mentioned by the learned Standing Counsel in Writ-A. No. 1939 of 2016, it cannot be last sight of that more than two and half years have passed since these posts were advertised and in the interregnum several candidates must have acquired the eligibility for appointment against these posts. If endless holding of counselling is permitted, it will lead to appointment of less meritorious candidates as normally after each counselling the cut-off merit gets lowered. If endless holding of counselling is permitted, it will lead to appointment of less meritorious candidates as normally after each counselling the cut-off merit gets lowered. As many as 7 counsellings have already been held for open category and 8th for reserved category. Considering the fact that more than two and half years have passed and there is no such mandatory statutory rule which compels the opposite parties to hold counselling even after 7th and 8th round, the writ of mandamus and certiorari prayed for are also misconceived. The impugned Government Order does not suffer from any such flagrant error or violation of law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. In fact there is no such enforceable right of the petitioners which has been violated. They have been considered in the selection and have not been successful even after 7 counsellings. Now, they cannot pray for further counselling. If the State Government has decided not to hold further counselling for remaining posts obviously they will be advertised where the petitioners along with all others who may have acquired the requisite eligibility for the post and who have not had such opportunity on account of pendency of this selection for past two-and-a-half years, will also have an opportunity, therefore, the State Government cannot be faulted in this regard. As far as Rule 17-A is concerned, it does not contain any such provision which may support the petitioners' claim. The said rule is applicable only where the number of selected candidates is more than the number of vacancies in a district wherefore the B.S.A. is required to send the list of such candidates to the Regional Officer for utilization of such lists in a district where sufficient number of candidates are not available. The very first line of sub-rule (3) of Rules 17-A states "Where the number of selected candidates is more than the number of vacancies and all the selected candidates do not get a appointments under sub-rule (1) of Rule 19." The petitioners herein have not even been selected, therefore, they have no right under the said rule. In any case, there is no material on record to demonstrate that such rule, if applicable in the selection in question, has not been adhered or will not be adhered, if the factual scenario envisaged therein emerges. In any case, there is no material on record to demonstrate that such rule, if applicable in the selection in question, has not been adhered or will not be adhered, if the factual scenario envisaged therein emerges. As far as part of the prayer clause 2 regarding declaration of exact number of district wise of vacancies/posts is concerned, there is no reason to believe that this data would not be uploaded on the website of the concerned department, however, if it is so, the petitioners may move a representation to the concerned authority who shall do the needful to ensure transparency and fairness in this regard. Let this exercise be done within a period of one month from the date of such representation. If the petitioners are further aggrieved, they may seek required information under the Right to Information Act. Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs." 40. In the light of the said discussion, it was concluded by this Court in Pankaj Kumar & Rajiv Kumar Sharma (supra) that one time exercise of selection by direct recruitment notified on 11.7.2013 pursuant to the 15th Amendment Rules, 2012 (notified on 31st August, 2012) has been brought to an end as early as on 8.1.2015 and in view of the decision taken by the State Government vide Government Order dated 23.2.2016 and the subsequent notification dated 9.11.2017 by bringing amendment in the method of recruitment to the Post of Assistant teachers in Science and Mathematics, it is no longer possible for the Court to issue directions to the State Government or the Secretary, Basic Education Board, Allahabad to conduct fresh round of counselling to fill the remaining posts as against the vacancies notified on 11.7.2013. 41. It is settled that a candidate who appears in selection has only a right of consideration during the course of selection process. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he was denied consideration by selection of any candidate below him in merit list. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was denied consideration by any illegal act of the respondent. 42. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he was denied consideration by selection of any candidate below him in merit list. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was denied consideration by any illegal act of the respondent. 42. Only contention of the petitioner herein that the State authorities had erred in discontinuing the selection process though the vacancies notified on 11.7.2013 are still existing and the petitioner would have a fair chance of selection, in case fresh counselling is held against the resultant vacancies. 43. Every recruitment has to come to an end at some point of time. Mere participation in the selection process would not give any legal right to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the recruiting authority to discontinue the selection process that too at such a distant point of time. After a period of six years, there is no justification to issue any direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for seeking fresh round of counselling. 44. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner is not covered by the circular dated 15.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad in compliance of the Government Order dated 14.2.2019. The prayer, in the present petition is, thus, found misconceived. 45. For all the above reasons, the present writ petition is found misconceived and hence dismissed.