Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2025 (ALL)

Shikha Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-08-29

PRAKASH PADIA

body2019
ORDER : Prakash Padia, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first merit list published 31.08.2018 as also the second merit list published 02.09.2018 (Annexure 7 & 8 to the writ petition) in so far as they pertain to allotment of districts of individual petitioners. (ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to issue a revised select list after taking into account the total number of 68,500 post of Assistant Teachers originally notified. (iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to allot district strictly in order of merit after taking into account the preference expressed for the district by the individual petitioners within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court." 2. As the issues involved in the Bunch of these writ petitions are identical, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment and order. 3. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the State Government issued a government order dated 9.1.2018 for appointment and selection of 68500 Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic School, run and controlled by the U.P. Basic Education Board. 4. The State Government has also issued another government order on the same date, i.e., 9.1.2018 for conducting an examination, known as Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "ATRE 2018"). Examination was to be conducted by the Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad. By the aforesaid government order, the minimum qualifying cutoff for General Category and Other Backward Class category was fixed as 45% and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 40% respectively. 5. The State Government, vide government order dated 17.1.2018, notified schedule for conducting ATRE 2018. In pursuance of the aforesaid government order dated 17.1.2018, the Examination Regulatory Authority issued notification dated 23.1.2018, inviting applications for ATRE 2018. Subsequently, the State Government, vide government order dated 21.5.2018 reduced the qualifying cutoff marks of general category and Other Backward Class from 45% to 40% and from 40% to 30% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category. The aforesaid examination was held on 27.5.2018. 6. Subsequently, the State Government, vide government order dated 21.5.2018 reduced the qualifying cutoff marks of general category and Other Backward Class from 45% to 40% and from 40% to 30% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category. The aforesaid examination was held on 27.5.2018. 6. The government order dated 21.5.2018, by which the cutoff marks for General and Other Backward Class category was reduced from 45% to 40% and from 40% to 30% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidate was challenged before Lucknow Bench of this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 20404 (Service Single) of 2018. In the said writ petition, initially an interim order was granted by Lucknow Bench of this Court and the State Government was directed to declare the result of ATRE 2018 as per the government order dated 9.1.2018. 7. In compliance of the order dated 24.7.2018 passed in writ petition no. 20404 (Service Single) of 2018, the State Government issued a government order dated 8.8.2018, directing the examination regulatory authority to declare the result of ATRE 2018, as per the government order dated 9.1.2018. The result of ATRE 2018 was declared on 13.8.2018. Total 41566 candidates qualified in the aforesaid ATRE 2018. The State Government issued a government order dated 18.8.2018 for appointment of candidates qualified in ATRE 2018. 8. The U.P. Basic Education Board issued a circular/notification dated 19.8.2018, inviting online application and district preference from 41556 candidates, who have passed ATRE 2018. The U.P. Basic Education Board also issued guidelines dated 19.8.2018, which provides that the allotment of district will be made on the basis of quality point and preference of the candidate. The successful candidates of ATRE 2018 submitted their online applications and accordingly, the Board issued select list of 35420 candidates with allocation of district and directed the District Level Authority, i.e., the District Basic Education Officer to conduct the counseling and after the verification of the records, issue letter of appointment to selected candidates as per the schedule. 9. In pursuance of the selection and issuance of appointment letter by the concerned District Basic Education Officer, i.e., the Appointing Authority, the petitioners were appointed. 10. There remain 6136 candidates who were declared qualified in ATRE 2018 but were not allotted any district. These candidates mostly belong from unreserved category, as reserved category candidate occupied the general seat meant for general category on account of their higher merit. 10. There remain 6136 candidates who were declared qualified in ATRE 2018 but were not allotted any district. These candidates mostly belong from unreserved category, as reserved category candidate occupied the general seat meant for general category on account of their higher merit. Out of 6136 candidates, 6028 candidates were of general category, 853 of Other Backward Class category, 22 in Scheduled Castes Category and 1 candidate was Scheduled Tribes Category. 11. It is further stated in the writ petition that the State Government has also taken a political decision to adjust these 6136 candidates. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, a further exercised for allotment of district was carried on by the respondents and these 6136 candidate were given appointment after allotment of district by the District Basic Education Officer, as per their quality points marks and preference. 12. It is further alleged by the petitioners that in pursuance of various appointment letters, the petitioners have joined their place of posting under protest. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that though they are higher in merit in comparison to candidates who have been allotted district in second round of allotment, have been allotted district of their choice whereas the petitioners despite the fact that they are higher in merit, they have not been allotted district of their own preference. The petitioners have challenged the allotment of district basically on the following grounds that- I. The Board has arbitrarily reduced notified vacancies of 68500 to 41506 without any authority of law. II. The Board has arbitrarily varied district-wise vacancies without any authority of law. III. The Board not only manipulated the vacancies of various district but also committed gross illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness in allotment of district to the candidates having higher merit. Certain examples have been mentioned in the writ petition. IV. The candidates of reserved category having higher merit and selected against unreserved post were also denied their first preference, whereas the candidates of same category having lower merit and selected under their respective reserved category have been granted their first preference. V. The candidates selected in second list, who were having lower merit than those of selected in the first list have been granted district of their first preference. 13. V. The candidates selected in second list, who were having lower merit than those of selected in the first list have been granted district of their first preference. 13. All the petitioners were selected on the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run and controlled by the U.P. Basic Education Board. The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved on account of denial of the allocation of appropriate districts as per their merit-cum-preference while being appointed as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools. The grievances of the petitioners are that while less meritorious candidates in their respective categories were allotted districts of their choice but the petitioners were prevented to get the district of their choice in spite of the fact that they are meritorious. 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the manner of allotment of district adopted by the respondents is grossly unfair, unjust and arbitrary. The same is violative of principles of equality in as much as the more meritorious candidates, who have ranked higher have been denied allocation of districts for which they had given their preferences and less meritorious candidates have been allocated the said districts. 15. Counter affidavits have been filed by Sri Dev Pratap Singh, the Special Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. Lucknow. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the process of appointment of 41556 candidates who applied online e-form between 21.8.2018 to 28.8.2018 against 41556 vacancies was initiated. Final merit list was drawn as per schedule of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1981"). Some of the applicants belong to reserve category stood higher on merit and occupied seat in open category along with general candidate, whereby limiting the chances of general category candidate. Some reserved category candidates did not give choice or their chance got exhausted, as such only 35420 candidates could be appointed and 6136 candidates could not be appointed. Out of 6136 candidates, 6028 candidates belong to General Category, 85 in Other Backward Class, 22 in Scheduled Castes and 1 in Scheduled Tribes category. 16. Some reserved category candidates did not give choice or their chance got exhausted, as such only 35420 candidates could be appointed and 6136 candidates could not be appointed. Out of 6136 candidates, 6028 candidates belong to General Category, 85 in Other Backward Class, 22 in Scheduled Castes and 1 in Scheduled Tribes category. 16. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that to accommodate left out 6136 candidates and to appoint them on remaining vacancies out of 68500, i.e., 26944 posts which were available were released so that these candidates be also allotted district based on remaining available vacancies in district in accordance with their merit category and preference. Therefore, the allocation of district was done in two phases and each allocation has been done by NIC in accordance with criteria laid down in Rules of 1981 in fair and transparent manner. 17. It is further stated that the petitioners have been allotted district which were on low preference of their choice because their candidature had been considered in the first phase of preparation of merit list by the NIC by taking into consideration all 41556 posts of Assistant Teachers. The petitioners were having low merit in their category, NIC had allotted them district as per their merit in the first phase of preparation of merit list. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it is stated that to accommodate left out 6136 candidates and to appoint them on remaining vacancies out of 68500, i.e., 26944 posts which were available, were released so that these left out candidates could be allotted district based on remaining available vacancies in district on their merit and preference, therefore, allocation of district was done in two phases and each allocation has been done by NIC in accordance with criteria laid down in Rules of 1981 in fair and transparent manner. 18. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that to accommodate left out 6136 candidates and to appoint them on remaining vacancies out of 68500, i.e., 26944 posts were released. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the process of appointment of 41556 candidates, who applied online e-form between 21.8.2018 to 28.8.2018 against 41556 vacancies when the district allocation after the final merit list drawn had been carried on as per schedule of Rules of 1981. 19. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the process of appointment of 41556 candidates, who applied online e-form between 21.8.2018 to 28.8.2018 against 41556 vacancies when the district allocation after the final merit list drawn had been carried on as per schedule of Rules of 1981. 19. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that after the result of ATRE 2018 was declared, only 41556 candidates have qualified. The State Government in its meeting had decided that the vacancies advertised for recruitment should be reduced to 41556 for offering appointment by proportionately reducing the numbers of vacancies in all the district of State so that no vacancy in any district is unfilled. It was a bona fide decision of the State Government, however, after first phase of allotment it was found that 6136 candidates could not get any district allotted to them for appointment, only to accommodate left out 6136 candidates and to appoint them on remaining vacancies out of 68500, i.e., 26944 posts available, were released, so that these candidates could also be allotted district based on remaining available vacancies in the district in accordance with their merit, category and preference therefore, allocation of district was done in two phases and each allocation was done by the NIC by the criteria laid down in Rules of 1981 in a fair and transparent manner. Therefore only those candidates who had been appointed in second phase allotted district of their higher preference as subsequently released vacancies of 26944 posts were proportionately divided in all the district of State for appointment of left out candidates. 20. Various impleadment applications have been filed by the candidates, who were allotted district in second phase. 21. The case set up by the candidates who have filed impleadment applications is in short is that although 68500 vacancies were advertised but as 41556 candidates could qualify in ATRE 2018, the vacancies were reduced to 41556. The petitioners have accepted the number of reduced vacancies and have applied for their appointment. They have accepted the amended procedure. Once the selection is completed and list was prepared district-wise, district-wise counseling and appointment was over. The appointments have been given to the petitioners as well as the respondents on their district and the petitioners as well as the respondents have submitted their joining and working without objection, there is no scope of interference. 22. Once the selection is completed and list was prepared district-wise, district-wise counseling and appointment was over. The appointments have been given to the petitioners as well as the respondents on their district and the petitioners as well as the respondents have submitted their joining and working without objection, there is no scope of interference. 22. It is further stated that all the incumbents including the petitioners as well as the respondents became member of district cadre as per the Rules of 1981, therefore any action to remove them requires to be taken as per the provisions of Rules of 1981. Another objection has been raised that the persons who are to be affected have not been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition, as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 23. Along with the written submission submitted by the counsel for the proposed respondents, one order passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 19125 of 2018 (Aman Singh Chandel and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 10.9.2018 have been filed. Vide order dated 10.9.2018 the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were granted posting in same district for which they participated in the counseling and this being a policy decision of Government to post a candidate in same district for which the counseling has been done, the writ petition was not maintainable. 24. Various orders passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court being Service Single Writ Petition Nos. 28525 of 2018, 30093 of 2018, 30147 of 2018 and 28447 of 2018 have been brought on record which pertains to same dispute. The Court has disposed off the above mentioned writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievances before the respondent no. 2 with a further direction to the aforesaid respondents to consider and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copies of the orders. 25. It is also argued on behalf of the respondents that there are no allegations of malafides in the matter of district allocation and it is not the petitioners' case that they have been deliberately denied allocation of district as per their merit and preferences. Other arguments were made that the entire process of district allocation is done electronically, i.e., by employing a computer program/software. The same is not done manually. Other arguments were made that the entire process of district allocation is done electronically, i.e., by employing a computer program/software. The same is not done manually. 26. It is contended that all the candidates were allocated different districts by adopting the same system as adopted in the case of petitioners. The petitioners should have impleaded all those candidates who are likely to be affected on account of the present challenge. He further submits that present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 27. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the procedure for selection of 68500 Assistant Teachers was initiated by issuing advertisement. Only 41556 applicants were declared selected and appointed in the first round of the appointment. Subsequently, the State Government had taken decision to release 26944 vacancies and against the said 26944 vacancies, the remaining selected candidates, i.e., 6136 were given appointment. Thus the selection and appointment was in two phase as such the petitioners who were selected and appointed in first phase has no right to challenge the second phase of the appointment. 28. The learned counsel for the respondents has further raised an objection that 6136 candidates appointed in pursuance of second round of the selection and appointment had not been impleaded as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 29. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the entire exercise of district allocation, if required to be revised at this stage, would lead to great inconvenience. I do not agree that these two reasons. Firstly, when the fundamental rights of a citizens are pitted against some administrative inconvenience that the respondents may suffer in case relief is to be granted to the aggrieved petitioners, the so-called administrative inconvenience has to give way to the fundamental rights of the citizens. Secondly, even the respondents stated that the entire process of district allocation has been undertaken electronically i.e., through a computer system/software and that being the position. 30. So far as the first contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel that all 6136 candidates in various districts is second phase and selection and appointment is concerned, the said contention is wholly devoice of merits. The State Government has issued advertisement inviting applications for 68500 Assistant Teachers. 30. So far as the first contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel that all 6136 candidates in various districts is second phase and selection and appointment is concerned, the said contention is wholly devoice of merits. The State Government has issued advertisement inviting applications for 68500 Assistant Teachers. Only one examination was conducted by the Regulatory Authority and in the said examination 41556 candidates were declared eligible as per cutoff fixed by the State Government. Out of 41556 eligible and qualified candidates, only 35420 were given appointment. Without initiating any fresh selection process, remaining 6136 candidates declared eligible in pursuance of the examination conducted by the Regulatory Authority, were given appointment, thus the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel that 6136 candidates were given appointment in second round of selection against 26944 vacancies is misconceived and is not tenable. 31. So far as the objection regarding non-joinder of necessary party is concerned, this Court vide order dated 28.11.2018 has directed the third respondents, i.e., Board of Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad to ensure that the notice is to be published in the news dailies of the concerned district, both having vide circulation and local circulation within a period of one week from today and a circular to that effect should be issued at its end to all the District Basic Education Officer in the State, with regard to the hearing of present writ petition. The order dated 28.11.2018 reads as under: "Impleadment application was filed on 21st October, 2018. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record. The matter relates to the joining and posting in preferred district on the basis of cut off marks in junior basic schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board. The argument advanced is that on account of serious error of the respondent authorities, the petitioners who were higher in merit, on the basis of which they ought to have been given posting on their preferred districts the persons below in rank have been given choice posting and this has prejudiced their rights. This petition No. 19737 of 2018 is taken up as the leading petition but any order that may be passed in this writ petition may have adverse effect on those teachers who have already been given posting of their choice for the fault of the authorities and they may get prejudiced if they are not heard. This petition No. 19737 of 2018 is taken up as the leading petition but any order that may be passed in this writ petition may have adverse effect on those teachers who have already been given posting of their choice for the fault of the authorities and they may get prejudiced if they are not heard. Let the third respondent cause publication of notice about the hearing of this petition along with several other identical petitions scheduled on 10th of December, 2018 asking teachers who may have concern to defend themselves under Chapter XXIII Rule 5-A of Rules of Court, 1952 through counsel before this Court on the date fixed. The third respondent has to ensure that the notice is published in the news dailies of the concerned district, both having vide circulation and local circulation within a period of one week from today and a circular to that effect should be issued at its end to all the District Basic Education Officers in the State. The matter is directed to be listed peremptorily, on 10th December, 2018 for final disposal. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Standing Counsel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel free of cost for necessary compliance within twenty four hours." 32. In compliance of the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by this Court, the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj has issued an advertisement on 3.12.2018 mentioning therein that the writ petitions with regard to the allotment of district in respect of appointment of 68500 Assistant Teachers, the matter is listed before this Court on 10.12.2018. The persons aggrieved may appear and plead their case. 33. In pursuance of the aforesaid publication, various persons have filed their impleadment applications through their counsel namely Sri M.D. Singh 'Sekhar', learned Senior Counsel, Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. The persons aggrieved may appear and plead their case. 33. In pursuance of the aforesaid publication, various persons have filed their impleadment applications through their counsel namely Sri M.D. Singh 'Sekhar', learned Senior Counsel, Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Dwivedi, Sri Alok Dwivedi, Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha, Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauria and Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya, Sri Shailendra, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Avinash Jaiswal and Sri Anubhav Chandra, Sri Alok Mishra, Sri Ganesh Kumar Verma, Sri A.K. Tiwari, Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, Sri Pramod Kumar Chaudhary and Sri Ram Sajiwan Prajapati, Sri Bhawani Prasad Shukla, Sri Durga Charan Yadav and Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Sri Ramesh Kumar, Vijay Gautam, Sri Babu Lal Ram and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri S.K. Chaubey, Sri Varun Dev Sharma, Sri Pramod Kumar, Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Rajesh Kumar Bind and Sri Kalp Nath, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, Mr. Shailendra had been heard. Thus, the persons who may be affected by any of the orders passed in the present writ petition, had been given notice and information. Thus the ground of non-joinder of necessary party is misconceived and is not tenable. 34. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Dwivedi apart from pointing out the procedure for appointment of Assistant Teachers as contemplated in U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 has further stated that 68500 posts of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Basic Education Board were advertised and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners and the proposed applicants have participated in the selection process. As per the cutoff marks fixed by the respondents, 41556 candidates were declared successful. It is further stated that as only 41556 candidates were declared eligible, as such, the numbers of vacancies were reduced accordingly in respective districts except for 8 aspirational districts, namely Fatehpur, Chandauli, Sonbhadra, Siddharth Nagar, Chitrakoot Dham, Balrampur, Behraich and Shrawasti. It is further stated that in pursuance of the government orders dated 18.8.2018 and 19.8.2018, the Secretary of the Board has published advertisement and instructed only to fill up the vacancies out of 41556 candidates and preference choice was obtained against 41556 vacancies. It is further stated that remaining 25944 vacancies remained vacant, as no person was eligible and qualified for such post in pursuance of the aforesaid examination. 35. It is further stated that remaining 25944 vacancies remained vacant, as no person was eligible and qualified for such post in pursuance of the aforesaid examination. 35. It is also stated that in accordance with subsection 6 of section 3 of the Act No. 4 of 1994, if a person belonging to reserved category get selected on the basis of merit in a open competition with general category, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under subsection 1 of Section 3 of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 3. Reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.-[(1) In public services and posts, there shall be reserved at the stage of direct recruitment, the following percentage of vacancies to which recruitment's are to be made in accordance with the roster referred to in subsection (5) in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens,- (a) in the case of Scheduled Castes Twenty-one per cent; (b) in the case of Scheduled Tribes Two per cent; (c) in case of Other Backward Classes of citizens Twenty-seven per cent: Provided that the reservation under clause (c) shall not apply to the category of Other Backward Classes of citizens specified in Schedule II: Provided further that reservation of vacancies for all categories of persons shall not exceed in any year of recruitment fifty per cent of the total vacancies of that year as also fifty per cent of the cadre strength of the service to which the recruitment is to be made; 36. It is further stated that the Board of Basic Education, after receiving the preference of district of respective candidates allotted the district keeping in mind the basis of quality point and choice of district given by the candidate. It was open for a candidate to give their choice in respect of number of district. It is also stated that the post of Assistant Teachers is a district cadre post and appointing authority is District Basic Education Officer. It was open for a candidate to give their choice in respect of number of district. It is also stated that the post of Assistant Teachers is a district cadre post and appointing authority is District Basic Education Officer. The Basic Education Board invited applications district-wise for counseling keeping in view the reservation of vacancies in respective district and ultimate result was that the reserved category candidate who have successful in general category occupy the vacancies of general category and the vacancies of reserved category remained vacant. It is further stated that since the candidates who have already passed the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination for their accommodation further vacancies were released in general category and the vacancies of reserved category corresponding to the same are still waiting its placement and will be treated as carry forward. 37. The arguments of learned Senior Counsel is that the candidates have given their choice against 41556 vacancies they have been allotted district and they have voluntarily participated in the counseling of respective districts. After issuance of appointment order in respective district and their joining in pursuance of the appointment orders, it is not open for them to question the process of selection by which they were appointed. The candidates have no right to be appointed in a particular district. It is always incumbent that the candidate may be adjusted in any district if they have not been offered the appointment as per their choice. 38. It is also contended that total 26944 vacancies were released in special circumstances to accommodate the candidates who were left over and could not be offered appointment because of reservation rules. The case of candidates who have submitted their impleadment application is that they were called for counseling against 26944 vacancies released subsequently and as per the vacancies available, they have been appointed and have joined their respective district. All the candidates have joined and thus they are no more selectee/candidate. They have accepted their own choice and their reshuffling or transfer may be governed only by the Transfer Rule known as Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules 2008. 39. The contention raised by Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that further 26944 vacancies were release to accommodate the candidates who were left over and could not be offered appointment because of reservation rules, is misconceived. 39. The contention raised by Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that further 26944 vacancies were release to accommodate the candidates who were left over and could not be offered appointment because of reservation rules, is misconceived. The selection process for selection and appointment of 68500 vacancies was initiated by issuing government order dated 18.8.2018 and 19.8.2018 only one examination, namely, Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination 2018 was conducted by the Regulatory Authority and in the said examination, 41556 candidates were declared successful. 40. The arguments raised by Shri H.N. Singh that 26944 posts were released so that 6136 candidates could not be given their appointment is second round of selection, is misconceived. The fact is that in pursuance of one selection process 41556 candidates were declared eligible and they were entitled to be considered for their appointment as Assistant Teacher. There is no question of release of any further vacancies and initiation of fresh selection process as 41556 were already declared eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher. 41. Out of 6136 candidates who could not be given appointment though were eligible, 6028 candidates belongs to General Category, 85 Other Backward Class category, 22 Scheduled Castes Category and 1 Scheduled Tribes Category. The respondents have initiated the process of allotment of district with regard to 6136 candidates who were eligible. In this process, the candidates of reserved category have been given appointment to choice of their district, whereas the candidates of reserved category who on the basis of their higher marks have been placed in general category could not be provided the appointment in choice of their district as they were lower in rank in general category (although meritorious to their respective reserved category). Thus the Meritorious Reserve Category (hereinafter referred as 'MRC') candidates have been denied district of appointment of their choice simply because they are meritorious to candidate of its respective reserved category. 42. In case of Ritesh R. Shah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 253 , it was held that:- "In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as a open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [W.P. 2469/90] decided on 16th September, 1991 held that selection of candidates for admission to postgraduate medical course in colleges run by or under the control of the State Government shall be regulated in accordance with the prescription in that behalf contained in the rule for selection of the candidates for admission to the post-graduate medical course notified by the Government. The contention that the candidates belonging to the backward classes admitted to M.B.B.S. course selected as general candidates are not eligible for admission as reserved candidates or for scholarship etc. and also for admission to post-graduate medical course as reserved candidates, is illegal for and in negation of Article 15(4). The memorandum issued by the Government on the basis of the statement made by the Minister of Health, Government of Maharashtra was placed before us showing that such candidates are entitled to all the benefits though admitted on merit basis. The said statement is consistent with Article 15(4). The memorandum issued by the Government on the basis of the statement made by the Minister of Health, Government of Maharashtra was placed before us showing that such candidates are entitled to all the benefits though admitted on merit basis. The said statement is consistent with Article 15(4). Therefore, the candidates belonging to backward classes but selected as general candidates for admission to graduate or postgraduate medical course are entitled to the concessions or scholarships and other benefits according to the rules or instructions of the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be. The admission to the Medical Colleges for the year 1995-96 in the State of Maharashtra is already over and we are not inclined to interfere with the admissions already made but we do commend that while deciding and publishing the Rules for admission in the next academic session, directions given in this judgment should be borne in mind and the rules should be made accordingly. In view of our conclusion, and admittedly the Authorities having admitted the candidates belonging to the reserved category only against seats meant for reserved category even though they were entitled to be admitted on the basis of their merit, the petitioner who could have been otherwise admitted, has be debarred from taking admission. Since the petitioner is a single applicant before us, we direct that the petitioner be admitted to any one of the colleges where be can be so admitted o the MBBS course where seat is still available and if no seat is available then he may be admitted by increasing one seat in any one of the colleges. It may be made clear that, if the petitioner is desirous of being admitted to any of the Medical colleges in pursuance of this Court's order then he should approach the Designated Authority within two weeks from today and the Designated Authority will then take appropriate action within two weeks thereafter. The designated authority will decide the college to which the petitioner will be admitted." 43. Same principle was reiterated in State of Bihar and others Vs. M. Neethi Chandra and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 36 it was held that:- "......... However, to the extent the meritorious among them are denied the choice of college and subject which they could secure under the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be sustained. Same principle was reiterated in State of Bihar and others Vs. M. Neethi Chandra and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 36 it was held that:- "......... However, to the extent the meritorious among them are denied the choice of college and subject which they could secure under the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be sustained. The circular, therefore, can be given effect only if the reserved category candidate qualifying on merit with general candidates consents to being considered as a general candidate on merit-cum-choice basis for allotment of college/institution and subject." 44. In case of Anurag Patel Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 742 it was held that:- "In the instant case, as noticed earlier, out of 8 petitioners in writ petition No. 22753/93, two of them who had secured ranks 13 and 14 in the merit list, were appointed as Sales Tax Officer-II whereas the persons who secured rank Nos. 38, 72 and 97, ranks lower to them, got appointment as Deputy Collectors and the Division Bench of the High Court held that it is a clear injustice to the persons who are more meritorious and directed that a list of all selected backward class candidates shall be prepared separately including those candidates selected in the general category and their appointments to the posts shall be made strictly in accordance with merit as per the select list and preference of a person higher in the select list will be seen first and appointment given accordingly, while preference of a person lower in the list will be seen only later. We do not think any error or illegality in the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court." 45. In the case of C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma Vs. Avinash Mohanty and others reported in 2011 (7) SCC 385 it was held that in the matter of district allocation particularly when the government has invited preferences, the preferences should be considered according to merit and secondly that complexity of the decision making process cannot be a defence, when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated. When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have to justify their impugned decision by placing relevant material before the Court. When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have to justify their impugned decision by placing relevant material before the Court. The relevant extracted of the aforesaid decision are quoted below: 20. In fact, the object of the principles of allocation indicated in different clauses in the letter dated 31.05.1985 is not only to implement the policy having 2 outsiders and 1 insider in each cadre, but also to ensure that general and reserved candidates selected and appointed to the All India Service get a fair and just treatment in the matter of allocation to different cadres. This will be clear from clause (2) of the letter dated 31.05.1985 which states that the vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the various cadres should be according to the prescribed percentage and from clause (3) which states that the allocation of insiders, both men and women, will be strictly according to their ranks, subject to their willingness to be allocated to their home States. This will also be clear from clause 4(vii) which explains how the candidates belonging to the reserved category and the general category will be dealt with. These principles have been laid down in the letter dated 31.05.1985 because while making allocations of different candidates appointed to the service to different State cadres or Joint cadres, the Central Government has also to discharge its constitutional obligations contained in the equality principles in Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. A member appointed to the All India Service has no right to be allocated to a particular State cadre or Joint cadre, but he has a right to a fair and equitable treatment in the matter of allocation under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 25. Admittedly, Avinash Mohanty had secured a higher rank than Vikrama Varma in the Civil Services Examination, 2004 and both Avinash Mohanty and Vikrama Varma are insiders. Clause (3) of Para 3 of the letter dated 31.05.1985 states that allocation of insiders, both men and women, will be strictly according to their ranks, subject to their willingness to be allocated to their home States. Hence, Avinash Mohanty was required to be considered for allocation to the Andhra Pradesh cadre if he had given his willingness for being allocated to his home State, Andhra Pradesh, before Vikrama Varma could be considered for such allocation. Hence, Avinash Mohanty was required to be considered for allocation to the Andhra Pradesh cadre if he had given his willingness for being allocated to his home State, Andhra Pradesh, before Vikrama Varma could be considered for such allocation. If, however, the vacancy for which consideration was being made was a vacancy for an insider OBC candidate in the 30 point roster, Vikrama Varma would have preference over Avinash Mohanty. But the High Court has come to a finding that the number of vacancies in the 30 point roster filled up by OBC candidates from Civil Services Examinations 1999-2003 were 9 and had exceeded the 27% reservation for OBC candidates and hence there could not be an insider OBC vacancy in which Vikrama Varma could have been allocated. The High Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that allocation of Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre was in violation of the guidelines contained in the letter dated 31.05.1985 and was clearly arbitrary and not equitable. 26. In our view, complexity of a decision making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated. When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have to justify their impugned decision by placing the relevant material before the Court. 27. As has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India [ (2006) 8 SCC 212 : 2007(1) SCC (L&S) 1013] (SCC P. 277, Para 118): "118. The constitutional principle of equality is inherent in the rule of law. However, its reach is limited because its primary concern is not with the content of the law but with its enforcement and application. The rule of law is satisfied when laws are applied or enforced equally, that is, even-handedly, free of bias and without irrational distinction. The concept of equality allows differential treatment but it prevents distinctions that are not properly justified. Justification needs each case to be decided on case-to-case basis." 46. In the case of Alok Kumar Pandit Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2012 (13) SCC 516, the Supreme Court after considering the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Justification needs each case to be decided on case-to-case basis." 46. In the case of Alok Kumar Pandit Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2012 (13) SCC 516, the Supreme Court after considering the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram reported in 2010 (7) SCC 234 held as under:- 24.1 A reserved category candidate who is adjudged more meritorious than the open category candidates is entitled to choose the particular service/cadre/post as per his choice/preference and he cannot be compelled to accept appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important service/cadre/post in the reserved category for less meritorious candidate of that category. 24.2. On his appointment to the service/cadre/post of his choice/preference, the reserved category candidate cannot be treated as appointed against the open category post." 47. The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved of being denied the allocation of appropriate district as per their merit-cum-preferences in being appointed as Assistant Teachers while those less meritorious in their respective categories were allocated district of their choice. The case in some of the petition is that merely because the petitioners therein were MRC candidates and the purpose of selection reckoned as general category candidates they were denied the benefit of reserve category seats in the district of their choice by not being reckoned for the reserved posts. 48. It has been further submitted that the procedure adopted for allocation of district to the successful MRC candidates entailed putting them to a disadvantage vis-a-vis reserved category candidates selected simplicitor in their respective quotas, that was wholly arbitrary and without application of mind and cannot be legally sustained. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan and others Vs. Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan and others reported in 2018 (10) SCALE 618, in which in para 11 it was held that MRC candidates could not be placed in a disadvantage position vis-a-vis others selected solely in the reserved category such as by not permitting the MRC to be considered against vacancies in the reserved category as that would amount to making a MRC suffer for his better performance in the competitive examination. 49. 49. He further submitted that in the present case there is no disadvantage to the MRC respondents in as much as by allocation of district. They do not suffer any monetary loss or other disadvantage in their career. 50. Apex Court in the case of Tripurari Sharan and another Vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2018 held that: 7. Often, in a competitive examination held for the purpose of admission in technical and medical institutions etc. some candidates belonging to reserved category/categories, qualify for the higher ranking on the basis of their own merit and depending on their performance in the common entrance test, are placed in the general merit list. Such class of candidates belonging to reserved categories who qualify on their own merit, to be placed in general merit list, are described, for the purpose of convenience, as Meritorious Reserved Candidate (MRC). It is by now well settled that a MRC who goes on to occupy a general category seat is not counted against the quota reserved for a reserved category candidates, but is treated as an open competition candidate or general merit candidate. This Court in the case of Indra Sawnhey v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 has observed thus: "In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16 (4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates" Even in service matters, the same principle is made applicable. The aforementioned principle of Indra Sawnhey (supra) is followed for admissions to seats in medical colleges, and the same was followed in the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 . However, the issue before us is more nuanced-whether MRC can opt for a seat earmarked for reserved category? "If answer is yes" then since MRC exercises the option of admission to the seats in different colleges earmarked for reserved category candidates, should a less meritorious reserved category candidate who is affected by such process be given admission to the college left over by MRC consequently? "If answer is yes" then since MRC exercises the option of admission to the seats in different colleges earmarked for reserved category candidates, should a less meritorious reserved category candidate who is affected by such process be given admission to the college left over by MRC consequently? This would be better understood by a simplified example. Let it be assumed that there are 100 seats available through one common entrance examination to PG courses in various medical colleges across the country. Of these, 50 are general category seats and the remaining 50 are reserved category seats. X, a reserved category candidate, is assigned rank number 50 on account of his performance in the entrance examination. Thus he is just above the cut-off for reserved category candidates, and has got an open merit rank. Hence, X is a MRC; however, X being in general category is not willing to accept the seat available for general category at the time of his counselling. He wants admission in another college of his preference which is incidentally reserved for reserved category candidates, and a seat in the same is available in the reserved category. Consequently, X chooses a seat available in the college meant for reserved category candidate based on his merit among the reserved category candidates. As he does so, one seat in the general category list of 50 candidates remains unoccupied. In that context, two questions arise for consideration: (i). Whether X-MRC can opt for a seat earmarked for reserved category? (ii). If answer is yes; what happens to the 50th seat which was to be allotted to X-MRC (i.e. 50th general merit candidate) had he opted for a seat meant for the reserved category to which he belongs? 8. This court has repeatedly including the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), has concluded that the aggregate reservation should not exceed 50%. Therefore, even when a MRC opts for a seat reserved for reserved category candidates, caution has to be exercised to maintain the reservation to 50%. So also it is not open for the authorities to deny a MRC a seat in the college of his preference based on his merit, if such seat is available at the relevant point of time and the same is reserved for candidates of the reserved category to which the MRC belongs. So also it is not open for the authorities to deny a MRC a seat in the college of his preference based on his merit, if such seat is available at the relevant point of time and the same is reserved for candidates of the reserved category to which the MRC belongs. This is because there may be instances where a MRC may not get a seat in the institution of his choice on the basis of his own merit in the general merit. Under such circumstances, he may opt to be treated notionally as a candidate belonging to the reserved category only for the purpose of getting a seat in the college reserved for reserved category students. If such MRC is to be placed in the reserved merit list of his category, he would be ranking high and may get better choice of institution or course. A MRC cannot be placed in a disadvantageous position by not permitting him to be treated as reserved candidate, as that would amount to making him suffer for his better performance in the competitive examination. In the case of Shri Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul, (1996) 3 SCC 253 , this Court has had an occasion to deal with both the above questions. This Court held that a MRC who has opted for a seat in the college reserved for reserved category will not migrate/shift to reserved category but should be treated as part of the general category only. However, only for the purpose of getting better choice of seat in the college, he may opt to take a seat in the college reserved for the reserved category. This Court observed thus: "17...In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they will be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission to the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as a open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate." Right from the year 1996, the law is well settled that the provisions should be so made that they will not work out to the disadvantage of a MRC and he would not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the less meritorious reserved category candidates. Aforementioned objective can be achieved if, after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category, the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates are considered. In other words, the reserved category candidate is entitled to admission on the basis of his merit, and he will have the option of taking admission to the colleges where a specified number of seats are kept reserved for the reserved category. However, while computing the percentage of reservation, he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. 51. However, while computing the percentage of reservation, he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. 51. In the case of Tripurari Sharan (supra) it was held that: This Court, after examining the rival contentions on record, held that a MRC opting for a reserved category seat should be treated as a reserved category candidate, which means that he is deemed to have migrated/shifted from the general category to the reserved category to which he belongs once and for all, and that the vacant general category seat left by a MRC should be filled by a general category candidate. It arrived at the following findings: "50. We sum up our answers-: (i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to General category candidates. (ii) By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/her better performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted to a more preferred service. (iii) The amended Rule 16 (2) only seeks to recognize the inter se merit between two classes of candidates i.e. a) meritorious reserved category candidates b) relatively lower ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of allocation to the various Civil Services with due regard for the preferences indicated by them. (iv) The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SC/ST categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution." 14. In light of the cases discussed hereinabove, both questions are answered as follows: (i) A MRC can opt for a seat earmarked for the reserved category, so as to not disadvantage him against less meritorious reserved category candidates. Such MRC shall be treated as part of the general category only. In light of the cases discussed hereinabove, both questions are answered as follows: (i) A MRC can opt for a seat earmarked for the reserved category, so as to not disadvantage him against less meritorious reserved category candidates. Such MRC shall be treated as part of the general category only. (ii) Due to the MRC's choice, one reserved category seat is occupied, and one seat among the choices available to general category candidates remains unoccupied. Consequently, one lesser-ranked reserved category candidate who had choices among the reserved category is affected as he does not get any choice anymore. To remedy the situation i.e. to provide the affected candidate a remedy, the 50th seat which would have been allotted to X-MRC, had he not opted for a seat meant for the reserved category to which he belongs, shall now be filled up by that candidate in the reserved category list who stands to lose out by the choice of the MRC. This leaves the percentage of reservation at 50% undisturbed." 52. In a recent judgment of Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Sunita Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, passed in S.B. Civil Writ No. 23680 of 2018, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide judgment and order dated 2.4.2019 held as under: "Consequently I would direct that in determining the preference of the MRC candidates for allocation of ranges/divisions as Senior Teachers they be considered against the reserved category posts in each of the division/range for which they have sought allocation on the basis of their inter se merit vis-a-vis other reserved category candidates. I am also of the considered view that the mere that that the RPSC made recommendations in a truncated manner cannot give any benefit to the candidates lower in the select list or any right over those higher in merit in the select list for the purpose of allocation on the basis of their merit cum preference. Even otherwise in the course of hearing the petition/s it has transpired that the deficiencies in the verification process were rectified by the concerned higher placed selected candidates much before the order of allocation of divisions/ranges to those lower in the merit in the select list drawn pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.2016. And it cannot with any plausibility be denied, as it was indeed not by Mr. And it cannot with any plausibility be denied, as it was indeed not by Mr. Ganesh Meena, that where in the same list of recommendations by RPSC candidates, candidates higher in merit in the respective category have been denied their preference of allocation of ranges/divisions while those lower in the same category were given their preference in the allocation, the respondents are under an obligation to make the requisite correction in view of the selected candidates' legitimate expectation and ensure firm adherence to the State Government's own guidelines of 4.3.2018. It is no doubt true that the exercise of allocation of divisions/ranges to Senior Teachers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.2016 has largely been completed. it is also true that redoing of the said exercise in the whole or part as would be necessitated by strict adherence to the guidelines of 4.3.2018 would entail some amount of disruption. That however by itself cannot suffice for this court to condone substantial contravention of the respondent-State Government's guidelines dated 4.3.2018. Law, fairness and justice not expediency has to prevail. The academic year 2018-19 has been concluded. The new academic year 2019-20 is to commence only in the month of July 2019 as stated by Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG. In these circumstances, no serious unmanageable disruption in the coming academic calendar of the concerned schools is likely to be caused in the even the State Government were to be directed to strictly adhere to its guidelines of 4.3.2018 for allocation of ranges/divisions to the Senior Teacher selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.2016. Consequently these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the allocation of ranges/divisions to Senior Teachers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.2016 be done afresh in accordance with the observations of this Court earlier in this judgment. This direction be complied within a period of two months from today. A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition. And a copy of this order also be furnished to Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG for onward transmission and compliance." 53. Thus, there is no doubt that MRC candidate is entitled for allotment of preferential district treating him as a reserved category candidate only for allotment of district of their preference. And a copy of this order also be furnished to Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG for onward transmission and compliance." 53. Thus, there is no doubt that MRC candidate is entitled for allotment of preferential district treating him as a reserved category candidate only for allotment of district of their preference. In the present case, the reserved category candidates who have been placed in select list as general candidate on account of their better performance have been denied place of appointment of their choice as they are in merit of general candidate although higher in merit of their respective reserved category. 54. Thus the decision of the authorities is contrary to Article 16 as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 55. The contention raised by Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate is that the petitioners have been allotted district and they have joined in their place of posting, thus they cannot be shifted to any other district, without following the procedure prescribed under Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules 2008 is concerned, one advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of 68500 Assistant Teachers in Basic School and Junior Basic School managed by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, one examination, i.e., ATRE 2018 was conducted by the Regulatory Authority on the basis of aforesaid examination 41556 candidates were declared eligible and successful. Consequentially by one government order the process for appointment of 41556 candidates was initiated. In the process of appointment, MRC candidates have been discriminated, as the process of appointment had been completed in two phase. It is well settled that the process of selection starts from the issuance of advertisement inviting applications and is completed on appointment. The process of selection and appointment had been completed in two phase. In first phase, 34660 candidates were given appointment and in the second phase, 6136 candidates have been given appointment but the facts remained that all these candidates have been given appointment as a result of one selection process. In the process of appointment, MRC candidates have been put in disadvantage, as has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma (supra) and Tripurari Sharan (supra). 56. In the process of appointment, MRC candidates have been put in disadvantage, as has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma (supra) and Tripurari Sharan (supra). 56. So far as the objection raised by the respondents that the petitioners have joined their place of posting without any protest, as such they are estopped in law from challenging their place of posting is concerned, since the rights of MRC candidates guaranteed under Article Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated, as has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma (supra) and Tripurari Sharan (supra) the principle of estoppel and waiver will not be applicable against the legal and constitutional rights. 57. The allocation of district and appointment and joining of the teachers in their respective districts had been completed in academic year 2018-19. The said posting and allocation of district being contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained. 58. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the allotment of district made by the respondents cannot be sustained in so far as it relates to MRC candidates and to that extent, it is quashed. 59. The respondent no. 3 is directed to carry on process of allotment of district to MRC candidates only, treating them to be reserved category candidates only for the purposes of allotment of district of their preference. It is further directed that the MRC candidates who alleged that they have not been allotted district of their preference despite being MRC candidates, may file their applications before the respondent no. 3 within a period of 3 months from today and the respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and pass necessary order, as per law stated hereinabove within next 3 months. 60. The order passed by the respondent no. 3 shall be given effect from next academic session, i.e., 2020-21, so that the teaching of students is not suffered. 61. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed off.