ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. A process of recruitment of teachers (in the disciplines of Science and Mathematics) initiated by the Competent Authority of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 11th July, 2013 was abruptly put on hold with immediate effect on the basis of an oral order dated 23rd March, 2017. 3. Such oral order was challenged in sixteen writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Vide common judgment and order dated 03rd November, 2017, a learned single judge of the High Court allowed all the writ petitions. It was ordered as follows: - "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." 4. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed three writ appeals against the said judgment and order and not sixteen appeals. Resultantly, the judgment and order of the single judge on thirteen writ petitions attained finality. However, the three writ appeals (with Special Appeal No. 648/2017 being the lead matter) came to be considered by a Division Bench of the High Court which, vide its judgment and order dated 12th April, 2018 dismissed the same observing as follows: - "It is more than apparent that there were no good grounds for putting on hold the recruitment process. What is important to note is that when confronted, the Board made a statement in the Court that oral directions had been issued by the State Government for putting on hold the recruitment process and when called upon, the State Government in one of the matters, denied having issued such instructions. 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. 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." 5. The State thereafter applied for review of the aforesaid judgment and order, which was dismissed by the Division Bench by an order dated 25th March, 2019. 6. Following such dismissal, the State has challenged the orders dismissing the writ appeals as well as the review petitions by filing Special Leave Petition (C) D. No.18516/2019 before this Court. 7. It is not in dispute that during the last five years the special leave petition has remained pending on the file of this Court, several appointments have been made on posts of Assistant Teachers (Science and Mathematics) pursuant to the order of the single judge which went unchallenged by the State by not filing writ appeals against the said common judgment and order deciding the remaining thirteen writ petitions. 8. In course of hearing before a coordinate Bench on an earlier occasion, it was the admitted case that although the respondents in the special leave petition had been counseled during the fourth and fifth rounds but were not favoured with appointments, those candidates who were counseled in course of the seventh and eighth rounds had been given appointment. 9. By an order dated 10th November, 2022, this Court called upon the State to file an affidavit in respect of the points mentioned therein. An affidavit has since been filed to which the respondents have also filed their response. 10. The facts emerging therefrom are that some of the candidates who might have obtained less marks than the marks obtained by the successful writ petitioners have been appointed. Referring to the same, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for certain sets of respondents have prayed for dismissal of the special leave petition as well as for direction on the State to appoint the respondents. 11. Referring to the same, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for certain sets of respondents have prayed for dismissal of the special leave petition as well as for direction on the State to appoint the respondents. 11. It is true that the recruitment process was initiated in the year 2013 and more than a decade has passed since then; however, the delay cannot be attributed to the successful candidates. The blame for the delay has to be squarely placed on the State. Having filed delayed writ appeals before the High Court selectively, followed by delayed review petitions as well as the present delayed special leave petition, the State cannot urge that by reason of the lapse of time in between, no right has accrued in favour of the respondents. It would defy reason and logic if claims of candidates who have secured marks, more than the candidates who have already been appointed, are spurned for no better reason than that there has been delay in the process. Notwithstanding the delay that has occurred, we are of the considered opinion that the candidature of the candidates successful before the High Court should be considered in accordance with the directions issued by the Division Bench on the appeals referred to above upholding the learned single judge's decision. 12. We, however, record the submissions of Mr. P.S. Patwalia and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the respondents to the effect that should they be appointed after the exercise that we direct hereunder to be performed by the State, they would not be claiming seniority vis-a-vis the candidates who have already been appointed as well as arrears of salary. 13. In the circumstances as above, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider the claims of each of the candidates who were the petitioners before the single judge for appointment on posts of Assistant Teachers (Science and Mathematics). Those of the candidates who are found to have secured marks more than the candidate who has been appointed with the least number of marks shall be considered and offered appointment, in accordance with law, with the clear stipulation that such candidate shall not be entitled to seniority as well as arrears of salary. 14. Those of the candidates who are found to have secured marks more than the candidate who has been appointed with the least number of marks shall be considered and offered appointment, in accordance with law, with the clear stipulation that such candidate shall not be entitled to seniority as well as arrears of salary. 14. To facilitate compliance of this order, we grant liberty to the successful candidates before the High Court to place before the State a list indicating the marks that such candidates would have been entitled to, had the process not been kept on hold, in terms of the formula that has been adopted for assessing the merit of all the candidates. 15. Let this exercise be completed as early as possible, but preferably within three months from date and in any case not beyond six months. 16. It is made clear that only those candidates who have approached this Court with writ petitions/interlocutory applications seeking intervention, impleadment, etc. any time before 31st December, 2019 shall be entitled to the benefit of this order. Relief is declined to the others on the ground that they were fence-sitters. 17. The special leave petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 18. Pending application(s) together with writ petitions and applications for intervention, impleadment, etc. shall also stand disposed of.