VIJAY KUMAR TIWARY Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present batch of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek to assail a common order dtd. 23/8/2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the learned Tribunal) in O.A. No. 663/2014. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal while considering the challenge of the petitioners to the selection process conducted by the respondents for appointment to the post of Education Officer advertised on 17/2/2013, has partly allowed the OA by directing that the petitioners in W.P.(C) 6047/2020, who were applicant nos.1 and 5 before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 663/2014, be considered for appointment under the OBC and SC category respectively, by giving 85% weightage to the marks obtained by them in the written examination and 15% weightage to their interview. Further, the learned Tribunal also directed that supernumerary posts be created for accommodating the said two petitioners/ applicants, and for the purposes of all consequential benefits, the appointment of the said two petitioners be reckoned from their actual date of joining.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the said two petitioners, by way of W.P.(C) 6047/2020 seek to assail the impugned order to the extent it directs that for the purposes of all consequential benefits, their appointment shall take effect only from the actual date of their joining. The petitioners who were applicant nos. 4 and 6 before the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. No. 663/2014, have approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 12907 of 2021 seeking appointment by urging that the method adopted by the learned Tribunal in appointing the aforesaid two petitioners, be applied to them as well. On the other hand, the petitioners in W.P(C) 7656/2021, who were not were not applicants before the learned Tribunal have approached this Court with a prayer that the impugned order be set aside. We may also note that the petitioners in W.P.(C) 1379/2020, who were applicant nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. No. 663/2014, have moved this Court with a prayer that the impugned order be quashed and the respondent be directed to prepare a revised final list by restricting the marks of the interview to 10%. Since, all the writ petitions arise out of the common impugned order and entail similar facts involving the same question of law, we are taking up all the petitions together for disposal.

(3.) While learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 6047/2020 submits that the direction issued in the impugned order, particularly the formula of 85% weightage to the written examination and 15% weightage for the interview is fully justified and the petitioners ought to be granted their seniority from the date other candidates initially selected were appointed, whereas learned counsels for the petitioner(s) in the other writ petitions submit that even if the application of this formula of 85% weightage to the written examination and 15% weightage for the interview were to be upheld, the benefit of the same ought to have been extended to all candidates who had appeared in the examination. They further make alternate prayers that if this Court is not inclined to tinker with the impugned order, further supernumerary posts be also created for all the petitioner(s). It is, thus, that the learned counsels for the petitioners respectively seek allowing of the present petition(s) in terms of the respective prayer(s) sought by them.