ANANT KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These groups of Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the common questions of law and facts are involved and since all these writ petitions raises common questions, they are being heard together and are decided by the common judgment. Learned Counsel argued treating Writ Petition No. 37124 of 2001 to be leading writ petition in which counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. All the learned Counsel for petitioner a well as learned Standing Counsel have made the statement that no further affidavits are required in each writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) The petitioners, by the order of the Court, have amended the writ petition and have added a ground and a further prayer, which is reproduced below :- GROUNDS:

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Council of Educational Research and Training, Nishatganj, Lucknow, U.P. had issued an advertisement, which was published in various daily newspapers, including the Hindi daily newspaper 'Dank Jagran' dated 14.8.2001, thereby inviting applications for special training and appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools in rural areas of the State of U.P. The last date for applying pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement was 15.9.2001. By the aforesaid advertisement, the applications were invited from such candidates, who possessed B.Ed./L.T. certificate from the University, other recognised colleges and training institutes, which are either run or managed or recognised by the State Government as regular students and these degree are from such Universities, which are established under law in the State of U.P. The aforesaid advertisement also prescribes the provision or reservation according to the then enforced G.O. of the State of U.P. regarding this reservation policy. The process of selection as defined in the aforesaid advertisement was on the basis of calculation of the qualitative marks on different level of education, including extra curricular activities as specified in the advertisement. The another clause provides that for the vacancies available in the district, 50 per cent will be reserved for women and 50 per cent for the male candidates, who will be selected according to their merits as stated in the process of selection. The further provision for selection is that out of the quota earmarked for male and female candidates, 50 per cent in each category shall be filled in by the candidates of Science subject and other 50 per cent jointly shall be allocated for the candidates belonging to all other categories. The aforesaid direction goes to say that a candidate shall be considered according to the merit as stated in the advertisement against the vacancies available for his home district. The applications, as stated above, were invited up to 15.9.2001. The aforesaid advertisement was modified by issuing a corrigendum, which was published in the various newspapers on 22.9.2001, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which purports to amend clause (xi) of the advertisement, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, to the extent that merit list shall now be prepared State-wise and there shall be one merit list for the entire State and earlier clause (xi) has been deleted. In Paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioners have specified, according to their information, the number of vacancies available District-wise and a perusal of the same demonstrates that in some of the districts there were zero vacancy and in some of the districts, like districts Allahabad and Kaushambi, there were 1355 and 448 vacancies, respectively. The petitioners have also given the details of the qualitative marks secured by each of the petitioners in their respective districts, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have found that the State Government keeps on changing the criteria for selection as it suits them in wholly arbitrary and discriminatory manner and that is why these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the prayers aforestated.