VIJAY BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. S. Kushwaha learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions raise common issues of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common judgment by consent of parties. Writ Petition No. 54049 of 2007 in which pleadings are complete is being treated as leading case and for deciding all these writ petitions, it is sufficient to refer to the pleadings of Writ Petition No. 54040 of 2007.

(3.) THE submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners can be grouped in two heads. THE first submission pressed in these writ petitions is challenge to preparation of district-wise merit list with the prayer that direction be issued to prepare State-wise merit list. THE Government order dated 10th July, 2007 in so far as it directed preparation of district-wise merit list has been challenged. THE submission of Counsel for the petitioners is that preparation of district-wise merit list was quashed by this Court vide its judgment in Anant Kumar Tiwari v. State of. U. P. and others, 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1527 in which writ petition the advertisement dated 14th August, 2001 pertaining to Special Basic Training Course-2001 was challenged. THE Government order dated 3rd August, 2001 on the basis of which advertisement was issued on 14th August, 2001 provided that a candidate can apply for Special Basic Training Course- 2001 from his home district only and in the event no vacancy is available in the home district he can apply to any other district of the region. By a subsequent corrigendum dated 22nd September, 2001 it was provided that the list shall be prepared State-wise and there shall be one merit list in the entire State. Again before two or three days of the declaration of result it was directed that merit list shall be prepared district-wise. Anant Kumar Tiwari and others filed writ petition challenging the advertisement, which confined the selection to a particular district. THE prayer was also made for directing the respondents to prepare a fresh State-wise merit list considering the candidature at State level. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition quashing the Government order as well as the advertisement. It was left open to the State to go for fresh process of appointment. THE said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in State of U. P. and others v. Anant Kumar and others, 2003 (3) A. W. C. 2060. Against the judgment of the Division Bench appeal was filed in the Apex Court which too was dismissed, which judgment is reported in (2005)5 S. C. C. 172, Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others v. state of U. P. and others. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the district-wise merit list having been frowned upon in the aforesaid judgment, the State cannot resort to district-wise merit list and it was obligatory for the State to have prepared the State-wise merit list, it is further contended that even if liberty is given to a candidate to apply from any district, the said procedure is inconvenient and cumbersome unnecessary burdening the candidates for making application in large number of districts. It is submitted that in certain districts persons having lower merit may be selected whereas persons having higher merit in some other district may not be selected. THE second plank of argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the methodology adopted by the respondents in computing the merit index of teaching qualification, i. e. , B. E. d. , B. P. E. d. , C. P. Ed. , D. P. Ed, or L. T. is arbitrary. THE petitioners have contended that total marks of theory and practical in the above examinations defers from University to University. Prior to 2004 the practical and theory marks of above teaching qualifications were less and after 2004 the maximum marks of theory and practical have been increased. It is further contended that maximum marks in theory and practical for B. P. Ed. , C. P. Ed:, or D. P. Ed. , are much more as compared to those candidates who have passed B. Ed. , and in adding marks obtained in practical and theory and then obtaining the percentage leads to arbitrariness and discrimination among the candidates having identical merits. Further in the writ petition it has been explained by giving illustration, which shall also be considered while considering the submissions in detail.