U S SINHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. By the earlier order passed by Division Bench of this Court, all the aforesaid writ petitions were connected, and have been heard analogously for the purpose of disposal by a common judgement and order having binding effect upon all of them. The Writ Petition No. 54845 of 2005, will be considered as leading case, under which the writ petitioner wanted an appropriate order quashing the select list dated 7th/8th May, 2005, in so far as it selects Dr. P. O. Saxena, as Principal of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (for short the College) alongwith other incidental prayers.

(2.) FACT remains that advertisement No. 3/2003/04 was issued for the purpose of filling up posts of Principals of State Medical Colleges. However, by a corrigendum dated 8th May, 2005 the maximum age limit of the candidates was enhanced. Originally, 6 posts were declared vacant for the purpose of filling up, out of which 3 were reserved for S. C. and ST. candidates. However, later on such total posts were reduced to 4 in number. There is no dispute with regard to the posts reserved for S. C. and ST. category. The dispute is with regard to the selection of general category candidate i. e. Dr. PC. Saxena, as Principal of the College. An incidental dispute has been raised by Dr. Manisha Dwivedi by saying that although initially it was said that there would be reservation for women but subsequently the same had been withdrawn. According to Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for Dr. Dwivedi, the reservation for women is horizontal not vertical, therefore, such reservation should be made separately within the general candidates. However, we have come to know that still there is scope of 20% reservation for women candidates. Since the number of posts was reduced, 20% reservation for women was not available. In any event, Dr. Manisha Dwivedi and Dr. U. S. Sinha, both the petitioners herein, participated in the selection and after becoming unsuccessful, raised dispute with regard to the selection of Dr. PC. Saxena by making these writ petitions.

(3.) SO far as the case of Dr. Manisha Dwivedi is concerned, her writ petition also cannot be entertained for the same reason that she participated in the process of selection as a general candidate and only after becoming unsuccessful, she filed the writ petition challenging the select list by saying that instead of filling up all the 6 posts as originally advertised, the number of posts has been reduced to 4, so as to deprive her of the benefit of the women's, horizontal quota. According to us, same principle is applicable in the case of Dr. Dwivedi also, unless of course, the writ petition of Dr. Sinha succeeds in quashing the select list. In any event, whether 6 posts will be ultimately filled up or only 4, falls exclusively within the domain of the employer, which cannot be subject matter of challenge by an unsuccessful candidate after participation in the selection process.