MEENAWATI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION HIGHER U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 5 and Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad published an advertisement in newspaper 'Rastriya Sahara' dated 7/16th September, 1995 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk/Typist under a special drive for recruitment of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Class Category candidates. The advertisement provided that six posts within the reserved category of Schedule Castes and three posts within the reserved category of Other Backward Class were available in the Directorate. Besides other qualification mentioned for making the application qua the post of Junior Clerk/Typist, it was provided that candidate must have a speed of 30 words per minute. Petitioner, who claims to be possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification made an application in response to the advertisement along with other candidates. The applicants were invited to participate in the typing test, which took place on 4th December, 1995 in Government Public Library, Allahabad. Call letter specifically mentioned that the typing test was to take place in the language of Hindi. According to the petitioner, State-respondents contrary to the Call Letter required her to appear in English Typing Test also. According to the petitioner list of successful-candidates, who achieved the requisite speed was displayed on the notice board of the Directorate and her name was at serial No. 1. Petitioner was issued a second call letter dated 13th February, 1996 requiring the petitioner to appear in the interview on 27th February, 1996. The letter specifically mentioned that such interview is being held after typing test. The respondents did not declare the final result till July, 1996. However, on an enquiry being made by the petitioner, she came to know that as against three advertised vacancy within the reserved category of Other Backward Class, six persons have been offered appointment. According to the petitioner all the selected candidates were either relatives of the employees working in the department or were earlier appointed on ad hoc basis in the Directorate. Details of the relationship of the selected candidates have been mentioned in Paragraphs-21 to 26 of the writ petition. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid filed the present writ petition as early as on 4th September, 1996. The Writ Court while entertaining the present writ petition passed an order dated 6th September, 1996 requiring the learned Standing Counsel, who represented the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Director and Deputy Director of Education (Higher), U.P. to file counter-affidavit. Petitioner was permitted to serve private respondents, who had been offered appointment in pursuance to the selection held personally outside the Court. Appearance on behalf of selected candidates-private respondents has been put in by Sri V.K. Singh, Sri Shailendra and Bhupendra Nath Singh, Advocates.

(3.) After exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, on 16th July, 2009 this Court passed an order requiring the Director of Education (Higher) to produce all the original records pertaining to the selections including the select list, if any, prepared. Before this Court only list of candidates was produced, which records the speed achieved by the candidates during typing test, the quality point marks awarded in respect of academic qualification and the interview marks. The list bears signatures of four persons (while at the bottom of the list five names have been typed) said to be the members of the Selection Committee. Against the names of selected candidates i.e. the respondents Nos. 3 to 8, figures I to IV and VI to VII have been mentioned.