Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
From the records of the present writ petition it is apparent that the petitioners were selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Subordinate Education Service in pursuance to the examinations held in the year 1996.
It is the case of the petitioners that they were offered the post of Senior Lecturer, DIET, Deoria and Senior Lecturer, DIET, Ambedkar Nagar respectively after selection. It is further his case that in terms of the selection so held appointment was offered to the petitioners only under letter dated 12.11.2010 and dated 27.12.2010 respectively. The petitioners were required to join as Senior Lecturer, DIET, Deoria within fifteen days but they did not do so. The reason disclosed in the writ petition for the same is that petitioner had been working as teacher in Railway Higher Secondary School (Northern Railway), Bareilly and Post Graduate Teacher, Senior Secondary School in New Delhi and at the relevant time were already drawing a salary of Rs. 25,000/-, they were, therefore, apprehensive as to whether they would be entitled to pay protection etc. after appointment as Senior Lecturer, DIET or not.. The petitioners, therefore, made representations which were not considered.
It is then stated that feeling helpless, they along with Hira Singh filed writ petition no. 1074 of 2011 and the same was decided under order dated 31.05.2011. It was directed that the representations of the petitioners be considered (Ref. Paragraph 23 of the writ petition).
The representations of the petitioners were rejected under an order dated 20.09.2011. The petitioners are stated to have made further representations. Ultimately on 19.04.2012 because of non-joining by the petitioners at the allocated post, their candidature itself has been cancelled by the respondents. After 2½ years of cancellation of their candidature, petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition for quashing of the said order.
For the purpose of explaining the delay, petitioners have made reference to the filing of a writ petition before the Apex Court directly being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 296 of 2013 which is stated to have been withdrawn on 03.07.2013 as they were advised to file a writ petition before the High Court. (Ref. Paragraph 4 of the writ petition). It is then stated that the petitioners made an impleadment application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27906 of 2012 (Hira Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) which has been rejected by the High Court under order dated 12.09.2014, with liberty to approach the High Court independently. Hence this petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.
We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition has no substance. Petitioners were offered appointment under a letter dated 12.11.2010 and dated 27.12.2010, it was specifically stipulated that he must join on the post concerned within 15 days failing which their candidature shall be deemed to have been cancelled. Petitioner did not respond to the said order of appointment and the reason disclosed for non-joining appears to be too flimsy. The petitioners were employee of the Railways/Delhi Administration at the relevant time which is a Central Government organization/different State service. They should have known that pay protection is provided in accordance with the State Government orders applicable.
The petitioners now happily working with Railways/Delhi Administration since 1993 and since they were not interested in joining in terms of the order of appointment dated 12.11.2010, they set up a smog of pay protection etc. Even otherwise we find that the representation made in terms of the order of the High Court came to be rejected as early as on 20.09.2011. This order has not been challenged not even in this petition. The only order under challenge is the order dated 19.04.2012 rejecting their candidature for non-joining within the stipulated period.
The order of the Apex Court has not been brought on record. Bald allegations made in respect of the same cannot be accepted by this Court.
This Court made a pointed query from the counsel for the petitioners that once their writ petition had been dismissed by the Apex Court without any liberty to file a fresh, could they file a second writ petition before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners did not respond.
We further find that the filing of the impleadment application before the High Court in a writ petition filed by someone else was also totally uncalled for.
In the totality of the circumstances on record, we are satisfied that no case for entertaining the present writ petition is made out.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Dated :07.11.2014 VR/58937/14