1. Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned ACSC for respondent Nos.1&2 and Sri R.K.S. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed as under:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or likewise thereby commanding the opposite parties competent, precisely, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Prayagraj to strictly adhere to Clause 9 under both the Advertisemetn No.01/2021 Trained Graduate Teacher (Annexure No.1) and the Advertisement No.02/2021 Pravakta (Annexure No.2) and declare Examination Centre(s) in the districts with Commissionary Head Quarters and not elsewhere;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or likewise thereby commanding the respondents make Examination Centre(s) in Government Schools, Colleges and Universities but not in Private aided Inter Colleges in order to prevent corruption, malpractices and irregularities in the written examinations on vacant 12,603 posts (TGT) and 2595 posts of PGT Lecturers in the aided Non-Governmental Inter Colleges;
(iii) pass such other order as the merits of the case deem fit; and
(iv) award the cost of this petition."
3. The matter pertains to the appointment of ad-hoc Lecturers / Assistant Teachers appointed in aided intermediate colleges recognized under Section 16E(11) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
4. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others VS. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016 decided vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2020 has held that the the teachers appointed under Section 16E(11) shall continue to work till regular selection is made by the Selection Board.
5. The matter went before Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration that whether the teachers appointed are entitled to continue till regularly selected candidate comes or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the material on record, in exercise of power under Article 142 Constitution of India passed an order directing the State Government to formulate a policy for consideration of claim of ad-hoc teachers appointed under Section 16E(11) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 by giving relaxation in age as well as providing quality point marks for as per experience.
6. The State Government took a decision to advertise the vacancies against those posts on which the ad-hoc teachers were working and were party before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. In compliance of the judgment, an advertisement was issued on 15.03.2021 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates working under Section 16E(11) of 1921 Act. In the advertisement, under Clause (9), it was provided that for holding examination, centers of examination shall be allocated at Commissionary Head Quarter level, so that the examinations may be conducted in a fair manner.
8. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the respondents are not following the conditions laid down in the advertisement issued and have allocated the centers of examination at district level to those institutions, who are run and managed by private management and there is possibility to provide benefit to the ad-hoc teachers of their own choice.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the Selection Board, who has committed the mistake time and again and due to lapses on their part, the selection proceeding on the post of ad-hoc teachers could not have been completed in a fair manner.
10. His next submission is that in case the examination is conducted under CCTV surveillance under the supervision of educational authorities working at district level, there are chances of non use of unfair means in conclusion of the examination.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 representing the Selection Board supplied a copy of corrigendum dated 27.07.2021, whereby the allocation of examination centres at Commissionary Head Quarter level has been corrected pointing out the provisions contained under Rule 12(2) of U.P. Selection Board Act, 1982 and the examination centres allocated at district level has been justified. Copy of the said corrigendum dated 27.07.2021 be kept on record.
12. In view of the above, the main controversy involved in the present writ petition has rendered infructuous.
13. It is an examination for appointment on the post of teachers in the institutions recognized under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 run and managed by private management, therefore, the respondents / District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) appointed at district level are directed to install CCTV cameras in the institutions, who have been chosen as examination centres to hold the examination as per advertisement issued in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and to conduct the examination under due CCTV surveillance to ensure fair examination.
14. It is, however, clarified that installation of CCTV cameras in the examination centres shall be made prior to holding of upcoming examination.
15. The respondents / concerned DIOS are directed to record the examination proceeding via CCTV cameras and to prepare a Compact Disc (C.D.) of the CCTV footage, which shall be handed over to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allenganj, Allahabad for necessary purposes.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Adarsh K Singh