Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18271 of 2021 Petitioner :- Beena Teotia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aakash Rai
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the respondent No.2/Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board with regard to the selection of the Head of the Institution pursuant to the advertisement dated 1 of 2011.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 relied upon order dated 09.09.2020 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Bhatia and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.6547 of 2020) which is reproduced below:-
"Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.N. Pandey for the petitioners; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and Shri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
The petitioners are assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 6.3.2020 passed by the respondent no.3, Secretary/Deputy Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj, so far as it relates to Meerut, Moradabad and Faizabad regions. They have also prayed for issuing direction to the respondents to declare results of Meerut, Moradabad and Faizabad regions.
Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate in support of his submission has placed reliance on the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1289 of 2018 (Prem Chandra Tripathi and 4 others vs. State of UP and another) wherein the Board had moved an application for modification of the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by the Division Bench on the ground that the Government Order dated 20.06.2014 had cancelled the selection held prior to that date, only in reference to interview held without providing 21 days notice. While considering the said modification the Division Bench had also considered paragraph-10 of the affidavit filed in support of the modification application, wherein it has been stated that the selection/interview held can be categories in the following categories:-
"(i) From 21.01.2014 to 26.02.2014, interview held.
(ii) From 2.6.2014 to 3.7.2014, interview held but cancelled due to Government Order dated 20.06.2014.
(iii) From 27.04.2015 to 06.05.2015, interview postponed due to resignation of Chairman of the Commission.
(iv) From 18.05.2015 to 26.06.2015, interview was again held. The interview of Kanpur region was postponed due to the order dated 06.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 4988 of 2016."
While considering the paragraph-10 of the affidavit, the Division Bench had clearly proceeded to observe "It is submitted that there is no dispute in regard to the interview held from 21.01.2014 to 26.02.2014 as for the interview held during the said period, 21 days clear notice as mandated was given." An exception has been carved out by the Division Bench only with regard to category nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv). So far as category no.(i) is concerned, the Division Bench had clearly observed as aforesaid. Even though the modification application has been moved by the Board and the Division Bench had also relied upon paragraph-10 of the affidavit filed in support of the modification application in which category (i) was not disputed, as it has been acknowledged by the Board itself.
Now at this stage the petitioners are claiming that they fall in the first category. If any clarification was required, then the remedy was available to the Board to move another application for modification of the order dated 18.10.2019 but instead of doing the same, the order impugned has been passed, which is in direct teeth of the order dated 18.10.2019 and for all practical purpose, the same has attained finality.
In the facts and circumstances, the objection so raised by learned Senior Advocate definitely has force.
On the request of Shri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 the case is passed over to enable him to seek necessary instructions in the matter.
Put up this matter for further orders on 11.9.2020, as fresh.
The present petitioners fall in the first category and suffice to indicate that the order impugned is in teeth of the modification order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Court is prima facie of the opinion that the order impugned is contemptuous in nature. However, one more indulgence is accorded to the respondents to modify the impugned order dated 06.3.2020 on or before the next date fixed, otherwise the Court has no other option except to refer the matter to the Contempt Court.
Let a copy of the order be given to Shri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 for necessary compliance today itself.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
From perusal of the record, it is clear that the order impugned has been passed pursuant to the directions given in the Deepak Bhatia case (supra).
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the only remedy lies to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the authority concerned, if so advised.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in the present petition.
The present writ petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.12.2021 saqlain