Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12758 of 2021 Petitioner :- Lal Chand Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh,Ram Kailash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar controversy has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 22.1.2021 in Writ-A No. 540 of 2021 (Digvijay Sarsvat Urf Gaurav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). Order dated 22.1.2021 is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:
"A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to adjust/accommodate the petitioner on the post of Lecturer Chemistry in any other institution according to the provisions of Rule-13(5) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 in pursuant to the select list dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure No. 5) issued by respondent no. 2 against the Advertisement No. 02/2016 PGT Chemistry (Balak Varg), within specific period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Petitioner has been duly selected as post graduate teacher in subject Chemistry pursuant to advertisement no. 02/2016 issued by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board.
This Court in Prashant Kumar Katiyar Versus State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ADJ 523 (FB), inter alia, answered the reference in the following terms:
"The interpretation, the scope and applicability of Rule 13(5) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 as affirmed in the case of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Allahabad v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Special Appeal No. 146 of 2010 decided on 21.01.2011) is upheld as laying down the law correctly by confining its applicability to the vacancies that are subject matter of the same advertisement and not to such vacancies that were notified but not subject matter of the same advertisement."
The second respondent aggrieved by the answer in the reference order sought modification before the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10808 of 2017 (U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Versus State of U.P. and others), decided on 23 August 2017, modified/clarified the reference order in the following terms:
"5. The issue pertains to the candidates who have already been selected but could not be accommodated for want of vacancies. In such cases, it cannot be said that the Board has no power to accommodate them. They will have to be certainly accommodated in available or arising vacancies."
In the back drop of the order of the Supreme Court, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that the Selection Board is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and an endeavour shall be made to accommodate the petitioner in available or arising vacancies within two months.
In regard thereto, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to pass a direction in terms of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, provided there is no legal impediment."
Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has not disputed the aforesaid facts.
Accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 22.1.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 540 of 2021.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Rmk.