JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned result dated 12.10.1994 as appeared in the news paper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 12.10.1994 published from Lucknow. There is further prayer for quashing the entire selection process in pursuance of the advertisement No. 1/92-93 dated 23.5.1992, issued by the respondents for the recruitment of the assistant teachers in the Government Inter Colleges of the State. By way of an amendment, a further prayer has been made that respondents be commanded to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in the subject of Biology in any of the Government colleges run by the State of U. P.
2. Pleading between the parties is complete and, therefore, as prayed, the writ petition is being heard and is being decided finally.
3. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, advocate who appeared for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel who appeared for the respondents.
4. The claim of the petitioner relates to his selection as assistant teacher in Biology in the Government Intermediate College. The State Government set up U. P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission for selection/ recruitment of the subordinate staff to the various departments of the State Government. It is this Commission which was also authorised to recruit assistant teachers and lecturers to the Government Intermediate Colleges within the State. The Commission vide advertisement No. 1/92-93 published on 23.5.1992 invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Intermediate Colleges in the hill and plane regions. The advertisement mentions the selection of the assistant teachers in 11 subjects. The advertisement displayed total of 681 vacancies for the assistant teacher in Biology in different regions of the State. The advertisement further discloses number of reserved posts for various categories, i.e., 394 for general, and remaining bifurcated per detail in advertisement. It is said that the reservation for different categories happened to be in accordance with the then prevalent Government order/policy. It is stated that by the reservation so provided, 58% was allowed for general category. The aforesaid advertisement prescribed the minimum essential qualification for every post. The selection was to be made through interview and the candidates were to be short listed for interview to the reasonable limit on the basis of the educational qualifications, academic record, percentage of marks and experience.
5. After short listing the petitioner along with large number of candidates was called for interview and it is on completion of the interview, the result was published in which petitioner could not find berth, which made the petitioner aggrieved to come up to this Court by filing this writ petition.
6. After initial hearing the matter, as various aspects and details were not clear from the fact so given in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State authorities, this Court by its order dated 2.11.2001, has directed the standing counsel to file an affidavit giving full details in respect to various queries as mentioned in the order dated 2.11.2001. The details and the clarification, per order dated 2.11.2001, was to the following aspect :
"(i) What was the criteria which was adopted in the process of selection.
7. Thereafter again, when the matter was taken up, on the basis of the first supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents as again all the aspects were not clarified, on 15.5.2002, the Court required filing of further affidavit giving details on three points. The required clarification per order dated 15.5.2002, is being referred hereinafter :
"(i) In what manner, 35 marks which is said to have been earmarked for academic qualification, has been allotted to the candidates and so far as the petitioners and the last candidates so selected in general category has secured how many marks and on what basis?
(ii) It will also be explained that so far the petitioners are concerned and the last candidate so selected, has secured how much marks in the interview which is said to be of 65 marks.
(iii) The date of start of interview pursuant to the advertisement, will also be Indicated irrespective of the date of interview mentioned as 8.8.1994 in respect to Bio group."
8. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.5.2002, second supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire selection is vitiated on account of arbitrariness in the selection process and the discriminatory approach besides non-sticking to the various criteria and the procedure so to be followed as mentioned in the advertisement itself. It is pointed out that earlier the criteria as was mentioned in the advertisement happened to be the interview but thereafter it was declared by the then Chief Minister on 2.9.1992 that procedure for interview will not be adopted and the appointment will be made on the basis of quality point marks and accordingly on 6.11.1992, U. P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate) Service (Ist Amendment) Rules, 1992 was notified whereby necessary amendment was made in Section 15 (2) and Appendix-D was added In the Rules of 1983, which provides for quality point marks. It is further pointed out that although the interview, pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.5.1992 was started on 7.6.1993 but while completing the selection process the authorities have proceeded to give the reservation in accordance with the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for S.C./S.T. and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, i.e., U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994, which in fact was made effective with effect from 11.12.1993. Learned counsel submits that Section 15 of the aforesaid Act Itself provided that the Act will not apply to the cases in which selection process has been started before the commencement of the Act and such cases are to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law and the Government order as stood before such commencement. Explanation to Section 15 further clarifies that selection process shall be deemed to have been initiated where the selection is to be made on the basis of the written test or Interview as the case may be, has started. Section 15 of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 along with its explanation will be useful to be quoted here :
"15. Savings.--(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to cases in which selection process has been initiated before the commencement of this Act and such cases shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law and Government orders as they stood before such commencement.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section the selection process shall be deemed to have been initiated where, under the relevant service rules, recruitment is to be made on the basis of :
(i) Written test or interview only, the written test or the interview, as the case may be, has started, or
(ii) Both written test and interview, the written test has started.
(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the appointment, to be made under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974."
9. Learned counsel submits that although the interview for the Biology group was started on 8.8.1994 but as the process of interview pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.5.1992 admittedly started from 7.6.1993, it cannot be said that before 11.12.1993 the date on which U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 came into effect, the selection process has not been started. In view of the aforesaid, it is pointed out that by taking recourse to the reservation so provided in U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994, the respondents have illegally changed the quota of different categories, so provided In the advertisement. It is further submitted that so far as the quality point marks are concerned, according to the criteria so provided in the Appendix petitioner's quality point marks comes to 73.07, i.e., much more than the last selected candidate. It is submitted, that in fact the selection has neither taken place on the basis of the quality point marks nor on the basis of even the marks so given in the personality test rather the candidates have been awarded artificial marks, without any criteria, just according to the whims of the selecting authorities. Learned counsel has highlighted the contention that in the event 35 marks were allocated for academic records and 65 marks were allocated for personality test, the respondents having not disclosed the separate marks which the petitioner has got, and even the last selected candidate has received have clearly chosen not to disclose the correct fact before this Court and their contention that it is on a consideration of both, i.e., academic record and the personality test lump-sum marks was given is not to be accepted. Learned counsel submits that in the event no separate marks for the personality test, as is now clear from the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents has been given, there remains no criteria for ascertaining that a particular candidate has received what marks In the personality test which clearly demonstrates the arbitrariness and biased functioning of the selecting body. It is further submitted that the details about the last candidate, namely Ashok Kumar which has been placed before this Court speaks about a N.C.C. Certificate which on a just bare examination is proved to be a forged and manufactured document and, therefore, it is clear that the selecting authorities are the party to the fraud and mischief. It is further submitted that the selection in question being of assistant teacher in Biology, the marks so allotted to the last selected candidate, namely, Ashok Kumar for the subject M.A. in History also demonstrates arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. It is submitted that In the event the marks of M.A. History (7 marks) and N.C.C. (3 marks) for the last selected candidates as disclosed in para 8 of the second supplementary counter-affidavit is excluded, then the petitioner's marks on the basis of academic record on the own showing of the respondents will remain as 24 and that of the last selected candidate will come as 14 only. For all the aforesaid reasons, It is argued that the authorities have proceeded in totally unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner only with an intention to get the candidates of their own choice selected. In the end, it is submitted that if this Court finds that the entire selection process is vitiated and is unfair but without the selectees being party in the proceedings the entire selection cannot be quashed even then so far as the petitioner is concerned he having taken care of his rights by approaching this Court, being successful in demonstrating the arbitrariness and illegality on the part of the respondents is entitled for a direction for his selection/ appointment on the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the following cases : Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 UPLBEC 710 ; Union Tettitory of Chandigarh v. Dtlbagh Singh and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 796 : Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., JT 1994 (5) SC 245 : Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2001 (1) AWC 293 (SC) : (2OOO) 8 SCC 633 ; General Manager, South Central Railway Seconderabad and Anr. v. A.V.R. Siddhantti and Ors., (1974) 4 SCC 335 : Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors., 1998 (5) Supreme 216 and Satpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 206.
10. Learned standing counsel in response to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire selection has taken place In a fair manner and the submission in this respect has absolutely no basis. It is argued that as the interview for the subject in question admittedly started on 8.8.1994 by which date U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 has already come into effect, the selection was completed in accordance with the reservation policy as provided in the aforesaid Act, thus it cannot be said that reservation so provided in the advertisement has been changed. It is further submitted that the petitioner having participated in the selection process, having been declared unsuccessful and no other candidate having come to the Court challenging the selection process on the ground, it being unfair or on the ground of change in the reservation policy, petitioner is not entitled to be heard. It is further submitted that the members of the Board at the time of the interview after due deliberation adopted a policy decision that lump-sum marks shall be given to the candidates on overall assessment and performance on the basis of academic record and the personality test and, therefore, candidates were given lump-sum marks on basis of academic record and personality test. It is submitted that the marks so given to the candidates in the selection cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. Lastly it has been argued that the selection which is under challenge was held under the provisions of the U. P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 1988 (U. P. Act No. 7 of 1988) which was subsequently repealed by Act No. 5 of 1998 and, therefore, selection not being under the provisions of U. P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate) Service (First Amendment) Rules, ]992, large number of selectees, who have joined long ago, not being parties in this petition and even proper authority of the State Government not being party before this Court, completion of the selection process cannot be undone. In support, of the submission that petitioner having participated in the selection process, being unsuccessful is not entitled to challenge the selection, reliance has been placed on a decision given by the Apex Court In Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J.K. and Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486. To support the submission thai selection made exclusively on the basis of the interview, preceded by scrutiny of academic qualification has been held not to be arbitrary and illegal, reliance has been placed on a decision given by the Apex Court in Kiran Gupta and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 (4) AWC 3223 (SC) : (2000) 7 SCC 719.
11. In view of the aforesaid submission as has come from both sides, pleadings as has been set forth in petition, counter-affidavit, supple mentary counter-affidavits, rejoinder-affidavits besides written arguments as has been filed from both sides with the permission of the Court, have been examined.
12. On a consideration of the submissions, two questions arise for consideration, i.e., (i) whether the selection process is vitiated on account of completing the selection in the light of the changed reservation policy and on account of arbitrary and unfair approach in awarding marks and completing the selection without adhering to any criteria whatsoever, (ii) if so, then to what relief the petitioner is entitled?
13. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that in the advertisement, a detailed break-up has been given about the total number of posts in the subject in question which makes it clear that post so bifurcated to the various categories happened to be in accordance with the then prevailing reservation policy as stood before U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994. It Is also clear from the advertisement that selection was to be made through interview and it is only for the purposes of restricting the number of candidates for interview to a reasonable limit, the educational qualification, academic record percentage of marks and experience etc. was to be taken care of. As the facts mentioned in counter-affidavit filed by the State authority could not give clear stand and the criteria, forming the basis for the selection in question, pursuant to directions of this Court as referred above, two supplementary counter-affidavits has come on record. A perusal of various details as has been given in the counter-affidavit and three supplementary counter-affidavits as has been filed by the State authorities makes it clear that the respondents are not consistent in their stand rather they have taken different stands which gives an impression that the exercise has been arbitrary, whimsical, providing a complete room for adopting principle of pick and choose. It will be useful to quote here some of the averments as has been made in various supplementary counter-affidavits, which reads thus :
"Thereafter, the candidates appearing in each of the above slabs were short listed in order of their percentage of marks in B.A./B.Sc. degree."
"The Hon'ble Member of the Commission also dwelled upon the idea of making out average of the marks secured by a candidate in his B.A./B.Sc. degree, B.Ed./L.T. (Theory) and B.Ed./L.T. (Practical) and to lay criteria accordingly but he did not find it to be practical to work out marks from the mark-sheet of B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed./L.T. (Theory) and B.Ed./L.T. (Practical) exams. Moreover, in some of the cases the percentage of marks secured by the candidate in B.Ed./L.T. (Theory) and B.Ed./L.T. (Practical) examinations were not given separately. Besides this, giving importance to performance in B.A./B.Sc. B.Ed./L.T. (Theory) and B.Ed./L.T. (Practical) separately was also not possible. Hence the idea of short listing on the basis of average of the percentage of marks secured by the candidates in B.A./B.Sc., B.Ed./L.T. (Theory) and B.Ed./L.T. (Practical) Exams. was abandoned."
"The criteria for awarding marks in interview was based on academic achievements of the candidates right from High School and onwards and also on his performance in interview. Out of 100 marks allocated for interview, 35 marks were earmarked for academic achievement of the candidate and 65 marks were for his/her performance in interview. The final selection was based on the total of the two in order of merit."
14. The averment as contained in para 5 of the second supplementary counter-affidavit states thus :
"It's bifurcation into slab of 35 and 65 marks as earmarked for academic achievements and performance before the Interview Board is not on record. However, the details of the marks earmarked for academic record, as appear from selection records of Lecturer for Government Inter Colleges submitted before this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 28549 of 1996, Neeta Tiwari and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. supported by affidavit shows the bifurcation of the marks of academic records as under :
S. No. Class Division I II III
1. High School 3 2 1
2. Intermediate 5 4 3
3. B.A./B.Sc.
4. M.A.
5. B.Ed./L.T.
6. Ph.D.
7. N.C.C.
-
-
15. Averment as contained in para 6 in the aforesaid supplementary counter-affidavit states :
"That based on the above criteria, the marks secured by the petitioner as well as the last candidate selected on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade) Bio-Group can be worked out."
16. Averment as contained in para 8 in the aforesaid supplementary counter-affidavit states :
"It is to submit that the details of the marks secured by the candidates for their performance before the Interview Board, earmarked as 65 marks, has also not been given separately by the Interview Board. However, this may be worked out by subtracting the marks secured by the candidates for their academic achievements earmarked as of 35 marks from the total marks which have been given for all candidates interviewed by the Interview Board.
That based on the above, the marks secured by the last selected candidate Sri Ashok of General Category for his performance before the Interview Board works out to be 64 out of 100-24 out of 35-40 out of 65 marks. The marks secured by the petitioner for his performance before the Interview Board may also be worked out accordingly."
17. Averment as contained in para 4 of the third supplementary counter-affidavit states :
"That it may be clarified that the averments made in paragraph 5 of the 2nd supplementary counter-affidavit are in order, by way of an example, to show to this Hon'ble Court the bifurcation of 35 marks earmarked for academic qualifications adopted in connection with the selection on the post of lecturer for Government Intermediate Colleges. It is in no way connected with the selection on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade), Biology subject in question, in as much as the above bifurcation of 35 marks are not on record in present case."
18. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that at one stage the respondents have stated that the candidates were short listed according to the academic records but at the same time, it is stated that idea of short listing was abandoned. It is also clear that respondents have stated that the criteria for awarding marks in interview was based on academic records of the candidate and also on his performance in interview. Out of 100 marks, 35 marks were allocated for the academic achievement and 65 marks on the performance in the Interview and the final selection was based on total of both in order of merit. In view of the facts so stated by the respondents in the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is clear that no separate marks have been awarded to any candidate on his performance in the interview, i.e., on the personality test and it is just after deducting marks so received on the academic records, out of total marks so given to the candidate, the marks which will come out is to be accepted/treated to be the marks so given on the personality test. This appears to be clearly arbitrary on the part of the respondents inasmuch as unless separate specific marks is given to a particular candidate after making the assessment at the time of the interview, it will be wholly unreasonable to accept that after deducting the marks based on their academic record, the remaining marks so remain with the candidate has to be inferred to have been received in the personality test. The submission of the learned standing counsel that the members after considering the academic records have given a lump-sum marks on completion of the interview to a particular candidate without bifurcating the same, that what marks have been received in the personality test speaks about arbitrariness in the matter. As and when, bifurcation is there, then the members of the Board will have to assign separate marks on every count and, therefore, it appears to be a very novel method and process which appears to have been adopted by the members of the selecting body, It appears that the respondents have not been able to demonstrate and justify the final selection in accordance with the merit of the selected candidates on the basis of the separate marks which a particular candidate has received on two separate counts and, therefore, by changing stand from here to there, by stating that candidates were short listed and then by saying that the idea of short listing was abandoned and although separate marks were earmarked for academic record and the personality test but a policy was adopted of giving lump-sum marks on overall assessment, the selection has been tried to be justified. This Court is of the opinion that it was obligatory on the part of the members of the Interview Board to have awarded specific marks immediately on the assessment of a particular candidate and they have no business and concern of clubbing the marks based on academic records and just to place before this Court that a lump-sum mark was given. Besides aforesaid, it also appears that authorities have acted in an unfair manner by allowing full marks to the last selected candidate for his M.A. History subject treating it to be at par to the petitioner who has completed his M.Sc. whereas the selection happens to be for the assistant teacher in Biology. The certificate of N.C.C. which is said to be the basis for giving 3 marks to the last selected candidate, has been also prima facie demonstrated to be not a genuine document as completion of 'A' and 'B' certificate appears to have been issued in one document in which it is mentioned that 'B' certificate has been completed in the year 1989 and 'A' has been completed in the year 1987 which is apparently doubtful. The date of issuance of the said certificate is also totally blurred. For all these reasons, it is clear that the respondents have not proceeded to complete selection for the post in question in a fair manner, by adhering to a valid criteria. The other aspect that whether the respondent authorities were justified in taking into account the changed reservation policy per U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994, suffice it to say that admittedly interview pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.5.1992 started on 7.6.1993, i.e., much before coming into effect the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994, Although the interview pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.5.1992 which started on 7.6.1993 was in respect to the different subject and the interview for the subject in question started on 8.8.1994 but to my mind, the selection process is to be taken as a whole pursuant to any advertisement and it cannot be bifurcated and a different date of the selection process cannot be accepted varying from subject to subject although, it is taking place pursuant to one and the same advertisement. In view of the aforesaid, on the finding that selection process has started on 7.6.1993, i.e., before commencement of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994, the authorities were not justified in completing the selection in the light of changed reservation policy per U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994. In this view of the matter also, the selection process appears to be vitiated.
19. Now the question remains that even on taking decision that selection process is vitiated, what relief is to be given in this petition. The question in this respect has already engaged attention of the Court from time to time. It has been held by the Apex Court that in the event it is found that entire selection process is tainted with the Illegality and it suffers from vice of arbitrariness and reasonableness, entire selection can be quashed even without giving any opportunity to either the members of the Board or the selectees as merely by their selection, they have no right of being heard. The reference in this respect can be given to the decisions as has been given in Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., JT 1994 (5) SC 245 : Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 796 ; General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad and Anr. v. A.V.R, Siddhantti and Ors.. (1974) 4 SCC 335 ; Satpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 206 and Bistua Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors., 1998 (5) Supreme 216.
20. Observations as has been made by (he Apex Court in para 11 of the judgment as given in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh (supra) will be useful to be quoted here :
"11. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so cither arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reason and not arbitrarily. In the instant ease, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in C.T.U. was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the sustainability of the judgment of C.A.T. under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected,"
21. Another observation as has been given by the Apex Court in paras 17 and 19 of the decision given in Pritpal Singh (supra) will be also useful to be quoted here :
"17. For all these reasons, taken together, we are satisfied that the selection made by the Board was not objective and fair and must be quashed along with the appointments made by the State Government consequent thereto.
19. It is in the public interest that members of the police force should be selected objectively and fairly. The factors that we have enumerated above satisfy us that the selection made by the Board was not objective and fair. It is, therefore, in the public interest that the selections and the appointments made consequent thereon be quashed forthwith."
22. The Apex Court in the decision as given in the case of Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. (supra) in para 3 has observed thus :
"3. A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of malpractices in the selection process. The question, therefore, is whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them? It is true, as contended by Mr. Santosh Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of selection is not found correct in accordance with law, necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. In a ease like mass malpractice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore, the question emerges ; whether the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they needed to be heard? Nothing would become fruitful by Issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the brunt, Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons who are said to have selected and given selection and appointment. The procedure adopted are in flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
23. In view of the aforesaid decisions given by the Apex Court, on the findings so arrived about the apparent arbitrariness in the selection process, the entire selection can be quashed by this Court but at the same time, this Court feels that as the selection has already been finalised in the year 1994, the selectees having been appointed, must be working on their respective posts for the last 6-7 years, and some of them must have become overage also, quashing of the entire selection now at this stage, may not be in the ends of justice. Total number of the selectees taking all the subjects, pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/92-93 runs in thousands. But at the same time as the petitioner has made out a case of his exclusion from the select list on the basis of the arbitrary approach of the respondent authority, he is entitled to get a direction and the relief in the light of the decision as has been given by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra). The direction/observation as is contained in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Para 40 will be useful to be quoted here :
"40. As these appellants are succeeding in their appeals the respondents are now directed to appoint these appellants on the posts of Taxation Inspector/Excise Inspector as the case may be, if they are otherwise found suitable for these posts. It is further made clear that in case anyone of these appellants has become overage during this period, this would not be considered as a disqualification for their appointment to the above post. The respondents shall take suitable steps and pass appropriate orders for appointing these three petitioners within one month of the communication of this order."
24. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner is entitled to get a relief from this Court to the extent that State authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher (Biology) in any of the Government college in the State in any existing vacancy and in the event it is not available at this stage, then immediately as and when it occurs without raising any objection in respect to the age, in the event petitioner has become overage by this time. This exercise shall be completed by the State authorities within a period of two months from communication of this order, in the event post is available at present.
25. On the finding having been arrived at that petitioner is entitled to get relief from this Court, the submission of the learned standing counsel that as the respondent Commission has been dissolved, no relief can be allowed to the petitioner deserves rejection. As the State authorities have appeared before this Court and have filed affidavits from time to time, duly sweared by the Special Secretary, Karmik Vibhag, U. P. Government, it appears to be a highly technical objection from the side of the respondents, which needs to be dealt with a direction to the Secretary, Karmik Vibhag U. P. Government to ensure compliance of this order through the competent authority in this respect.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition succeeds in part and while maintaining the selection pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/92-93 the State authorities are directed to suitably appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) in any of the Government college of the State within the time so provided in this judgment. There will be no order as to cost.