The Allahabad High Court has directed that there be no interference in the work of candidates selected in the recruitment of Assistant Professor and sought replies from the Commission and the Uttar Pradesh Government.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a Special Appeal Defective filed by Smt Hemlata Saini.
The counsel for the appellant has submitted that this is a case where the appellant was selected and appointed; whereafter, the result was revised by the Commission on its own, independent of any direction and, thereafter, by the order impugned the single judge gave liberty to revise the result even though the selected and appointed candidates, who were not even impleaded, were affected by such revision of result.
It is stated that as a consequence of the revision, the appellant’s services are likely to be dispensed with and, therefore, the appellant has a right to file an appeal against the order impugned.
The counsel for the appellant also invited the Court’s attention to an interim order passed on 10.01.2023 in Special Appeal Defective connected with Special Appeal Defective which dealt with an identical issue.
The interim order dated 10.01.2023 in Special Appeal Defective No 11 of 2023 connected with Special Appeal Defective Nos 12 of 2023 and 15 of 2023 is as follow: “These three appeals though challenge separate orders passed in three separate writ petitions but as the orders passed by the Single Judge have resulted in a revised select list, affecting these three sets of appellants in a similar way, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, we have heard these appeals together and a common order is being passed.
The case of the appellants is that in three separate writ petitions, the writ petitioners aggrieved by alleged non-evaluation of one or more of the answers rendered by them in OMR answer sheets, questioned the final selection with a prayer that they be accorded marks for their non-evaluated answer and that the final selection be quashed and they be included in the list. In the writ proceeding, before the Single Judge, the counsel for the respondent-Commission made a statement that similar mistakes have occurred in evaluation of answer sheets for other candidates as well. Relying on such a statement made by the counsel representing the Commission, the Single Judge by separate orders in the three writ petitions left it open for the Commission to prepare a revised result by observing that any joining offered in the meanwhile would remain subject to the final result to be declared by the Commission. With the aforesaid observations, the petitions were disposed of.
It is the case of the appellants that in the three writ petitions either the appellants were not impleaded as party respondent or they were not served with notice of the writ proceedings; that the final result/select list had already been finalized and, acting on the result, appointments were offered and candidates had joined their respective institutions therefore, no order affecting their interest could have been passed without giving them opportunity of hearing. It has been urged that the role of Commission is inexplicable as to how they could resile from their own final result without even a specific direction of the writ court. It is urged that the Commission made a statement before the writ court and the Single Judge without testing the merit of that statement, permitted the Commission to revise the result as a consequence whereof the selected candidates who had already joined the institution pursuant to the earlier final list would get affected.
It has also been urged that revision of the result is not an exercise of the Commission independent to the orders impugned. Rather, the revised result published on 21.12.2022 declares that it is pursuant to the directions issued by the Single Judge. In such circumstances, the appellants have no option but to challenge the order of the Single Judge.
Sanjeev Singh, counsel for the respondent no 5 in Special Appeal Defective No 11 of 2023, submits that in his writ petition the appellant no 9 (Dharmendra) was impleaded as a party respondent though he was not served with notice of the proceeding.
Upon consideration of the submissions made, bearing in mind that the orders have been passed ex-parte against the appellants, resulting in revision of the declared final result already implemented, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the appellants. Consequently, the delay condonation applications in these three appeals are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned. Office shall assign a regular number to these three appeals.
Considering the submissions made before us, we deem it appropriate to direct that the appellants who have joined pursuant to the final result declared earlier, till the next date of listing, shall be allowed to function and shall not be dislodged on the basis of revised result published on 21.12.2022.
We also deem it appropriate to require the counsel representing the Commission to file an affidavit disclosing the circumstances under which it had revised the entire result, particularly, when there was no specific adjudication by the writ court that the result declared earlier was erroneous and, therefore, required revision.
Let all these three appeals be listed on February 13, 2023. “
In view of the submissions above while keeping in mind the order extracted above, the Court is of the view that the application seeking leave to appeal as well as the delay condonation application are entitled to be allowed and are hereby allowed.
“Let this appeal be connected with Special Appeal Defective No 11 of 2023 (new no Special Appeal No 27 of 2023) and listed along with connected appeals on the date fixed in the connected appeals. In the meantime, the respondents may file counter affidavits.
Till the next date of listing, the functioning of the petitioner shall not be disturbed on the basis of revised result”
-the order reads.