Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed while filling up seats that remain vacant after the first round/original selection in Secondary Education Services.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that the scheme thus framed for wait-listed candidates may be applied to all other pending and future, similar recruitments as well that are governed by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.

The court passed the order in a writ petition moved by one Manoj Kumar Pandey who was on the wait list with reference to the result declared for the Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) Recruitment Examination-2016 for Social Science. 

The exam was conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Board) against 1050 posts of TGT advertised. Out of these 1050 posts, 500 posts were earmarked for the open category, 285 for OBC category, 263 for SC category and 02 for ST category. The petitioner was placed on the wait list at serial no.40 in the general category.

The petitioner moved the high court alleging that no objective criteria and no transparency exists as may allow him to enforce his preferential right to appointment at an institution of his choice, commensurate to his merit position.

Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Alok Mishra, submitted that depending on individual facts operating in individual districts, and dependent on the whims and fancies of certain authorities as also the management of various institutions, appointment letters are being issued on a pick and choose basis, leading to the negation of rule of merit.

Court observed that at present, different DIOS and different institutions act in a short and variable time frame and sometimes on their free will in making choice of the candidates from the waiting lists in recruitments to whom appointment letters may be issued and who may be allowed to join at any particular institution.

Court said that "the above gives rise to avoidable litigation at the instance of candidates on the wait list and in any case, it becomes a complete opaque exercise conducted on the whims and fancies of individual authorities and management who were otherwise obligated in law to follow a common practice and procedure and act with fairness".

Therefore, stating that Board is the central body equipped to fulfill the object and purpose of the Act, court held that it is board's responsibility to prepare the Panel of selected candidates in order of merit, accommodating consideration of reservation etc.

Court opined that since the Board ascertains the choice of the selected candidates and offers placement to selected candidates placed in the select list, in order of their merit position, keeping in mind their choice in the original selection, therefore, there is no reason to not follow the same procedure while giving placement to candidates placed in the waitlist.

Accordingly, court issued the guidelines to be complied with by the Board and the State authorities to fill up all vacancies existing as on September 30, 2022, except where specific Court orders already exist with respect to individual posts and or candidates.

The guidelines include that the Directorate of Secondary Education and the Board shall cause to be hosted on their respective websites, the Scheme for allotment of vacant posts, to waitlisted candidates, as provided by this order, together with date lines.

Details of vacant seats shall be intimated by the Directorate of Secondary Education to the Board which shall offer the vacant posts to the candidates available on the waitlist, in order of merit in the appropriate subject and group category.

The candidates will be allowed to submit their fresh choice of institution/s and thereafter a supplementary panel will be prepared which may be simultaneously hosted on the website of the Board and the Directorate. It may contain the details of the email ID of each candidate, against his/her name. Thereafter, the procedure will be similar to the process adopted during the original recruitment. 

With the abovementioned directions, court disposed of the instant plea. 

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others