# Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 381
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-12
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 245 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-shoeb-khan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45347
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Intermediate Education
Act,
1921
-
Section
16FF
-
Indian
Constitution - Article 30 - Appointment .

The appellants was selected and appointed in
the institution as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade.
Their appointment was approved by the District
Inspector of Schools. Joint Director of Education
found gross irregularities in the entire selection
process. The enquiry initiated at the behest of
the court reveals that their signatures have
been forged on the papers relating to selection
which were forwarded by the management.
Such
selection
procedure
in
a
minority
institution and rights of the respondents to
review or scrutinize an appointment made is
governed by the provisions made in Section
16FF. Serious discrepancies were found in the
selection process. The members who were
shown as constituting the Selection Committee
have not only denied having participated in any
such exercise, they have gone to the extent of
asserting that their signatures as stated to
appear on the record of selection have been
forged. (Para 13, 14)

The
Constitution
while
recognizing
and
preserving the right of minorities to establish
and administer educational institutions under
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution envisage it
to be a carte blanche to maladminister or to
ignore basic concepts of fairness which must
infuse any recruitment exercise. (Para 16)

Special Appeal Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381
bail, then the bail application of the
applicants be considered and decided in
view of the settled law laid by this Court in
the case of Amrawati and another Vs.
State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR
290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322
(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs.
State of U.P.

17. For a period of thirty (30) days
from today or till the disposal of the
application for grant of bail, whichever is
earlier, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants.

18. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below,
within the aforesaid period, coercive action
shall be taken against them.

19. With the aforesaid directions, this
application stands disposed of, accordingly.
----------
(2020)10ILR A381
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.06.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 245 of 2020
&
Special Appeal Defective No. 209 of 2020
&
Special Appeal Defective No. 210 of 2020

Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rahul Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Gautam Baghel

A. Service Law - Intermediate Education
Act,
1921
-
Section
16FF
-
Indian
Constitution - Article 30 - Appointment .

The appellants was selected and appointed in
the institution as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade.
Their appointment was approved by the District
Inspector of Schools. Joint Director of Education
found gross irregularities in the entire selection
process. The enquiry initiated at the behest of
the court reveals that their signatures have
been forged on the papers relating to selection
which were forwarded by the management.
Such
selection
procedure
in
a
minority
institution and rights of the respondents to
review or scrutinize an appointment made is
governed by the provisions made in Section
16FF. Serious discrepancies were found in the
selection process. The members who were
shown as constituting the Selection Committee
have not only denied having participated in any
such exercise, they have gone to the extent of
asserting that their signatures as stated to
appear on the record of selection have been
forged. (Para 13, 14)

The
Constitution
while
recognizing
and
preserving the right of minorities to establish
and administer educational institutions under
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution envisage it
to be a carte blanche to maladminister or to
ignore basic concepts of fairness which must
infuse any recruitment exercise. (Para 16)

Special Appeal Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ajay Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 32932 of 2004

2. Sanjay Kumar Sigh Vs District Inspector of
Schools, Jaunpur & ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 9738 of 2009

3. TMA Pai Foundation Vs St. of Karnataka
(2002) 8 SCC 481
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Sk. Md. Rafique Vs Managing Committee
Contai Rahamania High Madrasah & ors. (2020)
SCC Online SC 4

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
 & Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. The Court convened through video
conferencing.

2. Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioners-appellants and
Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for State respondents. Shri Ashok
Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Gautam Baghel appears for Committee
of Management, Mirza Anwar Beg Inter
College,
Userahta,
Shahganj,
Jaunpur
through its Manager.

3. With the consent of parties, all the
special appeals are being decided by this
common judgment.

4. The Court has occasion to peruse
the exemption applications filed in Special
Appeal Defective Nos.209 of 2020 and 210
of 2020 and find substance in both the
applications.
Both
the
exemption
applications stand allowed.

5. Present intra Court special appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High
Court Rules have been preferred against the
common
judgment
and
order
dated
11.2.2020 passed by learned Single Judge
in Writ-A Nos.9034 of 2013; 31865 of
2013 and 31868 of 2013 by which all the
writ
petitions
were
dismissed
with
following observations:-

".............The imperatives of a fair
and just process of recruitment in order to
select the most deserving and qualified
candidate is a facet which has an indelible
bond to standards of education in an
educational institution. The rights that are
claimed
by
a
minority
institution,
consequently must be read as being subject
to the caveat noticed above, namely, the
obligation to act in accordance with the
mandate of Articles 14 and 16. A process of
recruitment which does not answer even
the rudimentary requirements of a fair and
just process can neither commend sanction
in law nor can it be preserved by the
protective umbrella of Article 30 of the
Constitution. Regard must also be had to
the fact that the Institution was in receipt of
State aid. Once that institution stands
conferred that benefit, the respondents
could legitimately claim the right to
regulate the selection process within the
narrow confine culled out above. The
provisions of Section 16FF cannot be
construed as conferring an immunity to the
minority institution to claim a right to
select and appoint by adopting a process
which is neither fair nor transparent. The
right to select a teacher must be read as
being hedged and subject to the rigours of
other parts of the Constitution.

The power of the State to regulate
and overseee within this narrow confine
has an ineradicable link to maintenance of
standards of education. The power if so
exercised can neither be viewed as an
infringment nor can it be said to impinge
upon the rights guaranteed by Article 30.
The State cannot be expected to remain a
mute spectator while a minority institution
proceeds to adopt a selection process
which does not answer the requirement of
Articles 14 and 16. Article 30 is neither an
impregnable
barrier
nor
can
it
be
construed as a restraint upon the power of
the State to regulate the affairs of a
minority institution to the extent that the
said power is exercised and invoked in aid
of maintenance of standards. A minority
10 All. Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
383
institution cannot be permitted in law to act
with impunity and then rise up to claim an
unbridled
constitutional
right
to
administer. That right must be balanced
against the constitutional obligation placed
upon all constituents to act in accordance
with law and the Constitution.

The Court also bears in mind that
in the present case, it is the Management
which
has
proceeded
to
annul
the
appointment of the petitioners. It does not
assert or contend that its rights to
administer
and
manage
have
been
interfered with. Bearing in mind the serious
irregularities from which the selection
process stood tainted, the Court is of the
considered view that the petitioners are not
entitled to any relief and the petitions must
fail.

The
writ
petitions
are
consequently dismissed."

6. It appears from the record in question
that the Writ-A No.9034 of 2013 had been
preferred assailing the validity of the order
dated 17th November, 2011 passed by the
Joint Director of Education and consequential
order dated 14th December, 2012 passed by
the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). The
order of the Joint Director dated 17th
November, 2011 had been passed in
pursuance of the directions issued by the
Court in Writ-A No.20463 of 2011. The
order dated 17th November, 2011 directed
the District Inspector of Schools to undertake
a detailed enquiry in respect of the alleged
irregularities in connection of the selection of
two Assistant Teachers in the respondentminority institution in question. The two
Assistant Teachers are the petitionersappellants in the present special appeals.

7. The petitioners-applicants claim to
have been selected and appointed in the
institution as Assistant Teachers in LT
Grade on 10th April, 2003. Consequently,
the District Inspector of Schools by its
order dated 22nd February, 2005 accorded
approval to the appointment of the
petitioners-appellants.
Consequently
a
complaint was made in 2020 to the DIOS
by certain members claiming affiliation to a
new Committee of Management, which had
come
to
hold
office.
One
of
the
complainants approached the Court by
filing Writ Petition No.20463 of 2011,
which was disposed of with direction to the
Joint Director of Education to enquire into
the
compliant
and
take
appropriate
decision. Pursuant to the said direction, the
order impugned dated 17th November,
2011 had been passed by which an enquiry
was initiated, whereby the Committee of
Management terminated the services of the
petitioners-appellants. It is evident from the
order dated 17th November, 2011 that there
were gross illegalities and irregularities
committed in the entire selection process in
question.
The
enquiry,
which
was
undertaken by the educational authorities
established that most of the members of the
Selection Committee had subsequently
stated that their signatures had been forged
on the papers relating to selection, which
were forwarded by the Management. The
respondents have also found serious
discrepancies and lack of particulars in the
advertisements, which were issued. It was
also
noted
that
in
none
of
the
advertisements the subject or disciplines in
respect of which appointments were sought
to be made found mention. The Joint
Director in its order had also noted that
Mohd. Saleem Khan (petitioner-appellant
herein) was appointed on the post of Asstt.
Teacher LT Grade and was having
qualifications of B.Sc., B.Ed., whereas the
advertised qualification was B.A., B.Ed. So
far as Mohd. Shoeb Khan (petitionerappellant herein) is concerned, he held the
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
qualifications of B.A. and Drawing Grade
Examination but did not held the B.Ed.
degree at all. A categorical finding of fact
has been recorded qua the essential
qualifications
against
the
petitionersappellants as well as the fallacies in the
advertisement.
In
this
backdrop,
the
respondent authorities commanded the
Management to terminate the services of
the two Assistant Teachers i.e. the
petitioners-appellants.

8. Learned Single Judge, in this
backdrop,
while
dismissing
the
writ
petitions has heavily relied upon the
enquiry so made in response to the writ
Court direction and also considered the
relevant provisions of the Act of 19211 and
specially the provisions of Section 16FF of
the Act of 1921 as well as Appendix-C
contained in Chapter-II of the Regulations
framed under the Act of 1921.

9. Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel
for
the
petitioners-appellants
has
vehemently contended that the Joint
Director of Education had no jurisdiction or
authority to pass directions to the District
Inspector of Schools to undertake any
enquiry. He has also heavily relied upon
the provisions of Section 16FF of the Act
of 1921 and contended that the power to
interfere with the choice made by the
Management stands vested only in the
Regional Deputy Director of Education or
the Inspector as the case may be. It is also
submitted that the Joint Director had no
power to recommend or command the
Management to terminate the services of
the petitioners-appellants. But strangely the
authority i.e. Joint Director of Education,
which had no jurisdiction in the matter held
that
the
appointment
is
illegal
and
commanded the DIOS to take necessary
action, which resulted into stopping of
salary and finally the Committee of
Management terminated the services of the
petitioners appellants. Learned counsel for
the petitioners-appellants has also urged
that the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge based upon the enquiry made
by the authority qua the educational
qualifications is also unsustainable as the
petitioners-appellants
had
requisite
qualifications. Infact it was no one's case
that
the
petitioners-appellants'
appointments
were
made
on
nonsanctioned post. The appellant no.1 Mohd.
Shoeb Khan was duly qualified for Arts
teacher and appellant no.2 Mohd. Saleem
Khan was duly qualified for Science
teacher. The respondents have transgressed
their authority in outreaching the scope of
enquiry under Section 16FF of the Act of
1921, which lays provisions vis-a-vis
service conditions in minority institutions.
As such it is contended that the order
passed
by
learned
Single
Judge
is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Moreover the petitioners-appellants in
response to the advertisement applied and
they have rendered more than 7 years of
their service and in most arbitrary manner
their services have been dispensed with. As
such it is contended that this Court should
come for rescue and reprieve of the
petitioners-appellants otherwise they would
suffer irreparable loss and injury.

10. Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned
Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed
the special appeals and submitted that due
to gross illegalities, which were noticed in
the course of enquiry and from which the
selection
proceedings
undisputedly
sufferred, the respondent authorities were
fully justified in interfering with the entire
process and command the respondent
management to terminate those illegal
appointments. More so the same was done
10 All. Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
385
on the dictate/ direction made by the Court
and as such at no point of time the
respondent authorities had transgressed or
violated any provisions of the Act of 1921.
They were fully justified in interfering with
the entire process and commanded the
respondent-management to terminate those
illegal
appointments.
He
has
also
vehemently contended that full fledged
mechanism is provided in the Act of 1921
and the minority institutions may be
empowered to select appointment and
eligible persons in the light of the
provisions made under Section 16FF, the
State cannot be said to be totally deprived
or denuded of authority especially when the
burden of salaries of such teachers would
ultimately fall on public exchequer. On the
basis of record admittedly there were
discrepancy in the advertisement, which
has been highlighted in the enquiry and
more so the petitioners-appellants did not
have
minimum
eligibility
to
get
appointment. Therefore, the entire selection
was dehorse the provisions and the
petitioners-appellants failed to justify that
the
selection
was
made
strictly
in
accordance with law. There is no infirmity
or illegality in the orders impugned passed
by the educational authorities, which are
rightly approved and upheld by learned
Single Judge.

11. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Gautam Baghel,
learned
counsel
for
Committee
of
Management has also vehemently opposed
the present special appeals and submitted
that the enquiry was made by the
educational authorities on the basis of
record available in which it was found that
there was discrepancy in the appointment.
Once the complaint was made and in the
enquiry it had been found that there were
discrepancies in the selection process and
the appointments were made dehorse the
Rules, then definitely the management had
to give due weightage to the outcome of the
enquiry. More so the appointments of the
petitioners-appellants were dispensed with
in the year 2013 and therefore at this
belated stage no interference is required.
Learned
Single
Judge
has
rightly
considered the provisions enshrined in the
Act of 1921 and there is no infirmity or
illegality in order impugned.

12. Heard rival submissions and
perused the record.

13. It is evident from the record that
the Joint Director of Education in his order
dated 17th November, 2011 has found that
there were gross irregularities committed
by the management in the entire selection
process. Moreso the said enquiry was made
on the directions issued by the Court. The
enquiry also revealed that most of the
members of the Selection Committee had
subsequently stated that their signatures
had been forged on the papers relating to
selection, which were forwarded by the
management. Serious discrepancy and lack
of particulars in the advertisement were
also found.

14. It may be noted that the selection
and appointment of teachers in a minority
institution and the right of the respondents
to review or scrutinise an appointment
made is governed by the provisions made
in Section 16FF. The provision firstly lays
down the composition of the Selection
Committee. In case selection is for the
Head of the institution, it must comprise of
an expert selected out of a panel prepared
by the Director. In case of appointment of a
Teacher, the Selection Committee must
also include the head of the Institution as a
member. Section 16FF (2) then provides
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the Selection Committee shall follow
such procedure "as may be prescribed".
Regulation 17 falling in Chapter II which
admittedly governs selections undertaken
by a minority institution, attracts the
procedure prescribed by Regulation 10
clauses (e) and (f) to such selections. In this
backdrop,
learned
Single
Judge
has
considered the judgment passed in Ajay
Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.2
where the position has been taken that the
provisions made in Appendix-C contained
in Chapter II of the Regulations framed
under the 1921 Act would ipso facto apply
to minority institutions also and in view
thereof
it
was
incumbent
upon
the
Selection Committee to award quality point
marks upon the evaluation of individual
candidates.
The
legal
position
as
enunciated in Ajay Singh (Supra) is as
under:-

"In
view
of
the
aforesaid
provisions, Appendix 'C' attached to
Chapter-II becomes applicable in respect
of selections made on the post of Lecturers
in
minority
institutions
automatically.
Appendix 'C' regulates the manner in which
quality point marks and interview marks
ought to be provided as well as bifurcation
of the same. Proceedings of selection are
necessary to be submitted in Appendix 'C',
referred to above. It is only on such
proceedings submitted in Appendix 'C', that
the educational authorities can act upon
and take decision for grant of approval to
selected candidate. Appendix 'C' reads as
follows:"

From the affidavit filed by the
Regional Joint Director of Education,
noticed herein above, it is apparent that the
proceedings of selection, as required, have
not been intimated as required in Appendix
'C' nor there is any other record available
to educational authorities on the basis
whereof Appendix 'C' could be prepared for
taking decision that the selection on the
post in question is in accordance with law.
Even otherwise none of the respondents
being able to demonstrate as to what was
the maximum marks fixed for interview, the
entire documents submitted for selection
are rendered mere paper transaction. This
Court is also not able to ascertain what
was
the
maximum
marks
fixed
for
interview.

In view of the aforesaid, the
entire papers pertaining to the selection of
Sri Desh Deepak Srivastava do not inspire
confidence and therefore the selection of
Sri Desh Deepak Srivastava cannot be said
to have taken place in accordance with the
provisions applicable."

15. Learned Single Judge has also
considered the judgment rendered in
Sanjay
Kumar
Singh
v.
District
Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur & Ors.3
and has held that it was incumbent upon the
Selection Committee to draw a chart
evidencing a comparative analysis of the
respective merit of candidates and the
award of quality point marks. Undisputedly
in the present case no such exercise was
undertaken. The members who were shown
as constituting the Selection Committee
have not only denied having participated in
any such exercise, they have gone to the
extent of asserting that their signatures as
stated to appear on the record of selection
have been forged. This aspect amounts to a
flagrant
violation
of
the
procedure
prescribed by statute.

16. We are also of the opinion that
Article 30 standing in Part III of the
Constitution like all other rights is not
absolute.
The
Constitution
while
recognising and preserving the right of
minorities to establish and administer
10 All. Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
387
educational institutions does not envisage it
to be a carte blanche to maladminister or to
ignore basic concepts of fairness which
must infuse any recruitment exercise. The
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State
of Karnataka4 has observed as under:-

"135.
We
agree
with
the
contention of the learned Solicitor-General
that the Constitution in Part III does not
contain or give any absolute right. All
rights conferred in Part III of the
Constitution are subject to at least other
provisions of the said Part. It is difficult to
comprehend that the framers of the
Constitution would have given such an
absolute right to the religious or linguistic
minorities, which would enable them to
establish
and
administer
educational
institutions in a manner so as to be in
conflict with the other Parts of the
Constitution. We find it difficult to accept
that
in
the
establishment
and
administration of educational institutions
by the religious and linguistic minorities,
no law of the land, even the Constitution, is
to apply to them.

136.Decisions of this Court have
held that the right to administer does not
include the right to maladminister. It has
also been held that the right to administer
is not absolute, but must be subject to
reasonable regulations for the benefit of
the institutions as the vehicle of education,
consistent with national interest. General
laws of the land applicable to all persons
have been held to be applicable to the
minority institutions also -- for example,
laws relating to taxation, sanitation, social
welfare, economic regulation, public order
and morality.

137.It follows from the aforesaid
decisions that even though the words of
Article 30(1) are unqualified, this Court
has held that at least certain other laws of
the land pertaining to health, morality and
standards of education apply. The right
under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been
held to be absolute or above other
provisions of the law, and we reiterate the
same. By the same analogy, there is no
reason why regulations or conditions
concerning, generally, the welfare of
students and teachers should not be made
applicable in order to provide a proper
academic atmosphere, as such provisions
do not in any way interfere with the right of
administration
or
management
under
Article 30(1)."

17. Similar view has also been taken
by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision
in Sk. Md. Rafique Vs. Managing
Committee Contai Rahamania High
Madrasah and others5 as under:-

"106.The decision inTMA Pai
Foundation8, rendered by Eleven Judges of
this Court, thus put the matter beyond any
doubt and clarified that the right under
Article 30(1) is not absolute or above the
law and that conditions concerning the
welfare of the students and teachers must
apply in order to provide proper academic
atmosphere, so long as the conditions did
not interfere with the right of the
administration or management. What was
accepted as correct approach was the test
laid down by Khanna, J. in Ahmedabad St.
Xavier's College5 case that a balance be
kept between two objectives - one to ensure
the standard of excellence of the institution
and the other preserving the right of the
minorities to establish and administer their
educational institutions. The essence of
Article 30(1) was also stated - "to ensure
equal treatment between the majority and
the minority institutions" and that rules and
regulations would apply equally to the
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
majority institutions as well as to the
minority institutions."

18. More so learned Single Judge has
rightly highlighted in the operative portion
of the judgment that in the present case, it
is the Management which has proceeded to
annul the appointment of the petitioners. It
does not assert or contend that its rights to
administer
and
manage
have
been
interfered with. Bearing in mind the serious
irregularities from which the selection
process stood tainted, learned Single Judge
has rightly dismissed the writ petitions.

19.

Considering
the
fact
and
circumstances, the Court does not find any
infirmity or illegality in the judgment
passed by learned Single Judge. Present
special
appeals
sans
merit
and
are
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A388
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

WRIT - A No. 5576 of 2020

Shikhar Agrawal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri M.N. Singh,
Sri Rahul Srivastava

A. Service Law - U.P. Judicial Service
Rules, 2001; U.P. Judicial Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Rule 20(3) -
Process of selection/Preparation of waitlist The Commission after undertaking the
process
of
examination/interview
is
obliged to prepare a list of finally selected
candidates alongwith a wait-list in order
of
their
proficiency
as
disclosed
by
aggregate of marks finally awarded to
each candidate in the written examination
and the interview. The wait-list is to be
utilized only in case, the candidates in the
select list do not join the posts and shall
not
be
utilized
for
any
subsequent
vacancies.

Petitioner states that the respondent No. 1 had
issued
an
advertisement
dated
11.9.2018
inviting applications from eligible candidates for
U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Examination,
2018.
The
final
result
of
Examination was declared on 20.07.2019 in
which cutoff marks for General Category was
560 wherein the petitioner had obtained 559
marks. The petitioner further states that
candidates selected under General Category,
have joined or have been selected elsewhere.
(Para 4, 5)

The petitioner sought information under RTI Act
regarding his placement in waiting list but no
such information has been supplied. The appeal
filed on 11.11.2019 is still pending. The
respondents have also not cancelled the
candidature of the candidates, who failed to join
the post as advertised. (Para 6)

Respondents have failed to show that any
waiting list as envisaged under Rule 20 sub-rule
(3) has been prepared, to fill up the vacancies
rendered vacant on account of non-joining of
the selected candidates within a specified
period. (Para 7, 8)

Writ petition disposed of with the directions to
the commission to forward the list of wait listed
candidates against each category and to fill up
posts that have not been utilized in any
subsequent recruitment, strictly in accordance
with the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules,
2001, within the specified time. (Para 10). ( E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Nadeem Anwar Vs State of U.P & anr., (2016)
2 UPLBEC 1391 (Para 7)