RAN VIJAY SINGH & Ors. v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

1.4 In the first instance the Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee. Having come to the conclusion that both the High Courts ought to have been far more circumspect · in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this scenario, the options are to nullify the entire re evaluation process and depend on the result declared on 14.09.2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose their jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for employment. [Para 34] [113-C-E]

1.5 Having weighed the options, the middle path is perhaps the best path to be taken under the circumstances of the case. The middle path is to declare the third set of results since the 98 RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 99 Board has undertaken a massive exercise under the directions A of the High Court. [Para 35] [113-F]

1.6 In view of the discussion and taking into consideration all the possibilities, the following directions are issued: (1) the results prepared by the Board consequent upon the decision dated 2.11.2015 of the High Court should be declared B by the Board within the stipulated period; (2) the candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be removed from service but should be allowed to continue; c (3) the candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers D would not be entitled to any consequential benefits. [Para 37] [114-B-E]

1.7 Deep anguish is expressed with the turn of events whereby the Single Judge entertained a batch of writ petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, even though several similar writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other Single Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial discipline. A judge might have a differenre of opinion with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view. In the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to so that there is demonstrated respect for the rule of law. [Para 38] [114-E-G] Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University (2005) 13 SCC 744 - distinguishing.