Vikas Gupta v. State of U.P.

allot Sri Chet Ram Singh Inter Collge, Naraora, District- Etah or G.S.A.S. Inter Collge, Mursan, District- Hathras, as both the candidates who were placed in the above noted colleges have given their affidavits before the respondent no. 2, Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, 2 Allahabad (Prayagraj), for change of their place of posting mutually.

#3. The facts of the petition are that an Advertisement No. 02/2016 was published by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) for selection of lecturer in different subjects and the petitioner was duly selected. He was placed at Sr.No.22 of the list of successful candidates. The candidates who were ranked in the final selection list at Sr.Nos.23, 24 and 26 were allotted colleges in Baghpat, Bulandshahr and Baghpat respectively while petitioner was allotted Sri Ram Sharan Inter College, Shivpur, Basantpur, District- Ballia. One Amit Kumar, resident of Firozabad was allotted Sri Chet Ram Singh Inter College, Naraura, District- Etah. The parents of the petitioner are aged about 60 years and suffering from age related ailments. Therefore, the petitioner along with Amit Kumar submitted joint application dated

26.08.2020 with affidavits before the respondent no. 2, Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj, requesting to change their colleges for placement by way of mutual consent. The petitioner submitted another application before the respondent no. 2 supported by affidavit of one Shishupal Singh, resident of 3 Agra, who was placed at Sr.No.4 of the list of general candidates and was allotted G.S.A.S. Inter College, Mursan, District- Hathras, consenting to change his place of placement with the petitioner, Vikas Gupta. 4. The respondent no. 2 changed the posting of the two candidates on the basis of their mutual consent but did not took any action on the request of the petitioner. Hence, he approached this Court by way of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10429 of 2020 which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated

16.12.2020 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, he is before this Court.

#5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 stating that the petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in Physics in general category and after written examination and interview, he was selected at Sr.No.22 of the select list. Chet Ram Inter College was allotted to Amit Kumar who was higher in merit than the petitioner. The Board has no role in transfer of the selected candidates and it is for the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., to make such transfers. He has relied upon Rule 12(9) and Rule 12(10) of Rules, 1998 which are as follows :- 4 “(9) In the case of Lecturer grade, the Board shall at the time of interview after showing the lists of institutions which have notified the vacancy to it, require the candidates to give, if she/he so desires, the choice of not more than five, such institutions in order of preference where it selected, he/she may wish to be appointed and in the case of teachers in trained graduate grade and attached primary teachers such choices shall be given to candidates after preparation of merit list on the basis of written examination by the Board. (10) The Board shall after preparing the panel in accordance with sub-rule (8), allocate the institutions to the selected candidates in respect of the posts of teachers in Lecturers and trained graduates grade in such manner that the candidate whose name appears at the top of the panel shall be allocated the institution of his first preference given in accordance with sub-rule (9). Where a selected candidate cannot be allocated any of the institutions of his preference on the ground that the candidates placed higher in the panel have already been allocated such institutions and there remains no vacancy in them, the Board may allocate any institution to him as it may deem fit.”

#6. The petitioner was allotted institution as per his option after allotting institution to the selected candidates having higher merit and now the petitioner cannot be permitted to change his option.

#7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner never filled the option for the college at Ballia and the Board has adopted pick and choose policy in making allotment of the institutions. Amit Kumar and the petitioner have given their consent for mutual exchange of the places of their placement but the Board is not considering the same on the ground that it has no role in the transfer after it has recommended the names of selected candidates. Rule 12(9) and Rule 12(10) of Rules, 1998 have been relied upon and stated that the 5 Board has no role in mutual transfer of petitioner and another candidate.

#8. In view of the above and in the absence of any rule for mutual transfer, the petitioner may resort to the remedy provided under Regulation Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 61 of Chapter 3 of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act in view of averments made on behalf of the Board that the Board has no role in mutual transfer of the teachers from one institution to the other after their selection.

#9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.06.2022 KS Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad