Ferdino Inacio Rebello,CJ .
The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.8.2010, whereby liberty was given to the respondentsState and other authorities to cancel the selection of persons who had earlier worked as BRC and ABRC and proceed with the fresh selection in that regard. The interference of the learned Single Judge was only in respect of the appellants herein, and rest of the candidates were allowed to work and paid their salary regularly every month.
A few facts necessary for deciding this controversy may be set out. The appellants herein, who were original petitioners 2, 7 and 11, had applied for the post of BRC and were selected for the period commencing 2010. The tenure of the post is of two years. They had also been earlier selected and worked as BRC for the period 2003 to February, 2007, thus they were not working beyond the period February, 2007, until they had applied, pursuant to the fresh advertisement.
The respondentsState sought to cancel all the appointments on the ground that three persons, who were earlier working as BRC and eight persons, who were earlier working as ABRC, who were not eligible, were selected. The learned Single Judge rightly held that because of this purportive defect, the entire selection cannot be cancelled, but only the selection of those candidates, who were not eligible, can be cancelled and accordingly passed the impugned order.
The appellants, who were earlier selected for BRC have challenged that order inasmuch as their selection was cancelled pursuant to the direction issued by this court.
The relevant clause on the basis of which the Staterespondent ought to take a decision is the Notification of 29th of June, 2002. Clause (1) of that Notification provides that those who were working as BRC ABRC will work for two years and after two years, they will not be selected and fresh process of selection would be initiated. The construction of this clause would mean that those who are holding the post of BRCABRC shall not be eligible for the next immediate successive term. That clause now does not say that after the interregnum, they cannot apply afresh. In other words, assuming that the intent of the circular is that those who are selected, cannot claim the permanent right to those posts and also with a view to get new people to oversee the system, which appears to be also its objective. The proper construction as we have set out earlier, would be, that they would not be eligible for the immediate next term but from the subsequent terms after the expiry of two years, they will be eligible.
Our attention was also invited to the judgment of this court rendered in the case of Jagdish Maurya versus State of U.P. And others, an unreported judgment dated 7.4.2010, passed in Special Appeal No.188 of 2010. We have considered the said judgment. We find that the issue in that appeal, is not in issue in the present case. In that case, the appellants who were already working on the post of Coordinator and Block Resource Centre, were contending that after the period of two years, they were eligible to continue and fresh appointment shall not be made. This court rejected the contention of the appellant. Therefore, it was the claim of the incumbent to continue for the immediate next term, which was rejected. Similar is the view taken in the case of Krishna Pal Singh versus State of U.P. And others in Special Appeal No.164 of 2010 decided on 23rd of March, 2010.
Our attention was also invited to the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in the case of Shailendra Kumar Mishra and others versus State of U.P. and others in Civil Misc. Writ petition No.27778 of 2003, decided on 9.4.2004, wherein the learned Single Judge of this court held that there was an earlier scheme, which was replaced by the new scheme. The contention was that they should be allowed to continue in the new scheme. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that they have no right to continue under the new scheme, as they were on deputation. However, based on the statement made on behalf of the respondentState, they have been allowed to apply for selections under the ''Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan'', with an observation that in case, they have applied in pursuance of the advertisement made earlier, or apply a fresh within a period of one month, their candidatures shall also be considered alongwith other applicants, without any preference. The petition was disposed of.
The present issue, therefore, was not an issue in those cases. Therefore, all the three judgments, cited above, are not relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the present special appeal.
However, considering the view taken by us, hereinabove, this appeal is liable to be allowed. The impugned order, whereby it has been held that the appellants are not eligible, is set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the appellants to join the post, forthwith.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
