The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking directions to commence the selection process for Assistant Teachers in pursuance of the 2012 advertisement, holding that the issue had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors., (2018) 12 SCC 595. The Court further imposed a cost of ₹100 each on 6,402 petitioners for filing what it termed “luxury litigations.”
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by thousands of candidates who had qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test (Primary Level) – 2011, with results declared on 25.11.2011, 30.11.2011, and 29.1.2015. The petitioners challenged the recruitment process and sought, inter alia, the quashing of TET results, re-evaluation of OMR sheets, cancellation of candidature of those who used whitener, and initiation of recruitment under the 7.12.2012 advertisement by the Basic Education Department.
Petitioners’ Argument
Senior Counsel for the petitioners emphasized only one prayer: that the selection process be initiated in accordance with the 2012 advertisement. It was argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shiv Kumar Pathak did not bar the continuation of recruitment under that advertisement.
Respondents’ Argument
The State, represented by its counsel, opposed the plea, stating that all issues raised had been conclusively addressed by the Supreme Court. Referring to the operative directions in Shiv Kumar Pathak, it was argued that no further selection could proceed under the 2012 advertisement, and a fresh advertisement was required.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, after reproducing the relevant paragraphs of the Supreme Court judgment, held:
“…the Supreme Court in paragraph 19 of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra) has granted liberty to State to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law after issuing a fresh advertisement, therefore, effectively the Supreme Court has passed a direction that selection in terms of advertisement dated 7.12.2012 shall not proceed further.”
The Court found that the relief sought by the petitioners directly contradicted the binding directions of the Supreme Court. It also noted that the issue of TET result re-evaluation and related challenges had already been settled, and could not be reopened.
Decision
The Court dismissed all the writ petitions, stating:
“All Writ Petitions being no force are accordingly dismissed.”
Additionally, observing that the litigation wasted the Court’s time despite full awareness of the settled legal position, the Court imposed costs of ₹100 per petitioner:
“…these litigations appear to be luxury litigations… therefore, all Writ petitioners shall pay Rs.100/- each as cost…”
The deponents of the affidavits accompanying the petitions were held responsible for ensuring payment of the costs to the High Court Bar Association within a week, with the Registrar General empowered to recover the amount in case of default.
