High Court directs not to interfere in work of selected candidates of UPHESC Assistant Professor recruitment

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Higher Education Service Commission to allow candidates selected for the post of Assistant Professor in various degree colleges across the state to continue working as before. The court ruled that there should be no impediment to his work. The division bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Vikas issued this order on Wednesday while hearing the appeals of Hemlata Saini and others. By filing an appeal in the High Court, these candidates have expressed concern that their appointments may be jeopardised if the Assistant Professor recruitment results are revised. These chosen candidates also claim that they were not made parties and that their voices were not heard during the revision process. These candidates claim to have been hired after being chosen for the Assistant Professor position. Following that, the Higher Education Service Commission revised the results, stating that there was an error in checking OMR sheets for some candidates, and they did not receive marks for many questions. Many candidates, on the other hand, had filed a petition due to errors in the OMR sheet. A single High Court bench allowed the commission to change the outcome.

Patna High Court orders to investigate 2459 aided madrasas of Bihar (www.eduvast.com)

According to the appellant candidates, they were not made parties to the petition filed in the High Court. The Single Bench did not state in its decision that the earlier result was incorrect. The appellant candidates state that their services may be terminated once the revised results are released. As a result, he has the right to file an appeal against the Single Bench’s decision. They also claim that no order can be issued unless the selected candidates are given an opportunity to be heard.

The Allahabad High Court has summoned the commission and the state government to respond to previous appeals filed in the same matter, directing them not to interfere with the work of the selected candidates. The court ordered that no interference be made in the work of the selected candidates, and that these appeals be filed alongside the previous appeals.