DR. BABLOO SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS
371 carry forward vacancies which remained unfilled is maintained.(ii) The Director, Higher Education shall before declaring the result against 371 carry forward vacancies shall re-determine the number of vacancies against which select list be issued by applying reservation and roster subject-wise and college-wise. The declaration shall be confined only to those vacancies which were carry forward vacancies and were advertised earlier by advertisement No.29 and could not be filled-up. The Director may determine on the basis of records available with him or may call for any other reports or record from management or any other competent authority. The candidates whose names are included in the select list shall be given option to give fresh choice of the colleges as required by the second proviso to Section 12(4) which has become necessary in view of quashing the advertisement against 471 vacancies and direction issued by this order to the Director to redetermine the correct number of reserved vacancies out of carry forward vacancies against which select list is to be issued. The Director shall complete the aforesaid exercise within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and thereafter take appropriate steps for issuing recommendation for appointment in accordance with U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.(iii) The Director shall take steps for advertising 471 vacancies which were covered by advertisement No.37 applying the rules of reservation and roster as per the above directions by taking necessary steps at an early date.(iv) The rules of reservation and roster shall be applied college-wise and subject-wise when there are plurality of posts as indicated above.? 7. The aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) was challenged before this Court. After grant of special leave to appeal, Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6396 of 2010 were dismissed by this Court on 19.01.2017 in following terms:?We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.We are in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly affirmed.The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.? 8. It appears that in Dr. Archana Mishra and others. v. State of U.P. and others. (Writ Petition No.51212 of 2010), a doubt was raised as to the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) as well as the decision of the Full Bench in Heera Lal?s case (supra) and, therefore, the matters stood referred to the bench of five learned Judges of the High Court to consider five questions as referred hereinabove.9. In view of the fact that the decision of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) was affirmed by this Court, the bench of five Judges considered whether the reference could be entertained by that bench. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in Kunhayammed & others v. State of Kerala and another (2006) 6 SCC 359 and S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 8 SCC 361 the bench observed:?… … … The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal has clearly observed that it is in agreement with the view taken in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and, accordingly, affirmed the same. There is thus a positive and unambiguous expression of approval of the said decision and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the High Court did not merge into the order of the supreme Court. Insofar as the case before us is concerned, it is clear from the order that the Supreme Court not only dismissed the Civil Appeals after granting leave but while doing so, clearly observed that it was in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment and, accordingly affirmed the judgment of this Court.xxx xxx xxxOur unequivocal answer therefore to the issue framed would be that the decision in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh stood duly affirmed by the Supreme Court. The terms of the order dated 19.01.2017 clearly establish that the said decision and the view taken by the Division Bench therein was specifically approved. The said decision consequently merged in the order of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court came to be rendered after grant of leave. Once the decision of this Court stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court, it would not be legally permissible for this Full Bench to consider the correctness or otherwise of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. … … …? 10. The bench of five learned Judges found itself to be bound by the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6386 of 2010 decided on 19.01.2017 and as such held that there was no occasion to rule on the reference. The reference was accordingly turned down.11. Said order turning down the reference is presently under challenge.12. It is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for various petitioners that in Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6386 of 2010 questions were specifically raised regarding clubbing of all vacancies in various colleges under different universities in the State. It is, thus, accepted that the discussion and the reasoning of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) touching upon said issues including the applicability of the provisions of UP Act No.4 of 1994 definitely arose for consideration before this Court. However, an attempt has been made by the learned counsel to submit that certain aspects were not considered by the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) and thus could not arise in Civil Appeals before this Court and the matter may require fuller consideration.13. We have anxiously considered the submissions and are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel. In our view, the questions as are sought to be raised now had already been considered in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) which view was approved in terms by this Court. In the circumstances, the larger bench of five Judges of the High Court was right and justified in turning down the reference.
0[ds]12. It is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for various petitioners that in Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6386 of 2010 questions were specifically raised regarding clubbing of all vacancies in various colleges under different universities in the State. It is, thus, accepted that the discussion and the reasoning of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) touching upon said issues including the applicability of the provisions of UP Act No.4 of 1994 definitely arose for consideration before this Court. However, an attempt has been made by the learned counsel to submit that certain aspects were not considered by the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) and thus could not arise in Civil Appeals before this Court and the matter may require fuller consideration13. We have anxiously considered the submissions and are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel. In our view, the questions as are sought to be raised now had already been considered in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) which view was approved in terms by this Court. In the circumstances, the larger bench of five Judges of the High Court was right and justified in turning down the reference.
### Instruction:
Estimate the outcome of the case (positive (1) or negative (0) for the appellant) and then give a reasoned explanation by examining important sentences within the case documentation.

### Input:
371 carry forward vacancies which remained unfilled is maintained.(ii) The Director, Higher Education shall before declaring the result against 371 carry forward vacancies shall re-determine the number of vacancies against which select list be issued by applying reservation and roster subject-wise and college-wise. The declaration shall be confined only to those vacancies which were carry forward vacancies and were advertised earlier by advertisement No.29 and could not be filled-up. The Director may determine on the basis of records available with him or may call for any other reports or record from management or any other competent authority. The candidates whose names are included in the select list shall be given option to give fresh choice of the colleges as required by the second proviso to Section 12(4) which has become necessary in view of quashing the advertisement against 471 vacancies and direction issued by this order to the Director to redetermine the correct number of reserved vacancies out of carry forward vacancies against which select list is to be issued. The Director shall complete the aforesaid exercise within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and thereafter take appropriate steps for issuing recommendation for appointment in accordance with U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.(iii) The Director shall take steps for advertising 471 vacancies which were covered by advertisement No.37 applying the rules of reservation and roster as per the above directions by taking necessary steps at an early date.(iv) The rules of reservation and roster shall be applied college-wise and subject-wise when there are plurality of posts as indicated above.? 7. The aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) was challenged before this Court. After grant of special leave to appeal, Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6396 of 2010 were dismissed by this Court on 19.01.2017 in following terms:?We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.We are in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly affirmed.The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.? 8. It appears that in Dr. Archana Mishra and others. v. State of U.P. and others. (Writ Petition No.51212 of 2010), a doubt was raised as to the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) as well as the decision of the Full Bench in Heera Lal?s case (supra) and, therefore, the matters stood referred to the bench of five learned Judges of the High Court to consider five questions as referred hereinabove.9. In view of the fact that the decision of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) was affirmed by this Court, the bench of five Judges considered whether the reference could be entertained by that bench. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in Kunhayammed & others v. State of Kerala and another (2006) 6 SCC 359 and S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 8 SCC 361 the bench observed:?… … … The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal has clearly observed that it is in agreement with the view taken in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and, accordingly, affirmed the same. There is thus a positive and unambiguous expression of approval of the said decision and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the High Court did not merge into the order of the supreme Court. Insofar as the case before us is concerned, it is clear from the order that the Supreme Court not only dismissed the Civil Appeals after granting leave but while doing so, clearly observed that it was in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment and, accordingly affirmed the judgment of this Court.xxx xxx xxxOur unequivocal answer therefore to the issue framed would be that the decision in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh stood duly affirmed by the Supreme Court. The terms of the order dated 19.01.2017 clearly establish that the said decision and the view taken by the Division Bench therein was specifically approved. The said decision consequently merged in the order of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court came to be rendered after grant of leave. Once the decision of this Court stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court, it would not be legally permissible for this Full Bench to consider the correctness or otherwise of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. … … …? 10. The bench of five learned Judges found itself to be bound by the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6386 of 2010 decided on 19.01.2017 and as such held that there was no occasion to rule on the reference. The reference was accordingly turned down.11. Said order turning down the reference is presently under challenge.12. It is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for various petitioners that in Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6386 of 2010 questions were specifically raised regarding clubbing of all vacancies in various colleges under different universities in the State. It is, thus, accepted that the discussion and the reasoning of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) touching upon said issues including the applicability of the provisions of UP Act No.4 of 1994 definitely arose for consideration before this Court. However, an attempt has been made by the learned counsel to submit that certain aspects were not considered by the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) and thus could not arise in Civil Appeals before this Court and the matter may require fuller consideration.13. We have anxiously considered the submissions and are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel. In our view, the questions as are sought to be raised now had already been considered in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) which view was approved in terms by this Court. In the circumstances, the larger bench of five Judges of the High Court was right and justified in turning down the reference.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
12. It is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for various petitioners that in Civil Appeal Nos.6385-6386 of 2010 questions were specifically raised regarding clubbing of all vacancies in various colleges under different universities in the State. It is, thus, accepted that the discussion and the reasoning of the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) touching upon said issues including the applicability of the provisions of UP Act No.4 of 1994 definitely arose for consideration before this Court. However, an attempt has been made by the learned counsel to submit that certain aspects were not considered by the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) and thus could not arise in Civil Appeals before this Court and the matter may require fuller consideration13. We have anxiously considered the submissions and are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel. In our view, the questions as are sought to be raised now had already been considered in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh?s case (supra) which view was approved in terms by this Court. In the circumstances, the larger bench of five Judges of the High Court was right and justified in turning down the reference.
