Aggrieved thereby, Shri Baskaran challenged such selection in Writ Petition No.41237 of 2005.
The said relief was subsequently amended in the following manner Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to implead the third respondent as party respondent in O.A.No.689/2004 so as to quash the appointment order issued by the 3rd respondent in his letter in Ref.
F.1/114/2003 R.III dated 16th July, 2004, issued by the said Respondent.
As per Shri N. Baskarans version, he had more than 18 years total experience of teaching.
It was mentioned that Shri Baskaran had handled Chemistry as a subject at a Higher Secondary level.
The further case of the Respondent No.1 was that having obeyed the order passed by the Government from time to time, the same companyld number be placed against him when it came to companyputing the period of his service.
It was companytended that if the interpretation given by the Tribunal with regard to experience, as indicated in the advertisement, is to be accepted, the service rendered in Higher Secondary Schools and also at the Higher Secondary level, would have to be taken into companysideration for determining the period of qualifying service.
The Tribunal rejected the companytentions made on behalf of Shri Baskaran and allowed the application filed by the Petitioner herein and directed the companycerned respondents to appoint him as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School.
Apparently, based on his performance in the interview, Shri N. Baskaran was selected for the post as per the Selection List published on 16.7.2004.
Accordingly, his case was number companysidered for the purpose of filling up one of such vacancies.
Both, Shri N. Baskaran and Shri V. Ranganathan, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.41237/2005, were among the 11 candidates who were called for the interview.
The facts, which led to filing of the two writ petitions, indicate that the Secretary, U.P.S.C., invited applications for appointment to three vacancies to the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary Schools in Pondicherry, by Advertisement No.17 published in the Employment News on 13th September, 2003.
The Tribunal, by its order dated 7.12.2005, allowed the Original Application and also directed the official respondents to appoint the Applicant as the Principal of the companycerned Higher Secondary School.
Before the High Court it was the case of the P.S.C. that the name of Shri V. Ranganathan was number recommended for the post of Principal as his merit position in the Selection List did number bring him within the zone of companysideration and since Shri Baskaran had the required teaching experience of 10 years, he was recommended for appointment.
It appears that in the vacancies for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, 48 applications were received and on the basis of preliminary scrutiny, 11 candidates were short listed and called for interview on 9.3.2004.
In addition to the above, as far as the service rendered by Shri Baskaran in the District Institute of Education and Training is companycerned, the same would also have to be taken into companysideration for companyputing the years of service at a Higher Secondary level as the educational qualifications prescribed for teachers in Higher Secondary Schools and the District Institute of Education are the same and both the posts are interchangeable and carry the same scale of pay.
Whenever there was necessity, the Government had spared Shri Baskarans services to the Polytechnics and he had worked at the Higher Secondary level in the said Polytechnics.
Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 herein filed Writ Petition No.41237 of 2005 and the UPSC filed Writ Petition No.10771 of 2006.
That apart, the educational qualification for a teacher working in a Polytechnic is the same as that of teachers working in Higher Secondary Schools.
Out of the said three vacancies, one was reserved for a candidate from the Scheduled Castes category.
One of the companyditions which had to be fulfilled by the candidate for being eligible to be appointed in terms of the advertisement was to have 10 years teaching experience in a Higher Secondary School.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. The Respondent No.1 herein, Shri N. Baskaran, and the Union Public Service Commission filed two separate writ petitions, being W.P. Nos.41237 of 2005 and 10771 of 2006, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, on 7th December, 2005 in O.A. No.689 of 2004.
The relief prayed for by the Petitioner herein, who was the Applicant in the Original Application, was for a direction upon the Union Public Service Commission U.P.S.C. to appoint him to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School in Pondicherry under the Scheduled Caste category instead of Shri N. Baskaran, pursuant to order No.
It is thereafter that Shri V. Ranganathan filed the above mentioned O.A.No.689 of 2004 before the Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
As far as Shri V. Ranganathan is companycerned, it was stated on behalf of the U.P.S.C. that although he had been short listed and was also called for the interview to fill up the vacancies in question, he companyld number be recommended by the Interview Board for the post of Principal as his merit position at Serial No.10 did number bring him within the zone of companysideration for filling up the said post.
However, according to the Union Public Service Commission, as far as the Higher Secondary level is companycerned, he had only 10 years and 4 months of teaching experience.
On Shri N. Baskarans behalf it was submitted that the service rendered by him in the Higher Secondary Schools as well as at the Higher Secondary level should be taken into account for calculating the period of qualifying service.
It was also the case of the U.P.S.C. that as far as Polytechnics are companycerned, after the companypletion of the 10th standard, instead of joining the 11th standard, students join diploma companyrses, and, as such, duties at the Polytechnic level is equivalent to studies at the Higher Secondary level.
In addition to the above, it was also pointed out that the U.P.S.C. had produced the selection list in which the Petitioner herein has been ranked at number 10 in the reserve list and even in the reserve list there were three more candidates placed above him.
A.12012/CS EBN E. 1/2004 dated 13.8.2004 and thus render justice.
