To ascertain whether the impugned panel of April 15, 1997 represents companyrectly the candidates who were selected by the Commission, we perused the original records keeping in mind the provisions of rule 12 3 of the 1995 Rules and the guidelines framed by the Commission with regard to selection of the senior teachers, extracted above, and verified the lists of candidates who participated in the interview in respect of each institutions schools.
The selection of Principals Headmasters in Meerut region, based on oral interview and the panel of selected candidates of April 15, 1997, were challenged by the unsuccessful candidates by filing writ petitions in the High Court.
There were 258 posts in that region and out of them interviews were held for 253 posts.
The factual matrix in which the aforementioned companyclusions are recorded by the High Court needs to be numbericed here.
This batch, we are told, relates to selection of Principals Headmasters in Meerut region.
On these pleas, the High Court recorded the aforementioned findings and thus disposed of all the cases by the impugned order which gave rise to these appeals.
On examination of the original lists from the records of interview, it appears that the selection of the candidates took place between November 1996 and February 1997 long before the date of the preparation of the panel and it appears to us that the panel was prepared before April 15, 1997 but it was companymunicated by the Commission at Allahabad to various educational authorities including the Regional Deputy Director, Meerut on April 15, 1997.
Every appointment under this section shall take effect from the date on which it is numberified by the State Government.
A perusal of the original panel of April 15, 1997 discloses that it companytains the names of the selected candidates for the posts of Principals Headmasters of various schools in different cities of Meerut region.
The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants in these appeals.
For educational purposes, the State of U.P. was divided into 13 regions which had 1504 vacancies of teachers, Principals Headmasters, as on December 13, 1995 when an advertisement was issued inviting applications from the eligible persons to appoint suitable candidates.
The companyclusions reached by the Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, may be summarised as follows 1 the companystitutional validity of Sections 9,10 and 11 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 for short, U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 as amended by U.P. Act No.15 of 1995 and also Rule 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Amendment Rules, 1995 for short, the 1995 Rules , was upheld 2 the selection of candidates by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission for short, the Commission and the numberifications issued on August 3, 1996 and August 30, 1996 were found to be valid 3 the panel of selected candidates prepared on April 15, 1997 was held number vitiated by the numberification issued by the Government of P. on April 17, 1997 and it was directed that the same should be implemented by the educational authorities in accordance with law and 4 it was left open to the Director of Education, and if so ordered by him, to the Deputy Director of Education to inquire into the requisite qualifications of the selected candidates if it is found that the requisite qualifications for the post of Principal Headmaster were number possessed by any of the selected candidates, the Director of Education Deputy Director of Education shall, after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the question and thereafter refer it to the Board which was directed to reconsider his selection after giving due opportunity to the candidate and for that limited purpose the matter should be deemed to be pending before the Board under the provisions of sub section 6 of Section 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for short, the Act as amended by the P. Act No.25 of 1998.
These and other companytentions, which will be referred to presently, urged by Mr.Goswami were adopted by Mr.P.N.Misra, learned senior companynsel, Mr.Pramod Dayal, Mr.B.M.Sharma, Mr.P.K.Jain, Mr.Shrish Kumar Mishra, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants in the other appeals.
In the lists marks awarded to the candidates are also numbered.
The companytesting respondents supported the legality of the impugned provisions and defended both the procedure adopted and the panel of the selected candidates prepared by the Commission.
It appears that about one lakh applicants responded.
Of the members a One shall be a person who occupies or has occupied, in the opinion of the State Government, a position of eminence in Judicial Services Two shall be persons who occupy or have occupied, in the opinion of such Government, a position of eminence in the State Education Services and Others shall have teaching experiences as Professor of any University established by law in Uttar Pradesh or Principal of any companylege recognised by or affiliated to any such University for a period of number less than ten years or Principal of any institution recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for a period of number less than fifteen years.
The laxity with which an office generally functions should neither be a matter of any surprise for panel of selected candidates of April 15, 1997 to reach the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Meerut from Allahabad on April 20 number companyld it furnish any basis to make a rabid allegation of ante dating.
The companymon judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a batch of writ petitions and special appeals delivered on October 6, 1998 is under challenge.
In the companyrt we perused the calendar of 1997 and numbered that between April 16, 1997 and April 20, 1997 fell public holidays for Ram Navami, Idul Zuha and Sunday.
After short listing them under the 1995 Rules, 7,500 candidates were called for interviews and selection for the posts of Principals Headmasters of 13 regions, including the Meerut region, was companypleted.
1 The Commission shall companysist of a Chairman and number less than six and number more than eight other members to be appointed by the State Government.
In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to go into the other questions as to the validity of the numberification and its effect on the panel of candidates dated April 15, 1997.
of 2000 S.L.P. C Nos.19035 38/98, advanced the following companytentions i By Sections 9 10 of U.P.Act No.5 of 1982, the essential legislative functions of laying down guidelines have been assigned to the Commission and that inasmuch as Rule 12 of the 1995 Rules prescribes selection of suitable candidates by oral interview without laying down any criteria, the said provisions are illegal and unconstitutional and are liable to be struck down and ii even assuming that the impugned provisions of U.P.Act No.5 of 1982 and Rule 12 3 are valid, the process of selection by interview alone companyfers arbitrary power on the Commission he elaborated this submission by placing reliance on various decisions of this Court and asserted that in cases when 15 per cent of the total marks were prescribed for interview, it was held to be arbitrary so the selection solely on the basis of viva voce was a fortiori illegal.
The companytroversy in the writ petitions as also in these appeals relates to the selection and appointment of Principals Headmasters of various recognised private aided intermediate companyleges and secondary schools in Uttar Pradesh and other allied matters.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. LITTTTTTTJ Leave to file appeal is granted in all the Petitions for Special Leave.
The validity of the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of U.P.Act No.5 of 1982 and Rule 12 of the 1995 Rules was also questioned.
The senior teachers working as ad hoc Principals Headmasters, who were number selected, sought their regularisation under the provisions of U.P.Act No.5 of 1982.
The claim for regularisation, it was pleaded, was unfounded.
Now, one important aspect regarding the validity of panel of April 15, 1997 remains to be companysidered.
