IMPORTANT POINT
Where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for interview does not arise. There is no illegality in Rule 12(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995 providing for selection of suitable candidates based on their performance in the interviews for appointment to the posts of Principals/Headmasters.

Headnote:U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982-Sections 9, 10 and 11-U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Rules, 1995-Rule 12-Selection of Principals/Head Masters-Solely on basis of interview-No rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview-No illegality in Rule 19(3) providing for selection of suitable based on their performance in interview for appointment to posts of Principals/Head Masters-No illegality in procedure of overall evaluation of candidate without fixing marks for each item stipulated for selection.
       Held : It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15 marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview test has to be decided on the facts of each case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for interview does not arise. (Para 21)
       There is no illegality in Rule 12(3) of the 1995 Rules providing for selection of suitable candidates based on their performance in the interviews for appointment to the posts of Principals/Headmasters. (Para 26)
       Overall evaluation rather than awarding of marks for each item will lead to proper and correct results. Assuming that each of the factors in the guidelines is allocated equal marks; in a given case, if the personality of the candidate and his administrative ability regarding school management are miserably poor but his knowledge of current ideas and problems of educational work, general knowledge and achievement in curricular activities etc., are good and he secures higher marks than a candidate who is having good personality, possess imaginative administrative ability regarding the school management and satisfies the other factors certainly the former candidate will not be better than the latter as a Principal/Headmaster for an institution/school. Such examples can be multiplied by permutation and combination. In our view, items mentioned in the guidelines are various aspects which have to be kept in mind in evaluating a candidate for his suitability and fitness for being appointed as the Principal/Headmaster of a institution/school. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the procedure of overall evaluation of the candidate without fixing marks for each of the items noted above, adopted by the Commission, and on this ground we are not inclined to hold that the selection is arbitrary. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J.- Leave to file appeal is granted in all the Petitions for Special Leave.

2. The common 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. The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants in these appeals. The controversy in the writ petitions as also in these appeals relates to the selection and appointment of Principals/Headmasters of various recognised private aided intermediate colleges and secondary schools in Uttar Pradesh and other allied matters.

3. The conclusions reached by the Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, may be summarised as follows:

(1) the constitutional 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 notifications 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 not vitiated by the notification issued by the Government of U.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 not 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 U.P. Act No. 25 of 1998.

4. The factual matrix in which the aforementioned conclusions are recorded by the High Court needs to be noticed here.

5. 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. It appears that about one lakh applicants responded. 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 completed. This batch, we are told, relates to selection of Principals/Headmasters in Meerut region. There were 258 posts in that region and out of them interviews were held for 253 posts. 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. 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 not selected, sought their regularisation under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The contesting respondents supported the legality of the impugned provisions and defended both the procedure adopted and the panel of the selected candidat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1612

Cases Referred (11)