Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN, D.K. JAIN, JJ.
BALBIR KAUR and another - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, ALLAHABAD and others - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3938-3939 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3806-3817, 3828-3838,3841, 3842,3844,3846-3864,3866-3901, 3903-3905, 3907, 3921,4085-4087,3924-3937 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (C) NOS. 19368, 19779, 19780, 20860, 20877-20878, 20916, 20943, 20983, 21135, 21573, 21608, 21694-21704, 21707, 21708, 22525, 22679, 22904, 22934, 22935, 22975, 22976-22978, 22980, 23084, 23163, 23164, 23322, 23679, 23689, 23691, 23692, 24000, 24075, 24217, 24555 OF 2003, 11726, 11727, 14189, 1419-1423, 1486, 150, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780-1781, 1782, 1783, 21567, 21568-21571, 2270, 2271, 2274, 2276, 24520, 2657, 26818, 2691, 2969, 2977, 3386, 3999, 4094-4095, 4285, 4783, 4784, 5781, 5786, 6380, 6383, 7125, 806, 814-816, 833, 834, 835, 836, 3009-3010, 3015, 11392, 11394 OF 2004, 124-125, 1605-1606, 9794, 18880, 14417-14418, 24475, 24535 OF 2005, SLP (C) N0 13613..OF 2008 [CC NO.8812 OF 2005], I.A.No.1-2 IN SLP (C) NO13618 .OF 2008 [CC NO.11142], SLP (C) NO. 1863-1864 OF 2004, SLP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2004 AND CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.269 OF 2005 IN SLP (C) NO.2691 OF 2004 Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19368 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3807 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19779 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3808 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19780 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3809 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.20860 of 2003) Civil Appeal Nos. 3810-3811 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.20877-20878 of 2003 Civil Appeal No. 3812 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.20916 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3813 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.20943 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3814 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.20983 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3815 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21135 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3816 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21573 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3817 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21608 of 2003) Civil Appeal Nos. 3828-3838 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.21694-21704 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3841 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21707 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3842 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21708 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22525 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3846 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22679 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3847 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22904 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3848 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22934 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3849 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22935 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3850 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22975 of 2003) Civil Appeal Nos. 3851-3853 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.22976-22978 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3854 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22980 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3855 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23084 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3856 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23163 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3857 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23164 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3858 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23322 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3859 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23679 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3860 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23689 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3862 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23692 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3863 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24000 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3864 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24075 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3866 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24217 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3867 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24555 of 2003) Civil Appeal No. 3868 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11726 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3869 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11727 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3870 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.14189 of 2004) Civil Appeal Nos. 3871-3875 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1419-1423 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3876 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1486 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3877 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.150 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1777 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1778 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3880 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1779 of 2004) Civil Appeal Nos. 3881-3882 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1780-1781 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1782 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3884 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1783 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3885 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21567 of 2004) Civil Appeal Nos. 3886-3889 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21568-21571 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3890 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2270 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3891 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2271 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3892 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2274 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3893 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2276 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24520 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3895 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2657 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3896 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.26818 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3898 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2969 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3899 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2977 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3900 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3386 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3901 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3999 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3905 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4285 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3907 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4783 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3908 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4784 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3909 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5781 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5786 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6380 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3912 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6383 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3914 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.806 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3918 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.833 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3919 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.834 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3920 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.835 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3921 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.836 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 4085-4086 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3009-3010 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 4087 of 2008 Arising out of SLP(C) No.3015 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3924 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11392 of 2004) Civil Appeal No. 3925 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11394 of 2004) Civil Appeal Nos. 3926-3927 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.124-125 of 2005) Civil Appeal No. 3930 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9794 of 2005) Civil Appeal No. 3931 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18880 of 2005) Civil Appeal Nos. 3932-3933 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.14417-14418 of 2005) Civil Appeal No. 3936 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 13613 of 2008) [CC No.8812 of 2005] Civil Appeal No. 3937 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13618 of 2008) [CC No.11142 of 2005] Contempt Petition (C) No.269 of 2005 in SLP (C) No.2691 of 2004 Decided On: 16-05-2008
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 - Rule 11 (2) (b) - U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Controversy in these cases - Disagreeing with and reversing - Posts of teachers - In these appeals we are concerned with selection of heads of Institutions/Principals - Advertisements were issued under the U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act). In the advertisement vacancies for the post of Principal in respective Institutions were indicated region wise - Candidates were to be considered regionwise and results were also to be declared region wise - Candidates were required to give the choice of not more than three institutions in order of preference and if he wanted to be considered for any particular institution or institutions and not for other institutions he could mention this fact in the application - Held, Section 16 of the Principal Act which contemplates that all appointments will be made through Selection Board was substituted by 1993 Amendment Act and was enforced with effect from August - It prohibited appointments of teachers and heads of institutions except on recommendation of the Commission - However by virtue of Section 1(2) of the 1993 Amendment Act, the date of enforcement of Amendment Act was left to State Government and it was by virtue of Notification August that State Government prescribed August as on which Amendment Act except Section 13 thereof was to come into force - Though Section 18 was reintroduced by 1995 Amendment Act with certain conditions yet the Legislature fixed August cut off date as State Government had decided to make regular selections and steps in that behalf had already been initiated – Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT
D.K. JAIN, J. –
1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3.Leave granted.
4.Challenge in this batch of appeals is to a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 159 of 2001 and other connected appeals, partly disagreeing with and reversing the view of the learned Single Judge in regard to the selection of Principals of various institutions, by direct recruitment.
5.To comprehend the controversy in these cases, it would suffice to refer to the facts in SLP (C) Nos.19335-19336 of 2003, which was otherwise treated as the lead case.
6. On 12th August, 1998, 24th December, 1999 and 3rd March, 2002, U.P. Secondary Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) issued advertisements inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of teachers, lecturers and the heads of several Institutions. In these appeals we are concerned with the selection of heads of the Institutions/Principals. The advertisements were issued under the U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act). In the advertisement, the vacancies for the post of Principal in respective Institutions were indicated regionwise. The candidates were to be considered regionwise and results were also to be declared regionwise. The candidates were required to give the choice of not more than three institutions in order of preference and if he wanted to be considered for any particular institution or institutions and not for other institutions he could mention this fact in the application. In addition to the candidates applying directly, the Board was also required to consider the names of two senior-most teachers of the Institution concerned. These two senior-most teachers were not required to apply but their names were to be forwarded by the management in accordance with Rule 11 (2) (b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (for short `the 1998 Rules). Nonetheless, they could apply for other Institutions as well.
7. The said advertisements were challenged by the Principals, who were already heading some institutions on ad- hoc basis, and the senior-most teachers of various institutions mainly on the grounds that : (i) the cut off date i.e. 6th August, 1993 fixed by the 1998 amendment, for regularizing the ad- hoc Principals/teachers was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (ii) the exclusion and inclusion of candidates eligible for selection was not in conformity with Appendix A of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short `the Intermediate Act) (iii) the regionwise consideration and declaration of the result for the post of Heads of the Institution, unlike the teachers, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (iv) sub rule (5) of Rule 12 was unreasonable and discriminatory as it gave undue importance to educational qualifications and no importance to the service record; (v) the manner of allocation of marks and the selection process was arbitrary and (vi) the Principal Act did not provide for any reservation for the post of the Head of the Institution for backward class or scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidates, which was contrary to the provisions and in violation of the U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short the 1994 Act).
8. On the basis of rival stands of the parties, including the State, the learned Single Judge formulated as many as 15 points for determination.
9. The learned Single Judge answered all the 15 points, so formulated, against the writ petitioners. Consequently, vide order dated 14th February, 2001, all the writ petitions were dismissed.
10.Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners carried the matter in Special Appeals to the Division Be
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
