IMPORTANT POINTS
Eligibility criterion is mandatory.
When the incumbent was dismissed for his illegal appointment being short of eligibility criteria, issue of exemption during appeal before a court is impermissible.
Order relaxing eligibility criteria after dismissal of the incumbent without retrospective effect is of no avail.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Application seeking impleadment of the applicants is allowed as prayed for.

2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

3. These civil appeals are filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Nos.189 and 190 of 2015. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of the High Court has confirmed the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which an order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) was under challenge.

4. The Board has issued an advertisement on 03.03.2002 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Principal. The last date for submission of applications was 30.03.2002. The qualifications prescribed were – (i) the possession of a Post Graduate degree from an institution or a university established in accordance with law; and (ii) possession of a training qualification, namely, B.Ed. L.T., B.T. and B.P.Ed. The advertisement contained a stipulation requiring teaching experience of ten years in intermediate classes of any recognised institution together with a post graduate degree in the first or second class or a teaching experience of fifteen years for a candidate possessing post graduate degree in the third class.

5. The appellant herein was originally appointed as Lecturer in Physics and his services were regularised from 12.01.1990. He was on study leave for the period between 15.04.1992 to 08.03.1996. It is not in dispute that on the last date of submission of the applications, pursuant to advertisement issued by the Board, the experience of the appellant was 9 years and 3 months as against the requirement of 10 years. Initially the Board prepared a panel of selected candidates in the month of August 2002, which contained the name of the appellant herein. In view of the litigation concerning selection of panels, the said panel was not operated for the purpose of issuing appointment orders. Only after orders are passed by this Court in the month of May 2008, the panel prepared in the year 2002 was operated and the appellant was appointed as the Principal of the college and he joined as such on 15.07.2008. On 18.07.2008, a complaint was lodged before the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi alleging that appellant did not possess 10 years of teaching experience and same was mandatory for selection to the post of Principal as per U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998 read with Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act 1921. In view of such complaint, on the ground that appellant herein has not fulfilled required qualification of 10 years’ experience, his appointment was cancelled on 10.12.2008, which order was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court of Allahabad. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions by order dated 19.03.2015 by holding that, the period during which the appellant was on study leave cannot be counted towards teaching experience and on the last date of submission of applications, the appellant did not fulfill the required eligibility criterion, i.e., possessing ten years of teaching experience. The learned Single Judge, by recording a finding that the appointment could not be protected under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rejected the petitions.

6. Said order was challenged by way of Special Appeal being S.A.Nos.189 and 190 of 2015 mainly on the ground that possession of 10 years of experience cannot be regarded as an essential qualification in view of the power conferred on the Board under proviso to Section 16-E(3) of the 1921 Act. The Division Bench of the High Court, rejecting the plea of the appellant herein, dismissed the Special Appeals by reco