Interpretation of eligibility criteria for the post of Principal and Senior Lecturer, Implementation of court directions by U.P. PSC, Irregularities in the selection process

ORDER :

B.N. Srikrishna, J.

The writ petition filed by a group of candidates for the post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute was dismissed by the High Court by a short judgment observing:

"The facts of the case are covered by the judgment of this Court in Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P., WP. No. 40849 of 1997 decided on 13-5-1998.

The writ petition is disposed of on same condition and direction as in aforesaid judgment."

2. The judgment in Tulsi Ram State of U.P., WP. No. 40849 of 1997 decided on 13-5-1998 was challenged before this Court in a group of matters. By an order made on 10-1-2001 in Civil Appeals Nos. 961-62 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 pertaining to the present appellants, was delinked from the group of matters.

3. In Mohd. Altaf (1) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 this Court decided the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid appeal of Tulsi Ram1. The controversy in Tulsi Ram1 centred around the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the post. The eligibility criteria as advertised were threefold and they were as under:

"(3) For the post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute-(1) Postgraduate degree from a recognised university or any degree equivalent thereto recognised by the Government. (2) LT Diploma from Education Department of U.P. or BT or BEd or any other degree of university equivalent thereto. (3) At least three years of teaching experience as Head of any Senior Secondary or normal school or three years' experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes or in CT or LT Training Postgraduate College as lecturer."

4. It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that experience contemplated by Eligibility Criterion 3 was not restricted to teaching in Government schools, while the U.P. Public Service Commission (U.P. PSC) was of the view that the teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a Government school. This controversy was resolved by the order of this Court in Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 and this Court took the view that the lecturers having three years' teaching experience in CT/LT colleges in training colleges were also eligible, since the rules nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be that of a teacher in Government college or aided or unaided Government college or institution. This Court was further of the view that teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or higher classes. Having laid down the law thus, U.P. PSC was directed to implement and carry out the directions of the High Court and prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed to the post advertised within a stipulated period. After the list was prepared in accordance with the directions given by this Court, on 14-3-2001, the appeals came up for hearing and were disposed of by a final order made on 20-2-2002. In the said order, after holding in favour of the appellants, this Court said: (Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 146, SCC p. 149, para 9)

"9. Lastly, it is clarified that the directions issued by this Court on 10-1-2001 as well as today would be implemented in favour of all the eligible candidates."

5. It was observed in the order dated 10-1-2001 that: (Mohd. Altaf v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 14 SCC 139 SCC p. 142, para 8)

"8. The aforesaid direction is to be considered in the light of the discussion in the judgment, which specifically provides that if the teachers who have been substantively appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are not paid the salary from the public treasury as those institutions were not given maintenance grant/grant-in-aid it cannot be blamed for the lapse on