Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju, J.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, B.D.BAJORIA INTER COLLEGE, SAHARANPUR - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY), U.P., LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 22391 Of 1999
Decided On : 08/27/1999
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - ELIGIBILITY - U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 1956 - REGULATION 1 OF CHAPTER II, APPENDIX A - INTERPRETATION - AD HOC TEACHING EXPERIENCE - CONSIDERATION - BAN ON APPOINTMENTS - EFFECT - PRINCIPAL'S TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES - G. O. DATED 20. 11. 1977 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a committee of management of an intermediate college, challenged the appointment of the respondent as the principal of the college. The petitioner argued that the respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications and experience for the post, and that his appointment was in violation of the U. P. Intermediate Education Regulations, 1956. The respondent contended that he had the necessary qualifications and experience, and that his appointment was valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent possessed the necessary qualifications and experience for the post of principal. The court noted that the respondent had a Master of Science degree in Agriculture, a Bachelor of Education degree, and four years of teaching experience in Class 11 and 12. The court also held that the respondent's ad hoc teaching experience could be taken into consideration, as there was no requirement in the regulations that the teaching experience must be only in a permanent capacity. The court further held that the ban on appointments at the time of the respondent's appointment did not make any difference, as the court had to consider the respondent's actual teaching experience. Finally, the court held that the respondent was not required to teach any particular subject as a principal, and that his Master of Science degree in Agriculture was a specific qualification mentioned in the regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent possessed the requisite qualifications and experience for the post of principal. 2. Whether the respondent's ad hoc teaching experience could be taken into consideration. 3. Whether the ban on appointments at the time of the respondent's appointment made any difference. 4. Whether the respondent was required to teach any particular subject as a principal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent possessed the requisite qualifications and experience for the post of principal based on the following legal principles: - Regulation 1 of Chapter II, Appendix A of the U. P. Intermediate Education Regulations, 1956, which sets out the minimum qualifications for the post of Head of the institution, does not require that the teaching experience must be only in a permanent capacity. - The Supreme Court judgments in A. K. Boss v. Union of India and State of Madhyo Pradesh v. Laxmi Shanker Mishra, which held that ad hoc teaching experience can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining eligibility for promotion. - The U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982 and the 1983 and 1995 Rules made thereunder, which do not require substantive service as an eligibility requirement for promotion, indicating that ad hoc experience should be taken into consideration. 2. The court held that the ban on appointments at the time of the respondent's appointment did not make any difference, as the court had to consider the respondent's actual teaching experience. 3. The court held that the respondent was not required to teach any particular subject as a principal, as there was no requirement in any Act or Regulations that the Principal has also to teach.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent was eligible to be appointed as Principal.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the Impugned order dated 11. 2. 99. 20. 2. 99 and 5. 4. 99 (Annexures-8, 8a and 14 to the writ petition) and for a mandamus restraining the respondents from appointing the respondent No. 5 as the Principal of B. D. Bajoria Inter College, Saharanpur.
( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner No. 1 is the Committee of management of the institution in question and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are permanent lecturers therein. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as lecturer in English in the year 1965 while the petitioner No. 3 was appointed as lecturer in Chemistry in the 1966.
( 3 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that the work and conduct of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 has been satisfactory and there is no complaint or adverse entry against them. The petitioner No. 2 has done M. A. in English and M. A. in Political Science and has done B. Ed, and got 34 years of teaching experience. The petitioner No. 3 has done M. Sc. in Chemistry and has 33 years teaching experience. It is alleged that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are fully qualified and eligible for the post of Principal of an Intermediate College. In paragraph 7 of the petition it is alleged that the permanent Principal of the institution retired from service on 30. 6. 1993 and on that vacancy Shiv Prakash Sharma, the seniormost lecturer, was appointed as officiating principal from 1. 7. 1993. In paragraph 9 of the petition it is alleged that the date of birth of the petitioner No. 2 is 1. 1. 1942. In paragraph 10 of the petition it is stated that Shiv Prakash Sharma attained the age of superannuation of 60 years and continued on extension till the end of the academic session and retired on 30. 6. 1999. In paragraph 11 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the next seniormost lecturers in the Institution in order of seniority. In paragraph 12 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner Nos. 2 is at serial No. 2 immediately below Shiv Prakash Sharma while the petitioner No. 3 is at serial No. 3 Immediately below the petitioner No. 2. in paragraph 13 of the petition it is alleged that since Shiv Prakash Sharma was to retire on 30. 6. 99 an order was issued by the Manager of the institution on 19. 5. 99 directing shiv Prakash Sharma to deliver charge of the office of principal to the petitioner No. 2. True copy of the order dated 19. 5. 99 is Annexure-1 to the petition. In paragraph 14 of the petition it is alleged that the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission issued an advertisement which was published in the U. P. Rozgar Digest dated 20/26. 12. 1995 whereby applications were invited for the post of Principal of large number of educational institutions in the State Including the institution in question. True copy of the advertisement is Annexure-2 to the petition. The last date for submitting the application-form was 18. 1. 1996. The said advertisement contained a stipulation that the relevant date for computation of age and eligibility qualifications was the last date of submission of application forms. Pursuant to the advertisement selection proceedings were held by the Commission in which the petitioner was also considered as the seniormost lecturer in the institution. The result of the aforesaid selection was notified by the Commission by notification dated 15. 4. 1997. However, it is alleged in paragraph 18 of the petition that the panel notified on 15. 4. 1997 could not be immediately implemented on account of two interim orders of general application passed by the High Court being interim order dated 16. 10. 1996 passed in Special Appeal No. 180 of 1996 and Interim order dated 17. 10. 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 33784 of 1996 vide Annexures-4 and 5 to the petition. Ultimately the Division Bench gave final judgment on 6. 10. 1998 (copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition ). The Division Bench held that
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
