By the Court.—This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the guidelines framed by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commissioner (in short, the Commission) for selection on the posts of Lecturers in Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges in the State of U.P. in pursuance to Advertisement No. 41 of 2007, and further to direct the Commission to hold the interviews of the petitioners in the writ petitions.

2. The Commission published the Advertisement No. 41 in the year 2007 in national newspapers inviting applications for appointments on a large number of posts of Lecturers in Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges in the State in different disciplines. The petitioners applied for the posts in their respective subjects. The Commission, in view of the large number of applications received for each post has prepared the guidelines for shortlisting the candidates for interview. These guidelines framed by the Commission in the year 2008 under Section 11 (a) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980, provided for award of screening index marks for ‘teaching experience’ as additional qualification for shortlisting of eligible candidates under Clause (i) of the Proviso to Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 6. The guidelines provided for 5 marks out of the total of 50 marks for experience.

3. The Division Bench hearing the writ petition Nos. 3336 of 2009, Gaurav Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 6733 of 2009, Dr. Abha Pandey v. State of U.P. and another, 2009(4) ADJ 648 (DB) : 2009(3) ESC 1486 (All) (DB), found that there is a conflict in the views taken by the Division Benches of the Court, to include ‘teaching experience’ for preliminary screening and shortlisting of candidates to be called for interview. In Writ Petition No. 52271 of 2000, Dr. Smt. Sushma Chauhan v. State of U.P., decided on 6.12.2000; Writ Petition No. 49621 of 2002, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Dubey v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, decided on 28.11.2002; Writ Petition No. 52020 of 2002, Smt. Upasana Sharma v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, decided on 4.12.2002, the guidelines were upheld by the Court. The Division Bench disagreed with the reasons given in the aforesaid decisions for including ‘teaching experience’ as one of the factors for preliminary screening and shortlisting of the candidates and was of the opinion that in view of the Clause (i) of the Proviso to Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 6 of the Teachers Selection Regulation, or in view of the Regulation 3 of Teachers Selection Regulation it was not permissible for the Commission to provide in the guidelines ‘teaching experience’ as one of the factors for preliminary screening and shortlisting. The Division Bench referred 2009(4) ADJ 648 (DB) : 2009(3) ESC 1486 (All) (DB) the following question for consideration of Larger Bench :

“Where in view of the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983, particularly, Regulations 3 and 6 thereof, the Guide-lines framed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission in the year 2008 in regard to the selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 41 of 2007, wherein “teaching experience” has been provided as one of the factors for preliminary screening and short-listing the candidates to be called for interview for the post of teachers/ lecturers are valid.”

4. A Full Bench of three judges was constituted with the then Chief Justice presiding the Bench. It heard the matter at length and that by judgment dated 11th December, 2009 (Reported in 2010(1) ADJ 61 (FB)] the question was answered as follows :

“ANSWER TO QUESTION REFERRED:

In view of the above discussion our answer to the question referred is as under:

In view of the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983, particularly, Regulations 3 and 6 thereof, the Guide-lines