Back
1984 Supreme(All) 498
High Court Of Allahabad
K.N. Misra, S.S. Ahmad, JJ.
Kedar Nath Awasthi - Appellant
Versus
Administrator (Nagar Mahapalika) Functioning As Manager Of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1584 of 1984
Decided on: Oct 22, 1984
H.S.Sahai, P.N.Mathur, A.K.Jauhari
The management of an educational institution is required to forward the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for consideration for appointment on the post of Principal, even if they have not applied for the post. The Commission is required to issue an interview letter to a candidate at least 21 days before the date fixed for interview.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - U. P. Intermediate Education Service Commission Rules, 1983 - Rule 4(1)(ii) - Appointment of Principal - Seniority - Selection - Interview - Non-compliance with Rules - Quashing of Selection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior lecturer, was appointed as Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow, on an ad hoc basis after the death of the previous Principal. The post was later advertised for regular appointment, but the petitioner was not called for an interview. The U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission selected another candidate, opposite party No. 3, for the post. The petitioner challenged the selection, arguing that the Commission had not complied with the Rules by not calling him for an interview.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the management of the College had not forwarded the names of two senior most teachers, including the petitioner, to the Commission as required under Rule 4(1)(ii) of the Rules, even though they had not applied for the post. The Court also found that the Commission had not issued any interview letter to the petitioner, and, therefore, his candidature had not been considered while making the selection.
Issues: 1. Whether the management of the College had complied with Rule 4(1)(ii) of the Rules by forwarding the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for consideration for appointment on the post of Principal? 2. Whether the Commission had complied with Regulation 6(6) of the Regulations by issuing an interview letter to the petitioner at least 21 days before the date fixed for interview?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the management of the College was required to forward the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for consideration for appointment on the post of Principal, even if they had not applied for the post. The Court relied on Rule 4(1)(ii) of the Rules, which provides that the management shall forward the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for being considered for appointment on the post of Head of the Institution. 2. The Court held that the Commission was required to issue an interview letter to the petitioner at least 21 days before the date fixed for interview. The Court relied on Regulation 6(6) of the Regulations, which provides that the intimation for interview will be sent to a candidate 21 days in advance.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the selection and appointment of opposite party No. 3, Sri R.K. Agarwal on the post of Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow.
E.N. MISRA, J.
1. IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the selection/ recommendation made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission for the appointment of opposite party No. 3 Sri R. K. Agarwal on the post of Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow, which is run and managed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, the opposite party No. 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.
2. IT has been averred in the writ petition that Sri H. S. Tandon was functioning as Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow (for short the College). He died on 19th November, 1981 and on his death the office of Principal fell vacant and the petitioner Sri Kedar Nath Awasthi, being the senior most lecturer of the College -was appointed as Principal by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow after due approval having been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 3-12-1981. The petitioner is, thus, serving as Principal of the College over since then. However, the post for appointment to the Principal was advertised in news paper 'Swatantra Bharat' on 13th August, 1983, but the name of the institution was incorrectly indicated as Nagar Mahapalika Inter College, Aminabad, Lucknow. IT has been further averred that earlier to it, some times in the month of March, 1983, the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow had written to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad (for short the Commission), which was established under section 3 of the U. P. Act No. V of 1983 indicating that the petitioner being the senior most lecturer in the institution was promoted to the post of Principal of the College with effect from 3-12-1981 and since then he is functioning as such, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, wherein it is mentioned that there is one post in L. T. Grade for teaching English subject on which Sri S. P. Singh for C. T. Grade, who is qualified for appointment on the post, is to be promoted and that two posts of L. T. Grade are being vacant on which appointment are to be made. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that the commission had not passed any order on the said letter of the Administrator, but a post for appointment of Principal was advertised on 13th August, 1983. He further pointed out that under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the said Act, the management of the College was required to forward the names of two senior most teachers alongwith copies of their service records as also character rolls and such other records and particulars as the Commission may require in that behalf. IT was also pointed out that according to Rule 6 it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to have called for interview two senior most teachers of the institution whose names were forwarded by the management under clause (1) of Rule 4. In the instant case, however, neither the management of the institution had forwarded two names of the senior most teachers as was required to be done under sub-clause (1) of Rule 4 to the Commission for being considered for the appointment on the said advertised post, which according to the petitioner was wrongly advertised as it was not lying vacant, nor the Commissioner had called for interview the two senior most teachers of the institution, including the petitioner, who being the senior most lecturer was already working as Principal ever since 3-12-1981. This fact has been averred in para 12 of the petition that neither the petitioner, who was senior most lecturer and acting as Principal of the institution, nor the other senior lecturer next to him Sri Vishnu Narain Rastogi were called for interview.
Learned counsel urged that the management as well as the Commission has, thus, violated the mandatory provisions of sub-clause (1) of Rule 4 and Rule 6, and, as such, the selection and recommendation made by the Commission of the name of opposite party no. 3 on the post
