1998 Supreme(All) 571

High Court Of Allahabad
S.H.A. Raza, Bhagwan Din, JJ.
Tulsi Ram
Vs.
State Of U.P.
Decided on: 13th May, 1998

Headnote:

PRINCIPAL SELECTION - ELIGIBILITY - TEACHING EXPERIENCE - INTERPRETATION - U.P. EDUCATIONAL (GENERAL EDUCATION CADRE) SERVICES RULES, 1992 - U.P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES SELECTION BOARDS ACT, 1982 - REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES ORDERS - U.P. HIGH SCHOOLS AND INTERMEDIATE COLLEGES (PAYMENT OF SALARIES OF TEACHERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES) ACT, 1971 - U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE RULES - CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) - INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION - HIGH SCHOOL - NORMAL SCHOOL - LECTURER - TRAINING COLLEGE - AD HOC APPOINTMENT - SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENT - PROMOTION - MAINTENANCE GRANT - RECOGNITION - SALARY - PART-TIME TEACHERS - HONORARY TEACHERS - L.T. GRADE TEACHERS - TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHERS - GOVERNMENT COLLEGES - NAVODAYA VIDYALAYAS - CENTRAL SCHOOLS - DEFENCE MINISTRY - RAILWAY MINISTRY - GOVERNMENT SPONSORED INSTITUTIONS - ARMY AND AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION - DISTRICT INSTITUTES OF TRAINING - NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST - UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION - RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP - GRADUATE AND POST-GRADUATE CLASSES.

Fact of the Case:

The Public Service Commission (PSC) conducted an examination for the selection of suitable candidates for 216 posts of Principals in Government (Boys/girls) Inter Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). The minimum qualifications prescribed were a post-graduate degree, L.T. Diploma, and at least three years' experience as Head of a Higher Secondary or Normal School or in teaching Intermediate or Higher Secondary as a Lecturer in C.T. or L.T. Training College. The candidates were allowed to appear in the preliminary examination, main examination, and interview. After the interview, the PSC obtained experience certificates from the candidates to determine their eligibility. The PSC found that some candidates were claiming experience as part-time lecturers, honorary lecturers, or lecturers in self-financing institutions without legal appointments. Some candidates were teaching as L.T. Grade Teachers or trained graduate teachers, while others were working as lecturers in government-aided institutions or government-sponsored institutions. The PSC categorized the candidates into ten types based on their experience and found that only 102 candidates were eligible for selection.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were not substantively appointed as teachers or lecturers in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, and the Removal of Difficulties Orders. The court also held that the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in institutions that were not recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education or were not approved by the State Government. The court further held that the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who had not completed three years of teaching experience as lecturers in C.T./L.T. Training Colleges. However, the court held that the PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in unaided institutions as part-time lecturers or honorary lecturers, candidates who were teaching in self-financing institutions but were not appointed legally, candidates who were teaching as L.T. Grade Teachers or trained graduate teachers, candidates who were working as lecturers in government-aided institutions or government-sponsored institutions, and candidates who had obtained three years of teaching experience as teachers in institutions run by the Army and Air Force Association recognized by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The court also held that the PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who had obtained three years of experience of teaching as ad hoc teachers under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act or candidates who had obtained three years of experience of teaching Intermediate classes in District Institutes of Training whose posts were transferable to Government Colleges.

Issues: 1. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were not substantively appointed as teachers or lecturers in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, and the Removal of Difficulties Orders? 2. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in institutions that were not recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education or were not approved by the State Government? 3. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who had not completed three years of teaching experience as lecturers in C.T./L.T. Training Colleges? 4. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in unaided institutions as part-time lecturers or honorary lecturers? 5. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in self-financing institutions but were not appointed legally? 6. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were teaching as L.T. Grade Teachers or trained graduate teachers? 7. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were working as lecturers in government-aided institutions or government-sponsored institutions? 8. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who had obtained three years of teaching experience as teachers in institutions run by the Army and Air Force Association recognized by the CBSE? 9. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who had obtained three years of experience of teaching as ad hoc teachers under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act? 10. Whether the PSC was justified in excluding candidates who had obtained three years of experience of teaching Intermediate classes in District Institutes of Training whose posts were transferable to Government Colleges?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were not substantively appointed as teachers or lecturers in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, and the Removal of Difficulties Orders because these candidates did not meet the eligibility criteria for the selection of Principals in Government (Boys/girls) Inter Colleges in the State of U.P. 2. The PSC was justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in institutions that were not recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education or were not approved by the State Government because these institutions were not recognized for the purpose of preparing candidates for admission to the Board's examinations. 3. The PSC was justified in excluding candidates who had not completed three years of teaching experience as lecturers in C.T./L.T. Training Colleges because this was one of the alternative experience requirements for the post of Principal under Rule 8(13) of the U.P. Educational (General Education Cadre) Services Rules, 1992. 4. The PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in unaided institutions as part-time lecturers or honorary lecturers because these candidates were still imparting education in recognized institutions. 5. The PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who were teaching in self-financing institutions but were not appointed legally because these candidates were still imparting education in recognized institutions. 6. The PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who were teaching as L.T. Grade Teachers or trained graduate teachers because these candidates were still imparting education in recognized institutions. 7. The PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who were working as lecturers in government-aided institutions or government-sponsored institutions because these candidates were still imparting education in recognized institutions. 8. The PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who had obtained three years of teaching experience as teachers in institutions run by the Army and Air Force Association recognized by the CBSE because these candidates were still imparting education in recognized institutions. 9. The PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who had obtained three years of experience of teaching as ad hoc teachers under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act because these candidates were still imparting education in recognized institutions. 10. The PSC was not justified in excluding candidates who had obtained three years of experience of teaching Intermediate classes in District Institutes of Training whose posts were transferable to Government Colleges because these candidates were still imparting education in recognized institutions.

Final Decision: The court directed the PSC to send recommendations to the State Government for the appointment of eligible candidates on the posts of Principals of the Government (Boys/girls) Inter Colleges in the State as early as possible, preferably within a period of ten weeks or earlier, in pursuance of the Advertisement dated May 8, 1996.