The phrase 'as far as possible' in recruitment rules allows flexibility in candidate selection when fewer candidates appear, and acceptance of a prior judgment precludes subsequent appeals.

JUDGMENT :

Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.

1. When in the institution known by the name of the Junior High School, Sayer, Maudaha, District - Hamirpur, a sanctioned post of assistant teacher in the subject in English fell vacant, the Committee of Management had sought the permission of the Basic Education Officer to initiate the proceedings for recruitment on the said post. The permission for recruiting on the post of assistant teacher was granted vide order dated 18.5.2018. In pursuance thereof, advertisements were issued in newspapers having wide circulation on 23.5.2018. The petitioner/respondent no.1 along with other candidates applied for interview and after a due process of selection, the petitioner’s name was recommended for selection vide recommendation dated 12.3.2019. The select committee, comprising the principal of the school, Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution and the Block Education Officer, who was the nominee of the Basic Education Officer, had made the necessary recommendation. However, when the Basic Education Officer had declined on 23^rd November, 2021, to grant the approval of the selection of the petitioner/respondent no.1 on the ground that the process of selection as was adopted by the Selection Committee was contrary to the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1978) stating that only two names were recommended in the panel of selected candidates by the Select Committee instead of 3 names as was mandatorily provided in the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978, Writ – A No. 404 of 2022 (Mahendra Paliwal vs. State of U.P. & 4 others) was filed.

2. The procedure for selection is provided in Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of 1978 and since the learned counsel for the appellants took the Court through the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978, it is being reproduced here as under:-

“10. Procedure for selection. (1) The Selection Committee shall, after interviewing such candidates as appear before it on a date to be fixed by it in this behalf, of which due intimation shall be given to all the candidates, prepare a list containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference, of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment.

(2) The list prepared under clause (1), shall also contain particulars regarding the date of birth, academic qualifications and teaching experience of the candidates and shall be signed by all the members of the Selection Committee.

(3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management.

(4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer.

(5) (i) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that-

(a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post;

(b) the procedure laid down in the rules for the selection of Headmaster or assistant teacher, as the case may be, has been followed he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and shall communicate his decision to the management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4).

(ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee.

(iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee.”

3. The writ petition i.e. Writ – A No. 404 of 2022 was after the exchange of affidavits allowed vide order dated 11.7.2022, w