S. R Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution the petitioner seeks the quashing of Notification/Order dated 3-6-1991 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition1), whereby 2nd respondent was selected by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (here in after referred to as the Commission) for appointment to the post of Principal of Digambar Jain Girls Inter College, Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar, in short the 'College' and for a direction commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as substantively appointed principal of the College w.e.f. 6-4-1991.
(2.) THE post of principal in the College fell vacant due to retirement of the incumbent, Km. Prem Sakhi Nigam on 30-6-1986. THE out going principal seems to have handed over the charge to the 2nd respondent, but the District Inspector of Schools/Authorised Controller of the College issued an order dated 5-7-1986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) to the effect that the petitioner being the senior most Lecturer in the College would work as adhoc principal and that the 2nd respondent would hand over the charge to the petitioner forthwith and the charge in fact was given the same day. THE petitioner is working as adhoc principal of the College on the basis of the said order dated 5-7-1986. THE vacancy was, however, notified to the commission in accordance with rule 4 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 (in short the Rules) and it was advertised on 6-1-1987. THE names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were forwarded to the commission under Rule 4 (1) (ii) of the Rules along with their service records (including character rolls) and other relevant particulars and they too were called for interview in view of the proviso to rule 6 of the Rules. THE Commission by its Notification dated 21-1-1988 had placed the 2nd respondent at serial no. 1 in the panel of the selected candidates, while the petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 in the said panel. THE said notification was, however, quashed by the High Court in writ petition no. 2279 of 1988 filed by the petitioner, Smt. Santosh Jain vide judgment and order dated 19-3-1991 and the Commission was directed to do the evaluation of the service records of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment and it was in pursuance of the said judgment that re-evaluation of service records was done by the commission afresh and the impugned order selecting the 2nd respondent for the post in question was passed by the Commission again. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner had put in 18 years service (from 1969-70 to 1986-87) and the 2nd respondent had 16 years teaching experience to her credit as teacher at the relevant time. THE Commission have evaluated the service record of the petitioner taking all the entries of the years as adverse except the entries for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. According to the non-statutory guidelines prepared by the Commission the service records pertaining to the entire period of their services were to be looked into for evaluating their merits on the basis of the service records in as much as the commission look into the last 20 years service records of teacher candidates, if they have put in that much of service at the relevant time. It is also not disputed that according to the same non-statutory and unnotified guidelines a total of 175 interview-marks are placed at the disposal of the Selection Board constituted by the Commission for the purpose of selecting a suitable candidate for appointment as a teacher including principal or Head Master. The Selection Board awards marks at the interview .out of these 75 marks. But so far as the two senior most teachers called for interview for the post of principal or Head Master of the concerned College under the proviso to rule 6 of the Rules are concerned, the last 20 years of their service records are also looked into and a total of 30 marks are placed at the disposal of the Selection Board for evaluating merits on the basis of their service records (including character rolls) also. Out of 30 marks 10 marks (i.e. 1 mark each year) are allotted for the first 10 years of service and 20 marks (2 marks per year) are allocated for the subsequent 10 years of service records and for the purposes of evaluating service records, the Commission, according to its guidelines, has classified the annual entries in the character roll into three categories ; (a) good or satisfactory, (b) bad or adverse and (c) non-est entry'. A good or satisfactory entry carries full marks to its credit, while a bad or adverse entry carries no marks and 'no entry' carries 50% marks of the marks allocated to its credit. Further an adverse entry, if not communicated, it treated by the Commission as , non-est entry' and is evaluated accordingly.
(3.) THE petitioner was given 27 marks out of 75 marks while the 2nd respondent secured 34 marks at the interview. THEse marks were subject to modulation, according to which the interview marks of teacher candidates are determined mathematically out of 45 marks on the basis of the marks obtained by them out of the total of 75 marks. This is done because, their service records are also taken into account for which a maximum of 30 marks are earmarked and therefore, it is found out as to how many marks they would have secured out of (75 minus 30 equal to 45). Thereafter, according to the guidelines the modulated interview, marks are added to the marks obtained by each of the teacher candidates on her/his service record and the aggregate represents the marks obtained for the purposes of determining her/his merits vis-a-vis other candidates called for interview. In the instant case the interview marks obtained by direct candidates were less than the aggregated marks so given to the petitioner and 2nd respondent as aforesaid. The Commission had thereafter to find out the interse merit of the petitioner and 2nd respondent in order to determine the place one had to be assigned in the panel to be drawn according to rule 7 of the Rules.;