S. N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) -Petitioner, an officiating Principal of P.J.M. Intermediate College, Sherkot, district Bijnor, has filed the instant petition for the relief of quashing the notification dated 11.5.2002 issued by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad, by which panel was published on the basis of selection made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission. The panel aforestated included the name of Respondent No. 5 namely, Jai Prakash Verma who was selected and assigned to P.J.M. Intermediate College, Sherkot, Bijnor as Principal. The petitioner has further canvassed the validity of advertisement No. 1 of 2002 published in March, 2002 (Annexure-2 to the petition) attended with the relief to declare Rule 12 of the Rules, 1998 as ultra vires.
(2.) THE facts beyond the pale of controversy are that the petitioner Umrao Singh, before being offered appointment as officiating Principal by the Committee of Management, was an assistant teacher in L.T. Grade. One Sri Ram Nath, who was officiating as Principal at the relevant time, stood superannuated on 30.6.2002. Shakeel Ahmad, Lecturer in Sociology and Rajnesh Kumar, Science teacher happened to be the two senior-most teachers in the institution. It is also beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner being assistant teacher in L.T. Grade was not eligible for being considered for the post of Principal of an Intermediate Institution either in the regular selection or for officiating Principal. It was on the basis of resolution of the Committee of Management that the petitioner was allowed to officiate as Principal in the Institution. It is alleged by the petitioner that the aforestated two senior-most teachers of the institution had declined to accept the officiating appointment as a result of which the choice fell on the petitioner who joined on 1.7.2002 as officiating Principal of the College pursuant to the resolution of the Committee of Management. It would further transpire from the record that the signatures of the petitioner as officiating Principal were attested by the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor on 8.7.2002 (Annexure-1 to the petition). On the other hand, it would appear from the record, the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission published advertisement bearing No. 1 of 2002 to fill up vacancies of Principals in various institution and it is contended for the petitioner that the petitioner was not issued any interview letter and as a result, he could not participate in the selection. In opposition, learned counsel canvassed the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the panel issued by the Secondary Education Service Commission on the premises that he was not one aggrieved by the selection vis-a-vis the admitted facts on record inasmuch as the petitioner, according to his own admission, ranked third, i.e., next after the two senior-most lecturers of the institution and further that he could not be considered for appointment qua the two senior-most teachers of the institution as required under the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. It is further contended that it was only the two senior-most teachers of the institution who could stake claim to be considered along with other applicants by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Sri Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner was not one amongst the applicants for the said post but in the same breath, he minced no words to submit that since he was holding the office of officiating Principal, there was every justification for him to canvass the validity of the selection made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission after the advertisement against the vacancy which fell vacant due to retirement of permanent Principal/teacher of the Institution. He further submitted that notwithstanting the fact that he was not one amongst the applicants before the Commission and that he could not be considered qua the claims of the two senior-most teachers being there, he could still maintain the petition and challenge the advertisement as well as the selection made pursuant thereto, arguing further that the Board did not observe in compliance the rule of reservation while making selection and assigning respondent No. 5 to the institution as its Principal and to give prop to his submission, he placed credence on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Onkar Dutt v. State of U. P., 2001 UPLBEC 1149 and contended that the authority of Anand Narain Singh's case has been eroded by a subsequent decision in Onkar Dutt's case. Sri R. P. Dubey and Sri S. S. Chauhan, representing the opposite parties propounded that the petitioner was not one aggrieved by the selection and that he was also not one belonging to reserved category and further that it does not lie in his mouth to agitate the issue of reservation followed by the submission that the petitioner was not one amongst the applicants and he could not be considered overriding the claim of two senior-most teachers of the institution under the Rules and, therefore, the petition was not liable to be sustained.
(3.) I have considered the arguments in all its ramifications and veer round to the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this petition firstly for the reason that he is neither one amongst the applicants before the Commission nor one amongst the two senior-most teachers who could stake their respective claims to be considered for selection nor does he belong to any of the reserved categories to kick up the issue of reservation. In quintessence, it may be observed here that none of the rights of the petitioner were affected or infringed upon. The petitioner relied upon the ratio flowing from the decision in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, AIR 1998 SC 1021. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not commend to me for being applied to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case, the question of locus standi was not agitated in the writ petition or for that matter, in the special appeal. Apart, statute 13.20 of the Meerut University envisages a right to any teacher to officiate for certain period as Principal while under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, it is only the senior-most teacher who could be given officiating appointment as Principal and the question came to be raised by the petitioner for the first time in the writ petition. It is also worthy of notice that the petitioner was not officiating as Principal on the date of advertisement as admittedly, he joined as officiating Principal on relevant date, Sri Ram Nath aforestated was working as Principal. In my considered view, against the substantive vacancy occasioned on superannuation of the incumbent holding the office of Principal, the advertisement had already been made in the month of March and 30th March was the last date fixed for submission of the form. The petitioner was no where in the reckoning even to hold officiating post of Principal on the last date of submission of the form pursuant to the advertisement. According to his own admission, he took charge as officiating Principal on 1.7.2002. The most significant aspect to be taken into reckoning in this case is that the petitioner being L.T. grade was wholly ineligible to be considered for the post of the Principal of an Intermediate College under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The requirements of Statute of Meerut University cannot be imported for being extended coverage to the present case. In the fact situation, the petitioner does not have a right even to work as officiating Principal under any provision of the statute not to speak of having any right to canvass the validity of selection made by the Service Commission. The resolution of the Managing Committee of the institution has no overriding effect to create a right in favour of the petitioner and if by resolution of the Managing Committee, the petitioner was allowed to officiate as Principal, this does not furnish foundation to the petitioner to canvass the validity of the process of selection or to have any right to impinge upon the right of the person who had been selected by the Secondary Education Service Commission. My above view receives reinforcement from a single Judge decision of this Court rendered on 15.9.2000 in Gulab Chand Upadhyay v. State of U. P. and others, W.P. No. 41392 of 2000. The ratio flowing from the above decision is that a candidate who has not availed or opportunity of selection has no locus standi to challenge the process on any ground whatsoever as he is not at all aggrieved by such a procedure as he had not applied for the same. Yet another decision which lends support to my above view is one rendered on 27.9.2002 in W.P. No. 39017 of 2002, Km. Gita Srivastava v. District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi and others, Learned single Judge in this case held that no prejudice has been occasioned to a person who is not a reserved category candidate on account of there having been no reservation on the post of Principal of Intermediate College. The question of reservation in this case appears to have been raised for academic interest ostensibly to give prop to his falling case and there appears to be no justification for the urging of the proposition. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Interim order passed on 10.10.2002, shall stand vacated.;