- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 8.9.2008, 3.10.2008 and 23.10.2008 and seeking a further direction commanding the respondents not to appoint the respondent No. 4 as Principal of the petitioner-Institution. The facts of the case in brief are that there is an Institution known as Nanak Chand Anglo Sanskrit Inter College, Meerut (the Institution). The said Institution is recognized and is also receiving grant-in-aid. It is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder as also the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. A post of Principal fell vacant in 1995 and a requisition for selection to the said post was forwarded by the Committee of Management to the Selection Board under the Act, 1982. Pending selection a senior most Lecturer was appointed as officiating Principal till the candidate selected by the Selection Board would join. After the interview, a panel of selected candidates was prepared on 15.4.1997. In the meantime the constitutional validity of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the U.P. Secondary Education Commission Act, 1982 was challenged and therefore, the State Government issued a notification on 17.4.1997 staying the implementation of the select list. Ultimately, the vires of the Act 1982 were upheld by the Supreme Court.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner, Committee of Management is that the candidate at serial No. 1 of the select list, one Sri Syed Hussain Asgar Kazmi was directed to report to the institution and submitted his joining but Sri Kazmi did not join the institution. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 who was the second candidate in the select list was directed to submit his joining in the institution. The contention of the petitioner is two-fold, one that once the candidate at serial No. 1 of the select list had declined to join the institution, the select list came to an end and thereafter, there was no further scope for directing the candidate at serial No. 2 namely, the respondent No. 4 to join the institution. The second contention of the petitioner is that as per the proviso to sub rule 5(a) of Rule 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1995, no candidates shall be allocated the institution of his home district.
(3.) I have heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The order is being dictated in open Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once a candidate at serial No. 1 of the select list had declined to join the institution in question, the select list would cease to operate and therefore, no direction could have been given by the DIOS, Meerut to the respondent No. 4 to submit his joining in the said institution. Rebutting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh appearing for respondent No. 4 has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Chandresh Nath Singh Baghel v. Bhagwan Singh Sisodia and others, 2008 1 ESC 428. He has in particular drawn the attention of the Court to Para 7 of the said judgment wherein the issues for consideration of the Court have been outlined. Para 7 reads as follows: The issues for consideration before this Court in the present Special Appeal are allowed as follows: (a) Whether the select panel notified under the provisions of the Act exhausts itself with the appointment of the candidate empanelled at serial No. 1. (b) Whether the candidate empanelled at serial No. 2 of the said panel can be offered appointment in case the person at serial No. 1 after joining, retires, resigns or expires within the valid period of the select panel, which under the Rules is one year. (c) Whether select panel in respect of an earlier vacancy can be used for filling up of the subsequent vacancy because of death, resignation or retirement of the earlier incumbent or such vacancy is required to be advertised afresh so as to make the process of selection in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In Para 21 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has further held as follows: So far as the life of select panel is concerned as provided for, under the U.P. Commission Rules, suffice it to point out that the said valid select list is only for the purpose of offering appointment to the candidates in order of merit only if the person higher in merit does not join the post and once the empanelled candidate joins in accordance with his merit, the remaining select panel would exhausts itself automatically and the remaining panel could cannot be said to have a life beyond the purpose for which it was prepared, therefore, no shelter can be taken by a person in the select list/ waiting list behind the provision which prescribes the life of the select panel as one year.;