- (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has claimed relief for quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, dated 23 -8 -80 and also for the issue of a mandamus directing the Respondent Committee of Management not to hold fresh selection instead to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner.
(2.) ADARSH Janta Higher Secondary School, Chaturipur, Varanasi is an aided and recognised institution. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment of an assistant teacher. A duly constituted Selection Committee made selection in July, 1980 and it recommended three persons in order of merit for appointment. The Petitioner's name was at serial No. 1, Amreshwar Singh at serial No. 2 and Jung Bahadur Singh at serial No. 3. The Committee of Management accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee, but it appears to have forwarded the letter to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The Inspector by his order dated 23rd August, 1980 held that the selection was illegal and invalid and as such no approval could be granted and he directed the Committee of Management to hold fresh selection. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed this writ petition. The main question raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to disapprove the Petitioner's selection or appointment and the Committee of Management having accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee wrongly forwarded papers to the District Inspector of Schools. We find merit in this contention. Section 16E(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down that on receipt of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Committee of Management shall first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee and on his failure to join the post, the candidate next to him in the list shall be given opportunity to join. Sub -section (8) of Section 16E provides for referring the matter to the District Inspector of Schools in a case where the Committee of Management does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Thus, it is clear that if the Committee of Management agrees with the selection of the Selection 'Committee, it need not refer the matter to the District 'Inspector of Schools. There is no provision either under this Act or under the Regulations requiring the Committee of Management to refer the question of appointment to the District Inspector of Schools for obtaining his approval, where the Committee of Management agrees with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. From the averments contained in the writ petition and also in the counter -affidavit filed by the Manager of the institution, it is apparent that the Committee of Management agreed with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, but it did not issue appointment order due to some mistaken belief that before issuing appointment order approval of the District Inspector of Schools was necessary.
(3.) AS discussed earlier, the Committee of Management need not have referred the matter to the District Inspector of Schools and the latter had no jurisdiction to issue direction for holding fresh selection. On a perusal of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, it appears that he proceeded on the assumption that the Selection Committee had not indicated its choice as two candidates, the Petitioner and Amreshwar Singh, had been awarded equal marks. This conclusion of the District Inspector of Schools is incorrect. A perusal of the recommendation of the Selection Committee (Annexure I to the petition) clearly shows that Amresh Chandra Dwivedi was placed at serial No. 1 in order of merit. Thus, even on merits the order of the District Inspector of Schools is not sustainable.;