A.P.Singh - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by Sri Murlidhar Misra senior most Lecturer of Shaheed Madhuban Karama Inter College Khoribari, district Deoria (hereinafter called, 'petitioner' and the 'College' as the 'Institution').
(2.) PETITIONER's prayer is that panel prepared by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission for making appointment on the post of Principal of the College under section 16 of V. P. Act no. 5 of 1982 on 28-6-1991 (annexure 7 to (he writ petition) be quashed and directions be issued for holding fresh selection in accordance with law for making appointment on that post until then to also restrain respondents including, Ram Brikshya Maurya, another lecturer of the College whose name occurs at serial no. 1 of the panel and has been impleaded as respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, from interfering with petitioner's functioning as ad-hoc or officiating Principal of the College, Sri Maurya shall hereafter be called as respondent no". 4. In support of the prayers made by the petitioner, in the writ petition, it has been alleged by the petitioner that the select panel dated 28-6-91, hereafter called the impugned panel' deserves to be quashed by this Court for the reasons that respondent no. 4 who has been selected and placed in the panel at serial no. 1 could not legally be selected for the reasons (a) that he lacked and did not, possess the requisite teachers training certificate which under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereafter called the Act) is a condition precedent for appointment as head of institution which is duly recognised and governed by the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and (b) that the requisite service records of the institution relating to administrative and other abilities and experience of the petitioner had not been received by (he Commission on the date of the selection resulting in the improper and inadequate award of marks on those counts to the petitioner in the breach, of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and also of the statutory rules and guidelines framed thereunder. On these two grounds, according to the petitioner, the entire selection leading to the preparation of the impugned panel must be held to be vitiated which must again result into the quashing of the impugned panel. Facts of the case in brief may be necessary to be stated for resolving the controversy involved in the case.
(3.) RAMAKANT Misra, permanent Principal of the Institution retired on 30 6-1988 whereupon vacancy arose on the post of Principal in the institution. The management on that post under section 9 of 1982 to the Commission through the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, hereinafter called 'Inspector of Schools'. On Commission's failure to make appointment for filling up the vacancy, appointment on ad-hoc basis under section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was made by promoting one Sri Chandrabhan Shukla on whose retirement on 30-6-89 petitioner was promoted to fill up the vacancy also on ad-hoc basis who, thereafter continued to hold the post accordingly. The Commission advertised the post vide advertisement no. 1 of 1989-90. It held selection on 24-4-1991 In the selection candidates including petitioner, respondent no. 4, and Sri Paras Nath Singh, lecturer of Murli Manohar Town Inter College, Ballia, appeared Names of petitioner and respondeat no. 4 were sent before the Commission as candidates for the post under Rule 4 (1) (ii) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules 1983, hereafter-called the Rules Under the said Rules the management is required to send the names of two senior most teachers of the institution in the highest grade where the vacancy which has fallen is on the post of the head of the institution. The management is also required to send the service record, including character rolls and such other record or particulars to the Commission which it may require. Petitioner's case, as not iced above, is that the management did not send the service record of the petitioner resulting in his non- selection on the post of the Principal of the College. In the panel which was prepared by the Commission under Rule 7 of the Rules petitioner's name did not final place in it, respondent no. 2 was placed at serial no. 1 whereas Paras Nath Singh was placed at serial no. 2 in code no. 4 which relates to the institution. Petitioner's case that his service record was not sent to the Commission is based on the letters of the Inspector of Schools dated 15-3-89 and 19-4-89 respectively filed as annexures '2' and '3' to the writ petition Petitioner has also filed letter of the Inspector of Schools dated 3-5-91 which was received in the office of the Commission on 6-5-91, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition, where from he has tried to establish that on 24-4- 1991 when the Commission held the interview for the selection on the post of Principal of the institution the service record of the petitioner was not before the Commission for perusal as the same was received in the office of the Commission on a date subsequent to the date of the selection, which according to the petitioner, resulted in illegal selection of respondent no 4 inasmuch as the requisite marks which were to be awarded to the petitioner for his administrative experience, teaching experience and for other considerations based on service record could not be awarded to him causing his non-selection. The allegations of petitioner made in this respect in paras 12, 13 and 17 of the writ petition have been denied by the Commission on whose behalf it has been stated that all the relevant papers, regarding the service record, character roll and other documents as required were available before the Commission at the time of the selection which were received by the Commission vide Inspector of School's letter dated 30 3-91 and Commission awarded marks to the petitioner as well as to respondent no. 4 on the basis of those records. Inspector of Schools through whom these records are sent to the Commission by the Manager of the Institution has in his counter affidavit maintained complete silence and no reply, either accepting or denying these allegations, has been given by him. The Manager of the institution Sri P. N. Rai, who has also filed his counter affidavit, has denied that these records were not received in the office of the .Commission; however, in reply to para 17 of the writ petition he has admitted 'that the service record was not available in the Commission on the date and time of the interview where he happened to be personally present., He with the help of the dealing clerk of the Commission made every effort to trace it out but the record could not be found out as it had been misplaced in the Commission office where for the Inspector of Schools was requested by the Commission to send duplicate thereof which obviously was received after the interview and selection for appointment on the post of Principal off the Institution was over. Respondent no. 2 who is an interested party has, however, reiterated the stand taken on behalf of the Commission and has denied the allegations made in this respect by the petitioner.;