- (1.) The present petition assails the validity of an order dated 10th December, 2008 passed by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (respondent No. 6 herein), in terms of which the selection of the petitioner on the post of Principal of Saraswati Inter College, Jhansi has been cancelled.
(2.) In brief the order passed by the respondent No. 6 has come to be passed upon the Board concluding that the petitioner had teaching experience of 9 years 3 months as against the required 10 years and had therefore been incorrectly empanelled by it. The order itself, and it is so admitted to parties, came to be passed by the Board on the basis of a complaint letter received by the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi on 18.7.2008. This petition was entertained by this Court on 15.1.2009 and on the said date the following order came to be passed' "Impleadment Application filed on behalf of Sri Ved Prakash Rai today is taken on record and is allowed. The petitioner is directed to make necessary correction in the array of parties during the course of day. By the impugned order, the appointment of the petitioner, as Principal in Saraswati Inter College, Sipriri Bazar, Jhansi has been cancelled by the Selection Board on the ground that the petitioner does not possesses the minimum 10 years of teaching experience as a lecturer and has excluded the period which the petitioner had spent in czechoslovakia for higher studies for the period 15.4.1992 to 7.3.1996 which period is included in the service period as per the letter of the Director of Education dated 29.7.2005, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexed as Annexure no. 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner further states that this letter was specifically placed before the Selection Board but the same has not been adverted to. Sri Neeraj Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the Selection Board, Sri Birendra Singh, the learned counsel appearing for newly impleaded Ved Prakash Rai and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are all granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by registered post A/D. Steps to be taken within a week. List for admission after the expiry of four weeks, by which time, the said respondents may file a counter affidavit. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie it appears that the period which the petitioner had spent in Czechoslovakia for higher studies, has not been taken into consideration and if this period is taken into consideration, the petitioner could possess the requisite number of years and becomes eligible for consideration for the post of Principal. Consequently, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 10.12.08 passed by the Selection Board shall remain stayed."
(3.) It was on the basis of the above order that the petitioner has continued to function as a Principal of the Institution in question till this matter was taken up for hearing by this Court. Insofar as the Respondent No. 7 herein is concerned, he is said to have been appointed Ad hoc Prinicipal with effect from 01.07.2000. He continued to function as such despite the empanellment of the Petitioner on 01.08.2002 in light of the litigation which ensued and till the Petitioner joined on the post on 15.07.2008. He thereafter claims to have functioned during the period when the selection of the Petitioner came to be cancelled by the Board and till this Court passed the interim order on 15.01.2009. The respondent No. 7 has since retired from service on 04.04.2009. He has separately petitioned this Court (W.P. No. 19198/2009) for being paid all emoluments and salaries of Officiating Principal for the period August 2008 to June 2009 and to compute his pension treating him to be the Principal.;