- (1.) BHARATI Sapru, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 6.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash entire selection process adopted by the respondent No. 2 for the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution namely M. R. Sherwani Higher Secondary School in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21-6-2001 and also to quash the selection and advertisement of the respondent No. 6 and to quash the financial approval granted by the respondent No. 3 to the appointment of the respondent No. 6 granted on 17-5-2002. THE petitioner has also made a prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to make a fresh selection on the post of Assistant Teacher (Sociology) in the institution in question. THE other prayers are also consequential prayers for writ of mandamus. The institution M. R. Sherwani Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the institution) is a minority institution, which is governed by the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as it is a minority institution, the provision of Section 16-FF of the Act, 1921 have special application to the institution in question. The procedures for filling up the vacancies of the head of the institution and teachers by direct recruitment of a minority institution are regulated under Chapter II of Regulation 17 of the Act. The Regulation 17 (e) provides as under: "the provisions of clause (e) and (f) of Regulation 10 and those Regulations 11,12 and 16 shall mutatis mutandis apply to selections made under this regulation. " Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case, the provisions of Regulation 10 (f) and Regulation 11 have been violated.
(3.) THE facts of the case are that an advertisement was made on 26-1-2001 by which the respondent institution inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teachers for teaching subject of the Sociology. THE advertisement also mentions that the candidate should apply at least for two subjects from Geography, History, Political Science and Economics in B. A. and should be trained. The petitioner who is M. A. , B. Ed. also applied and made an application for the post on 29-6-2001. According to the petitioner, an interview took place on 26-7-2001 but the petitioner was not given an interview call. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 was the son of one of the clerks of the institution and simply in order to accommodate him, the application of the petitioner was not even considered even though he had the requisite qualifications. The petitioner did not get an interview call. The respondent No. 6 was appointed on 1-8-2001 and he joined the post on 1-8-2001. When the petitioner came to know all this, he sent a detailed representation to the District Inspector of Schools, Etah stating his grievance and saying that the respondent No. 6 was not even a proper candidate and yet he was being accommodated whereas the petitioner who was fully qualified has not been even called for interview.;