D.K.Seth - (1.) THE short point urged by Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, related to interpretation of Regulation 7 by which the panel prepared and recommended by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission was made valid for a period of one year. According to Mr. Misra, as soon the person recommended in the appeal is appointed, the panel is given effect to. In case the incumbent so appointed leaves the service or for any other reason, the post becomes vacant, the period between the appointment and the occurring of vacancy is to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of one year and the panel shall remain valid for a period of one year to be calculated excluding the said period.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the situation, a brief resume of facts is necessary. On 20th February, 1986, the panel prepared and recommended by the Commission was notified. Pursuant to the said notification, the incumbent in SI. No. 1 Sri Gorakh Nath Singh was given appointment and had joined as Principal, Ratan Sen INter College, Bansi, Basti. The name of the petitioner figured in SI. No. 2 of the said panel. The appointment of the said Gorakh Nath Singh was cancelled by an order dated 11th November, 1987 by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of power under Rule 8 (iii) and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act. Consequent upon the order of cancellation, the District INspector of Schools ("D.I.O.S." for short by an order dated 18th July, 1988 directed the Committee of Management to issue appointment letter to the petitioner as Principal of the said College (Annexure '1'). Though the petitioner reported for Joining, the Committee of Management did not allow him to join despite his approach to the D.I.O.S. and the respondent No. 1. On 22nd April, 1988 when the petitioner had been to the office of the Commission, he came across an order dated 13th April. 1987 (Annexure '2') by which fresh step was directed for filling up the vacancy of the Principal in the said Ratan Sen INter College. It is this order which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition on the ground that the period between the date of joining of Gorakh Nath Singh and 11th November, 1987 is to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of one year during which the panel remains valid. IN support of his case, the petitioner had referred to the case of Jai Prakash Singh and Nizamuddin Khan, candidates Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for the post of Principal in Neta Subhas Krishi Sainik INter College, Banki Vinod Nagar, Maula Ganj, Gorakhpur wherein the appointment of Jai Prakash Singh having been cancelled by an order dated 30th July, 1987, Nizamuddin Khan at SI. No. 2 was asked to join as Principal by respondent No. 1 by an order dated 3rd August, 1988 (Annexure '3'. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Committee of Management in paragraph 13, it has been contended that the said order dated 3rd August, 1988 was later on cancelled. However, unless the validity of the panel is interpreted, according to the contention of Mr. Misra, the said fact cannot help the petitioner. Inasmuch as if the said order is contrary to law, then the same order would be a wrong one. Article 14 cannot be attracted to plead discrimination on the basis of an illegal order seeking to compel the respondent to pass similar illegal order in favour of the petitioner. No legal right can flow on the basis of an illegal order and the principle of discrimination cannot be attracted in a case which would lead to passing another illegal order. The Court cannot be a party to such a wrong order. In exercise of writ Jurisdiction, the High Court cannot direct passing of an illegal order. In order to appreciate the question, reference may be made to Section 15A of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' which runs as follows : "15A. Panel of candidates selected by Board.-(1) The Board shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancies under Section 15, hold interview of the candidates and prepare and forward to the officer or authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 15 in the prescribed manner, a penal of those found suitable for appointment. (2) On receipt of such panel the officer or authority concerned shall, in the prescribed manner, intimate the Management of the Institution, in respect of which the vacancy was notified the name of the selected candidate. (3) The Management shall, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such intimation, issue appointment letter to such selected candidate. (4) Where such selected candidate fails to Join the post in such Institution within the time allowed in the appointment letter or within such extended time as the Management may allow in this behalf, or where such candidate is otherwise not available for appointment, the officer or the authority concerned may, on the request of the Management, intimate in the prescribed manner, fresh name or names from the panel forwarded by the Board under sub-section (1). (5) The panel prepared under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for one year."
(3.) IT appears that the validity of the panel has been provided in subsection (5) of Section 15A of the said Act as to remain in force for one year. Such panel is to be prepared in the manner prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 15A of the said Act. Sub-section (1) requires the commission to forward the panel to the officer or authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 15. Subsection (2) provides that such authority on receipt of the panel shall intimate the Management of the Institution the name of the selected candidates in the prescribed manner. According to sub-section (3) the Management on receipt of such intimation is required to issue the appointment letter within a period of one month from receipt. Sub-section (4) makes it clear that while issuing such appointment letter time is to be allowed to the candidate for Joining the post which is subject to extension by the Management. In case where the candidate is not available for appointment, the Management should intimate the same to the authority concerned and on the request of the Management, fresh name or names from the panel may be forwarded by the Board under sub-section (1). Section 16 of the said Act provides as follows : "16. Appointment to be made only on the recommendation of the Board.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder but subject to the provisions of Sections 21B, 21C, 21D, 33, 33A and 33B, every appointment of a teacher, shall, on or after the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1922, be made by the Management only on the recommendation of the Board : Provided that in respect of retrenched employees, the provisions of Section 16E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall mutatis mutandis apply: Provided further that the appointment of a teacher by transfer from one Institution to another, may be made in accordance with the regulations made under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 16G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (2) Any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be void." ;