M.Katju, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 12(3) of The Utter Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995. The Petitioner was .appointed as permanent lecturer in Hindi in 1967 in Sri Bhagwan Das Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, now Bhagwan Das Inter College, Harchandpur, Etawah, which is a recognised institution. He has alleged that he has done M.A. in Hindi and M.A. in Political Science and has about 30 years teaching experience of intermediate classes. The previous principal Sri Dhani Ram Verma retired on 30-6-91 creating a permanent vacancy of Principal. The petitioner being senior most teacher was appointed officiating Principal on 30-6-91, and has been continuing since then and approval was granted for his adhoc appointment by the D.I.O.S., Etawah, by order dated 16-7-91 copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Committee of Management has also passed a resolution on 31-7-92 for adhoc appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the institution and this order was also approved by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 8-12-92 Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner is also receiving the salary of Principal.
(2.) It is alleged in Paragraph 20 of the writ petition that the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad, conducted an interview for the post of Principal of the institution and the petitioner and others senior most teachers were called for interview. The names of the Chairman and the members of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission are given in Paragraph 21 of the writ petition. It is stated in Paragraph 22 that the interview was merely a device to appoint a Principal of the choice of the Commission. On 3-8-96 a notification has been issued declaring the list of selected candidates for the post of Principal of various intermediate collages in Kanpur region. Th panel in respect of Sri Bhagwan Das Inter College. Harchandpur, Etawah, is mentioned in Paragraph 23 of the writ petition and it is alleged in Paragraph 27 that the entire selection by the commission was a sham' and with a pre-determined mind. In Paragraphs 29 to 34 of the writ petition names of various persons who have been recommended by the commission are mentioned and most of them belong to a particular caste. This allegation has been repeated in Paragraph 37 of the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 12 (3) which reads as follows : "(3) The commission shall hold interview of the candidates and, for each category of post prepare panel of those found most suitable for appointment in order of merit as disclosed by the marks obtained by them in the interview. The panel, for the post of principal or Headmaster shall be prepared institution wise after giving due regard to the preference given by a candidate, if any for appointment in a particular institution whereas for the posts in the lecturers and trained graduates (L.T.), grade, it shall be prepared subject wise and group wise respectively. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in interview, the name of the candidate who has higher quality points shall be placed higher in the panel and if the marks obtained in the interview as well as the quality points of two or more candidates are equal, the name of the candidate who is older in age shall be placed higher. In the panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster, the number of names shall be three times of the number of the vacancy and for the post of teachers in the lecturers and trained graduates (L.T.) grade, it shall be larger (but not larger than twenty five per cent) than the number of vacancies. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-rule the word group wise means in accordance with the groups specified in the Explanation to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11."
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that no clear cut criteria has been mentioned in Rule 12(3) as how the commission shall select the principals or teachers. Although Rule 12 (3) says that the commission shall hold the interview of the candidates and prepare a panel of those found most suitable for appointment in order of merit as disclosed by the marks obtained in the interview, but how the marks are to be awarded has not been mentioned in this provision.;