- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. In response to an advertisement dated 25-2-1985 issued by the U. P. Higher Education Services Com mission (herein after referred to as the Commission), inviting applications for ap pointment to the post of Principal in Rajarshi Tandon Manila Mahavidyalaya, Al lahabad (herein after referred to as the Col lege), the petitioner applied for the said post and was selected by the Commission. On the recommendation of the Commis sion she was appointed as the Principal which post she joined on 13-7- 1985. Sub sequently a complaint was made against the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Principal, in which it was mentioned that although the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Principal of the College but she has secured her selection from the Com mission by making false statement regard ing her eligibility qualifications. On the basis of the said complaint the Government appointed Dr. S. C. Tiwari, Assistant Direc tor Higher Education U. P, for making en quiry in the matter who, after making neces sary enquiry, submitted a report holding that the petitioner made false statement regarding her eligibility qualifications before the Commission and has secured her selection on that basis. The Commission also issued a notice dated 11-2-1988 to the petitioner, in response to which she sub mitted her explanation. The Commission, after making necessary enquiry, passed a detailed order dated 21-7-1988 holding the petitioner guilty of making false statement in her application regarding her eligibility qualifications and securing selection from the Commission by mispresentation and fraud. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the writ petition No. 14260 of 1988. By an interim order dated 1-8-1988 this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21-7- 88. There after the Director Higher Education U. P. (herein after referred to as the Director) passed an order dated 1-9-1988 asking the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, not to make a payment of salary to the petitioner unless she gives an undertaking in the form of an affidavit for refund of the amount which may be paid to her as salary if her writ petition is dismissed by this Court. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Director the Petitioner has filed the second writ petition No. 3551 of 1989 for getting it quashed. Further prayer for writ of man damus directing the respondents to con tinue to pay the salary to her, was also made. This Court on 24-2-1989 stayed the opera tion of the said order dated 1-9-1988. It appears that there is dispute between the parties regarding the working of the petitioner in the college as Principal. The petitioner was also not paid the salary by the Government. She, therefore, prayed for another interim order before this Court for payment of her salary. This Court on 26-4-1996 passed an interim order directing pay ment of salary of the post of the Principal to the petitioner.
(2.) THE respondent-Commission has filed counter-affidavit. Petitioner, there after, filed rejoinder- affidavit in reply there to. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions in support of the writ petition viz. (i) The petitioner was having eligibility qualifications, namely, teaching experience of seven years; (ii) Even if it is found that she was not having requisi te teaching experience at the time of her selection by the Commission, she has made up the deficiency thereafter before cancella tion of her appointment; and (iii) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case petitioner is entitled to continue in service even if it is found that she was not eligible at the time of her selection as Principal. The learned counsel for the respondent/com mission has disputed the above contentions. Admittedly, one of the eligibility qualifications for appointment as Principal of a Degree College is teaching experience of seven years at the degree level. In her application which the petitioner submitted before the Commission for the post of the Principal of the College she has stated that she has teaching experience of about 10 years and 10 months at the degree level, details of which was given in the said application and the same is reproduced below: (i) teaching experience frm 2-1-1974 to 20-5-1975 at Anant Shiksha Niketan Degree College, Allahabad. (ii) temporary lecturer in Sanskrit in the College from 7-8-1975 to 2s-2-1980 and thereafter as permanent lecturer till her ap pointment as Principal of the college.
(3.) ON enquiry conducted by the Assis tant director Higher Education it was found that the Anant Shiksha Niketan College, in which the petitioner claims to have worked as a teacher from 2-1-1974 to 20-5-1975 is not a Degree College and is also not affiliated to any University. In fact, it is an Intermediate College where the educatien upto Intermediate classes is imparted. The petitioner failed to prove before the Cammission that Anant Shiksha Niketan Col lege is a Degree College. She also did net prove before this court that the said College is a Degree College. In her reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Commis sion the petitioner has admitted that the said College is not affiliated to any Univer sity. If that is so, it cannot be a Degree College. The Commission has, therefore, rightly held that her statement in her application about her teaching experience at degree level from 2-1-1974 to 20-5-1975, is false. As regards her appointment as lec turer in temporary capacity in the College from 7-8-1975 to 27-2-1980 she has also failed to prove it before the Commission. She could neither produce any letter of her appointment as temporary lecturer in the College nor could she produce the proof of having drawn the salary of a lecturer from the College during the said period. She has also failed to prove before this Court that she was appointed and worked as lecturer in the College from 7-8-1975 to 27-2-1980. Neither her appointment letter nor the proof of having drawn salary of a lecturer from the College during the aforesaid period, was placed before this Court. In view of the provisions of Section 31 (11) of the State Universities Act, 1973 a teacher can not be appointed in a Degree College without prior approval of the Cice-chancel-lor of the University to which the College is affiliated. The Vice-Chancellor passed an order on 28-2-1980 granting approval to the petitioner's appointment. In the absence of the any appointment order and proof of having drawn the salary of the lecturer from the College from 7-8-1975 to 27-2-1980 coupled with the absence of any order of approval of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 31 (11) of the State Universities Act prior to 28-2-1980 the Commission was fully justified in holding that the petitioner was not lecturer in the College during the aforesaid period and she made a false state ment about it in her application. The fact is that when she applied before the Commis sion for the post of the principal in the year 198$,, she has less than five years teaching experience at the degree level, although the statutory requirement was for seven years experience. Therefore, she was not entitled to be considered, selected and appointed as Principal of a Degree College. The Commis sion has by a Well reasoned order held that the petitioner was selected as the principal of the College on account of her mis- repre sentation and fraud. No exception can be taken to the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in this connection, however submitted that seven years teaching experience need not be of the degree level and it is sufficient if a candidate has seven years teaching ex perience at any other level. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases; The State of Bihar v Asis Kumar Mukherjee AIR 1975 SC 192; R. Narayan Iyer v. The Registrar, University of Kerala 1976 LAB I. C. 1312; Jadunandan Sahav v. Chancellor Bihar University (1976 LAB I. C. 327); andkumari Paramjit Kuar v. Delhi Administration 1986 LAB I. C. 139. This contention is also devoid of merit and the aforesaid decision, cited by the learned counsel, are of the help to him. In the State of Bihar v. Asis Kumar Mukher-jee (Supra) one of the eligibility conditions was teaching experience of atleast three years in a teaching institution. The con troversy therein related to the question as to whether experience of Dr. Mukherjee, respondent therein, while working as Registrar in the University of England can be said to be teaching experience from a teaching institution. The Supreme Court held that the institution in which Dr. Muk herjee was working in England as a Registrar as a teaching institution and the Registrar was also having duty of teaching in the institution. It was accordingly held that the experience acquired by Dr. Mukherjee as Registrar in the said institution was teaching experience which was liable to be taken into account. This case, therefore, cannot support the case of the petitioner.;