A.N.Varma - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by R.I.G.S. III Region-Bareilly cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher in the L. T. Grade in the subject of Biology. On 21-8-79 certain posts were advertised including the post of teacher in the L.T. Grade for teaching Biology. The advertisement stated that these posts have to be filled by SC/ST candidates subject to the condition that if the candidates falling in this category do not apply for the post in question the same will be filled by the general candidate. The petitioner admittedly a general candidate applied for the post and appeared before the Selection Committee on 17-10-79. The Selection Committee prepared a panel in which the petitioner's name also found place. The Managing Committee accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and issued the letter of the appointment to the petitioner. In the letter, however, it was specifically stated that the appointment was subject to the approval of the R.I.G.S. It appears that the papers pertaining to the appointment to the post were accordingly submitted to the R.I.G.S. By the impugned order the R.I.G.S. has cancelled the petitioner's appointment on the short ground that the post was reserved for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes candidates. Admittedly, Meera Rani and Km. Neelam Varma belonging to schedule caste had applied for the post and were available but their candidature were ignored by the Selection Committee as well as Managing Committee. The R.I.G.S. has also observed that the representation in the institution of schedule castes and schedule tribes was zero which was contrary to certain Government Orders referred to in the impugned order under which certain percentage of posts were required to be reserved for candidates belonging to schedule castes/schedule tribes.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court. Sri Ashok Khare learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted three points for my consideration. These are :- 1. R.I.G.S. has no power to cancel the petitioner's appointment. That power belongs to the Director of Education under section 16-E (10) of the Intermediate Education Act. 2. The petitioner was not offered any opportunity of being heard before cancellation of the appointment. The Government Order describing reservation in favour of the schedule castes/schedule tribes candidate is inconsistent with the Intermediate Education Act and therefore, void and ineffectual in law. 3. Before I deal with the points urged in support of this writ petition, it may be mentioned that this petition, was earlier allowed by an order of this Court dated 17-11-85. Subsequently, at the instance of Km. Neelam Varma the exparte order was recalled. Neelam Varma complained that after the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment she had been appointed to the post in question by an order dated 29-11-79,. i.e. prior to the filing of this writ petition and that she had also started working on that post and drawing salary ever since. The petitioner without impleading her got the petition allowed by an exparte order. The application of Neelam Verma was allowed and the writ petition was restored to its original number. I shall take up the last point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner first. The contention of the learned counsel was that the Government Order laying down certain reservation in favour of schedule castes/schedule tribes candidates is inconsistent with the scheme of the Act inasmuch as under section 16-E, selection of teachers and head of the institutions has to be made on the basis of merit in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 16-E which contemplates selection through a Selection Committee which is required to prepare two panel of three names to be selected on the basis solely of merit from amongst suitable candidates. It, therefore, excluded by necessary implication any reservation met it being the sole criterian.
(3.) I am unable to agree. The Government Order dated 12-7-1978 which lays down reservation is quite consistent with the scheme of enactment. The post which is reserved for schedule caste candidate shall also have to be filled in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 16-E. The only difference will be that the selection will be confined to the candidates falling in the category of schedule caste/schedule tribes. This selection will also be made on merit. Moreover, the advertisement itself indicates that if schedule caste candidates are not available the post can be filled by the general candidate. I, therefore, see no inconsistency j between the Government Order referred to above and the scheme of the j statute. Coming to the second point the position is that while it is true that no opportunity was offered to the petitioner before her appointment was cancelled, in my opinion, on the fact which is beyond any controversy the, impugned order cannot be set aside or quashed on this ground. As mentioned above, the post was admittedly reserved for schedule castes candidates. Further fact which is not disputed is that Neelam Verma and Meera Rani both belonging to schedule castes had applied for the post. The appointment of the petitioner was, therefore, on the facts which are proved beyond any shadow of doubt completely void and unauthorised being directly in the teeth of the Government Order. That being so, this court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was offered no opportunity before cancellation of her appointment.;