TULSI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1998-5-45
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 13,1998

TULSI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) S. H. A. Raza, J. This bunch of writ petitions pertains to selection of suitable candidates on 216 posts of the Principals in Government (Boys/girls) Inter Col leges of the State. It was for the first time that exercise of such a magnitude was to be carried out by the Public Service Commis sion, U. P. , Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in pursuance of the Advertisement dated May 8, 1996. The minimum qualifications prescribed for such a selection were: (i) a post-graduate degree from a univer sity established by law in india or a degree recog nised by the Government as equivalent thereto. (ii) L. T Diploma of the Department of Education, U. P. , or B. T. or B. Ed. or an equivalent degree of a university. (iii) at least three years' 'experience as Head of a Higher Secondary or Normal School or in teaching Intermediate or Higher Secon dary as a Lecturer in C. T or L. T Training Col lege.
(2.) CONDITION No. 13 of the Advertise ment provides that the candidature of such candidates who are subsequently found in eligible according to the terms laid down in the Advertisement, will be cancelled and their any claim for the main examina tion will not be entertained. The decision of the Commission regarding eligibility of a candidate shall be final. Similarly Condition No. 14 provides that the Commission may, admit the candidate provisionally, after sum mary checking of the applications but if it is found at any stage that the applicant was not eligible or that his application should have been rejected or was not entertainable initially, his candidature will be rejected and if the candidate is selected, the recommendation of the Commission shall be withdrawn. The candidates firstly were allowed to appear in the preliminary examination. Those who cleared the examination were allowed to appear in the main examination and those who cleared the main examination were allowed to appear in the Inter view. About one lac candidates appeared in the preliminary examination.
(3.) AT the time. of Interview the Com mission took a decision to get aproforma filled up by the candidates with a view to decide as to whether they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. According to the Com mission it was not possible to scrutinise each and every application while allowing the candidates to appear in preliminary examination, main examination and inter view provisionally. A large number of can didates did not submit experience certifi cate and furnish details about their qualifications, experience etc. The Com mission proceeded to hold the examina tion while the eligibility criteria was under consideration of the Commission to find truthfulness of the enterics in the form filled up by the candidates and to adopt a procedure where proper candidates for the post of the principal of an Inter mediate College were selected. As stated in the foregoing para graph the Commission prepared an ex perience certificate's pro forma which was to be furnished within 60 days in order to get full and correct address from the proper and competent authority so that false and fictitious candidates may be avoided from being selected. Against 216 posts of the Principals of Government In termediate Colleges 417 candidates were called for interview. However, 410 can didates appeared in Interview, out of which 384 candidates submitted their ex perience certificates in the prescribed pro forma. The rest of the candidates have not submitted their experience certificates. After checking thoroughly all the ex perience certificates the Commission found the following types of candidates: (i) who were claiming to work as Lecturer in aided institutions but were not getting salary from treasury of from Government fund. They were drawing salary in lamp-sum and fixed amount. (ii) who were claiming to teach in unaided institutions as part-time lecturers. (iii) who were claiming to teach in unaided institutions as honorary lecturers. (iv) who were claiming to teach in self-financing institutions but they were not appointed legally as stated by the Joint Director in their experience certificates. They were paid amount on day to day basis or a fixed amount by the management. (v) who were teaching as L. T. Grade Teachers or trained graduate teachers scale. (vi) who had not completed three years' teaching experience as a lecturer. (vii) who were working as lecturers in Government Inter Colleges and were drawing salary from treasury or Government fund. (viii) who were working as Lecturer in Navodaya Vidyalayas or in a Central School and drawing salary from Government fund. (ix) who were working as Lecturer in Government aided institutions and they were drawing salary from treasury or Government fund. (x) who were working as Lecturer in Defence Ministry/railway Ministry or in a Government Sponsored Institution and were getting salary from Government fund.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.