S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh (BSA), learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2, State of U.P. and respondent No. 4, Account Officer in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management.
(2.) A post of Assistant Teacher in Ramnuj Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Baghaila), Bilariaganj, Azamgarh fell vacant due to death of Sri lal Mani Prasad Maurya. Proceedings for filling up the post were initiated by the Manager in January, 2004. B.S.A. granted permission to initiate the proceedings on 18.5.2004. Post was advertised in two newspapers on 24.5.2004. Interview was held on 10.6.2004. By virtue of Rule 9 of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1978. Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Teacher is to consist of Manager, headmaster of the school concerned and nominee of District Basic Education Officer. The B.S.A. had nominated Assistant Basic Education Officer as his nominee. Manager was the other member of the Selection Committee. It is stated that regular headmaster was on leave, hence senior most teacher, who was officiating as Head Master, participated in the deliberations of the Selection Committee. Selection Committee selected the petitioner. Papers were sent to D.I.O.S. on 14.6.2004. As no reply was given by the B.S.A., hence appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 5.8.2004. However, thereafter through order dated 25.9.2004, B.S.A. cancelled the appointment/selection process. Said order is contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition and has been challenged through this writ petition. In the said order, the only defect pointed out in the selection process is that Headmaster did not participate in the selection process. The Assistant B.S.A. after conclusion of the proceedings of Selection Committee had written a letter to BSA on 10.6.2004, I.e., on that very date on which Selection Committee interviewed the candidates. In the very first paragraph of the said report, it is mentioned that at the place of Headmaster Sri Chandra Bhushan Mishra, assistant teacher, participated in the deliberations of the Selection Committee. Assistant B.S.A. also wrote another letter dated 17.6.2004 to B.S.A. That was in reply to the objection regarding constitution of the Selection Committee, which had been raised by the B.S.A. In the said letter after referring to his earlier report, Assistant B.S.A. mentioned that Sri Chandra Bhushan Mishra participated in the deliberations of the Selection Committee as Officiating/In-charge headmaster. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that Sri Ramashray, the regular headmaster is father of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have not been able to point out any Rule where appointment of close relation of headmaster as teacher is prohibited. If son of regular headmaster was appearing before the Selection Committee, then it was essential for the headmaster not to sit as member of Selection Committee otherwise selection of the petitioner would have been utterly illegal. Accordingly, I find that impugned order is erroneous in law and there was absolutely no error in the selection of the petitioner. On the suggestion of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed on behalf of the petitioner for giving up the right to claim salary till date.;