V.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) IN Shiv Charan Inter College, Bulandshahar, a duly recognised institution governed by the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, a vacancy arose due to retirement of its Principal on 30.6.92. The petitioner being the senior most lecturer was appointed on 1.7.92. as ad -hoc Principal. District Inspector of Schools attested his signature on 7.7.92. He continued to work as such. The management intimated the vacancy of the Principal to U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (in brief Commission) which advertised the same. The Commission on 30.1.97 held the interview for the post of Principal. Respondent No. 5 was selected. The petitioner has challenged the selection mainly because the names of the two senior most teachers alongwith their character roll etc. was not sent as required by the rules. I have heard Shri G.K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arun Tandon learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and Miss Ainakshi Sharma learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
(2.) SHRI G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of amendment made in U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995 (in brief Rules 1995) adding sub -rule (b) to Rule 11(2) by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (First Amendment) Rules, 1996, requiring the management to send the name of two teachers in accordance with seniority along with their service records, character roll, etc., for consideration of their claim also by the Commission the selection was illegal as the management did not comply with it. On the other hand, Shri Arun Tandon learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 urged that the Commission had written a letter to District Inspector of Schools on 8.1.97 that interview was fixed for 30.1.97 and service records of two senior most teachers along with character roll be sent. The District Inspector of Schools on 24.1.97 in pursuance of it sent a letter, by registered post, to the Manager of the institution for sending the records of the two senior most teachers. A copy of this letter was forwarded to ad -hoc Principal as well. These letters have been filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Inspector of Schools. On the basis of these letters Shri Tandon contended that the petitioner had full knowledge of the date fixed for interview as he was ad -hoc Principal, therefore, he could have participated in the interview and the appointment of respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be illegal only because the records of two senior most teachers were not sent to the Commission.
(3.) THE argument of Shri Tandon is against the rules and its interpretation by this Court. Earlier similar provision existed in the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983. Rule 4(1)(ii) of it provided that the management shall forward to the Commission the name of two senior most teachers alongwith the copies of their service records, including character roil and such other, records, which may be relevant for the selection, and the Commission shall consider the claim of such teachers also, alongwith other candidates while making selection for the post of Principal. In Ram Briksha Maurya v. Murlidhar Misra : 1999 (1) UPLBEC 706, a Division Bench of this Court considered the rule and held that they any selection in disregard of the rule was illegal.;