Allahabad High Court
Azizullah Khan vs State Of U.P.And 4 Others on 24 November, 2014
Author: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court AFR Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1067 of 2014 Appellant :- Azizullah Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Irshad Ali,Ashok Khare,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shamim Ahmed,V.K.Singh With: Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1079 of 2014 Appellant :- Washimuddin Respondent :- Azizullah Khan And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Udayan Nandan,Shashi Nandan,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Irshad Ali,S.P. Singh,Siddharth Khare Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Both the special appeals arise from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11 November 2014. Chronologically, the first special appeal is by the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge, while the second special appeal is by the fifth respondent in the writ proceedings. For convenience of reference, parties would be referred to by the array of parties before the learned Single Judge.
The Regional Joint Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad granted approval to the appointment of the fifth respondent as a Principal of the Fazlur Rahman Inter College, Chandausi, District Sambhal. The appointment was sought to be challenged on the ground that the father of the fifth respondent was a member of the Committee of Management and that under Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the fifth respondent was not eligible for appointment.
Regulation 4 of Chapter III provides as follows:
"4- dksbZ Hkh v/;kid] tks izcU/k lfefr ds fdlh lnL; vFkok iz/kkuk/;kid vFkok vkpk;Z dk lEcU/kh gS] laLFkk esa vLFkk;h vFkok Li"V fjDr LFkku ij ugha fu;qDr fd;k tk,xk vkSj u laLFkk esa fdlh Hkh iz/kkuk/;kid vFkok vkpk;Z fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk tks izcU/k lfefr ds fdlh lnL; dk lEcU/kh gksA bl fofu;e ds iz;kstu ds fy, "lEcU/kh+" esa fuEufyf[kr dk rkRi;Z gS % firk] ckck] llqj] pkpk ;k ekek] iq=] ikS=] nkekn] HkkbZ] iq=h] ikS=h] iRuh] nknh] Hkrhtk] ppsjk ;k eesjk HkkbZ] lkyk] cguksbZ] ifr] nsoj] T;s"B] uUn] lkyh] iq=&o/kw] cfgu] Hkkot] ppsjk HkkbZ dh iRuh] ekWa] lkl] pkph ;k ekSlhA+"
Insofar as is material, regulation 4 provides that a candidate whose relative is a member of the Committee of Management would not be appointed on a vacant post. The list of relatives includes the father. In the present case, the selection process had commenced after the incumbent Principal retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The father of the fifth respondent addressed a letter initially on 1 February 2014 to the Chairperson of the Committee of Management stating that his son, the fifth respondent, had applied for being appointed on the post of Principal and that if the selection Committee were to select him, he would not remain on the post as a member of the Committee of Management and his letter of resignation may be then accepted. The interview for the post of Principal was held on 31 May 2014. By a letter dated 1 June 2014, the father of the fifth respondent informed the Chairperson of the Committee of Management that his son had been selected and in consequence, he desired to be relieved from the Committee of Management. The resignation of the father of the fifth respondent was accepted at a meeting held on 5 June 2014. The papers in regard to the selection of the fifth respondent were forwarded to the Regional Joint Director of Education on 6 June 2014. On 22 August 2014, the Regional Joint Director of Education approved the appointment.
The learned Single Judge held that the father of the fifth respondent had remained a member of the Committee of Management during the entire selection process and the order of appointment could not be viewed in isolation. In the view of the learned Single Judge, the sheer presence of the father as a member in the Committee of Management would no doubt weigh upon the Committee which selects the person which could easily be influenced by the presence of the father. The father of the fifth respondent resigned only one day after the selection process was over. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the selection process was vitiated and so was the order of appointment.
The submission urged on behalf of the fifth respondent in support of the special appeal is that the bar in Regulation 4 of Chapter III is to the appointment of a person whose relative, as defined, is a member of the Committee of Management. It was urged that the Selection Committee under Section 16-F of the Act, 1921 is distinct and that before appointment of the fifth respondent was made, as duly approved, his father had resigned from the Committee of Management.
We are unable to accept the submission. The object and purpose of Regulation 4 of Chapter III is to ensure that a member of the Committee of Management is not able to exercise undue influence by his presence as a member of the Committee of Management. The bar is to prevent a member of the Committee of Management influencing the Selection Committee in the appointment of his relative on the post of Principal. To hold that the regulation would not be attracted so long as the member of the Committee of Management has resigned prior to the date of actual appointment, would defeat its purpose. A purposive interpretation would have to be made of Regulation 4 when it refers to "appointment". Once the selection process has begun, a relative of the Committee of Management falling in one of the prohibited relationships would not be eligible for appointment.
The intention of the father of the fifth respondent is transparently clear. On 1 February 2014, he informed the Committee of Management that the fifth respondent had applied for selection on the vacant post of Principal and should he be selected by the selection Committee, the father would then not wish to continue. The interview was held on 31 May 2014 and, it was only thereafter that the father of the fifth respondent purported to tender his resignation, which was accepted on 5 June 2014. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was not in error in coming to the conclusion that the selection of the fifth respondent was vitiated. There is no merit in the special appeal of the fifth respondent.
The special appeal by the original petitioner is on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted further relief by directing his appointment in the writ proceedings.
We are unable to accept the contention, as well. The power of appointment vests with the Committee of Management, Hence, it would not have either been appropriate or proper for the learned Single Judge to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the appointment of the original petitioner. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is that the entire selection process was vitiated. As a matter of fact, the original petitioner annexed to his writ petition a copy of the marking sheet of the Selection Committee, which indicates a number of over writings in the word "selected" against the name of the original petitioner as well as against the name of another candidate. But the fifth respondent was selected. Particularly, in this state of the record, the ultimate direction of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. The learned Single Judge has correctly, in our view, set aside the selection process on the ground that it was vitiated as was the appointment of the fifth respondent.
Hence, no case for interference is made out. Both the special appeals shall stand, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date:24.11.2014 RKK/-
(P.K.S. Baghel, J) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)