Allahabad High Court
Mohan Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 June, 2022
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 29.04.2022
Delivered On:- 20.06.2022
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 700 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohan Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla,Anmol Ratan,Ram Prakash Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar,Ramesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri U. K. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A.K. S. Parihar, learned counsel representing no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of Clause III of the corrigendum dated 01.01.2022 issued by the respondent no. 2, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Prayagraj. A direction has been sought against respondent no. 2 to allot marks to the petitioner on the basis of teaching and administrative experience on the date of interview.
3. The facts of the petition are that the petitioner no. 1 was selected as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade by the respondent no. 2 and was allotted Victoriya Inter College, Ghatiya Azam Khan, Agra on 16.04.2005 and he joined the aforesaid institution on 23.04.2005. Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 was promoted as lecturer (mathematics) in the year 2010 in the same institution. In the year 2017, the ad-hoc Principal, Surendra Singh, was suspended by the Committee of Management and charge was handed over to the petitioner no. 1. Being senior-most teacher his signature was attested and he is being paid salary of ad-hoc Principal. The earlier ad-hoc Principal has been reverted to his post of lecturer. Petitioner no. 1 holds the degree of B.Ed, M.Sc (mathematics) and M.A (political science) and fully qualified for being appointed as Principal of the institution.
4. Petitioner no. 2 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on 01.03.1993 and on 22.01.2011, he was promoted as lecturer (Sociology and Civics). Being senior-most teacher he was offered the charge of officiating principal on 09.11.2012 and his signature was duly attested. He is still continuing as such. He holds the degree of B.Ed., B.A. and M.A (mathematics) and is fully qualified to be appointed as Principal.
5. Petitioner no. 3 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T Grade on 03.03.1992 on ad-hoc basis, subsequently regularized on 07.06.1994 and being senior most eligible teacher, was handed over charge of ad-hoc Principal and his signature was attested. He has qualification of B.Ed., M.A (Economics) and has qualification for being appointed on the post of Principal in the aforesaid institution.
6. By virtue of Clause III of the impugned corrigendum dated 02.01.2022, a cut off date has been prescribed for the educational qualification and teaching experience.
7. The last date of submission of application form i.e., 25.02.2014 has been prescribed as cut off date in respect of educational qualification in respect of two senior-most teachers in the institution. In the advertisement no. 3 of 2013 which was published on 31.12.2013, there was no such prescription of a cut off date. In the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1998), there is no such prescription and no cut off date. The clause in corrigendum is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the corrigendum dated 02.01.2022 issued by the board is in terms of notification issued at the time and the cut off date of 25.02.2014 mentioned in the corrigendum is the same as in advertisement dated 31.12.2013. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid Clause 3 of the aforesaid corrigendum was unsuccessfully challenged before this court in Writ - A No. 364 of 2022. It has further been submitted that the Principals are working on ad-hoc basis in their respective institutions and as soon as the regularly selected candidates join the institution their continuance on the post of ad-hoc Principal will come to an end. In advertisement dated 31.12.2013, it has been mentioned in the "note of educational qualification" that the educational qualification as well as teaching experience shall be considered only till the last date of application before the Board i.e., 30.01.2014. Subsequently, the date was extended till 25.02.2014 by way of notification which was published in newspaper. As per Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules of 1998, seniority is to be calculated on the date of requisition send by the Management to the Board. The advertisement was published on 31.12.2013 and hence calculation of educational qualification as well as teaching experience till the last date submission of application was relevant and subsequent acquisition of educational qualifications and teaching experience and seniority by the petitioners is not relevant.
9. It has further been stated that the board is proceeding with the appointment of Principals / Head Masters in terms of the provisions contained in the act and the rules and not in accordance with Appendix - D of Chapter II of Intermediate Education Act as claimed by the petitioner. If the names of petitioners have been forwarded their eligibility shall be considered as per the cut off date.
10. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioners wherein it has been stated that provisions of Rule 12(4)(V) of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board of Rules, 1988 are applicable. The petitioners had requisite educational qualification and teaching experience on the cut off date i.e., 25.04.2014 and all the petitioners were called for interview. The order passed in Writ - A No. 364 of 2022 was filed by the ad-hoc Principals who did not have requisite educational qualification and teaching experience on the cut off date and hence they were not called for interview. The aforesaid judgment has no application to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners are not aggrieved by the fixing of cut off date i.e., 25.04.2014 in respect of acquisition of educational qualification and teaching experience for coming inside the zone of consideration. They are aggrieved by fixing of the cut off date in so far as it relates to the consideration and allotment of marks for teaching experience which shall not be considered after the cut off date. As per Rule 12(4)(V) of the Rules of 1998, one percent mark for each year of teaching experience is awarded subject to maximum of 16 percent marks.
11. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that it would be useful to refer to Rule 12(4)(V) of Rules of 1998 which is as follows:-
12. Procedure for direct recruitment.
5. The Board shall in respect to the selection for the post of Head Master and Principals, allot the marks in the following manner :-
(i) 60% marks on the basis of quality points specified in Appendix 'D'.
(ii) 16% marks for having experience more than the required experience in the manner that 1% marks shall be awarded for each year of such experience, subject to a maximum of 16% marks.
(iii) 2% marks for research paper published in reputed journals in the manner that 1/2% marks shall be allotted for each research paper subject to maximum 2% marks.
(iv) 7% marks for having Doctorate degree or 3% for Master of Education (M.Ed.) provided that only one degree shall be considered under this clause.
12. From the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is clear that the sole grievances of the petitioners is that they would not be given benefit of Rule 12(4)(V) of the Rules of 1998 since after making application for selection before board, they have acquired much experience as ad-hoc Principals but in view of the cut off date, the same shall not be considered and no benefit of the same would accrue to them.
13. On the contrary the respondents have taken the stand that the petitioners are not entitled to take any benefit of the teaching experience acquired subsequent to the cut off date as per the statute.
14. This Court finds that the judgment in the Writ - A No. 364 of 2022 is not relevant for deciding this case since the petitioners in the aforesaid case were not within the zone of consideration for appointment on the post of Principal or Head Master, since they did not had requisite educational qualification and experience at the relevant time. This is not the issue in the present case. In the present case, the only issue is whether the petitioners can be permitted to claim benefit of their teaching experience which they have acquired after the cut off date fixed by the commission. In the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chandra Shekhar and Another (1997) 4 SCC 18, the Apex Court held that where applications are called prescribing a particular date as last date for filing application, eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date. A subsequent acquisition of qualification by the candidate would not be relevant.
15. In case the prayer by the petitioners is allowed, it will open the pandoras box since all the candidates who have appeared for interview will seek consideration of their teaching experience acquired after the cut off date and even then the petitioners would not be benefited, if all the candidates are allowed to get their experiences acquired after the cut off date counted as relevant consideration. The candidates who have experience more than the petitioners will go further ahead of the petitioners after addition of their further teaching experience and petitioners will still not be able to get more marks than the candidates who still have more experience than the petitioners. If the teaching experience of all the candidates who have applied would be revised, all the candidates would be benefited. This Court cannot grant relief to the petitioners in isolation and general grant of relief will be of no consequence for the petitioners.
16. Therefore, in view of the above consideration, the petitioners have not made out any good ground for granting the reliefs prayed.
17. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.06.2022 Rohit