Allahabad High Court
Kuvendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Neutral Citation No. -2023:AHC:168171
Reserved on 24.07.2023
Delivered on 21.08.2023
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50745 of 2017
Petitioner :- Kuvendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai,Ashok Khare,Bhaiya Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,G.C.Saxena S.C
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Bhaiya Lal Yadav along with Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G.C. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel who appears for third and fourth respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details as worded in the writ petition are that the third respondent, M.G. Polytechnic, Hathras (in short 'Institute') is affiliated to Board of Technical Education governed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962, U.P. Act No. XVII of 1962 (in short '1962 Act') possessing an approved scheme of administration under Section 22-A of 1962 Act.
3. Records reveal that a government order was issued on 08.04.1991 addressed to the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. providing for creation of four post of Lecturers in Electronics discipline in the third respondent- institute amongst other posts.
4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that as per the provisions contained under the approved Scheme of Administration of the third respondent- institute, a selection committee was contemplated to conduct selections which consisted of (i) Chairman, Managing Committee or a person nominated by him/her, (ii) An expert selected by Chairman of Managing Committee out of the panel of experts prepared by Director of Technical Education, (iii) A representative of the Director of Technical Education, (iv) One representative of All India Council of Teacher Education/Northern region office of Government of India, Ministry of Education (Technical) and; (v) Principal.
5. In para 6 of the writ petition, it has been further averred that in order to conduct selections for appointment on the post of Lecturers in various disciplines as per the Scheme of Administration, the second respondent Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. nominated a selection committee in particular for the post of Lecturer (Electronics), one Sri K.K. Tripathi, Head of the Department, Electronics Engineering, HBTI, Kanpur was made expert member. An advertisement was also published by the third respondent-institution in employment newspaper on 8.10.1993 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for being considered for appointment against several vacancies of Lecturers in the third respondent institution including two post of Lecturers in Electronics.
6. The writ petitioner claiming himself to be fully eligible and qualified in all respects while working on the post of Corporal in Indian Air force since 27.12.1993 applied for the post of Lecturer in Electronics on 13.10.1993. The petitioner was issued an interview letter to appear in the interview. Writ petitioner claims to have appeared in the interview.
7. In para 10 of the writ petition, it has been further averred that the selection committee comprising of Sri K.K. Tripathi, Head of the Department Electronics Engineering HBTI, Kanpur along with expert members comprising of Sri Y.P. Singh, President of Managing Committee and G.P. Singh Principal/Secretary of Committee of Institution in question on the basis of the marks obtained by the writ petitioner found him to be suitable and forwarded the entire documents in this regard before the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P.
8. As per the writ petitioner in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of section 22-F of the 1962 Act, the Managing Committee of the third respondent proceeded to issue an appointment order in favour of the writ petitioner on 12.03.1994 appointing him on the post of Lecturer (Electronics).
9. Proceedings of the selection committee dated 22.01.1994 was placed in the meeting of the Managing Committee which was also approved by the Managing Committee vide minutes dated 14.05.1994.
10. Writ petitioner in para 13 and 14 of the writ petition has further averred that he has wide experience to his credit and his selection was based on merit.
11. Petitioner further claims to have been accorded joining on 23.04.1994 and he was assigned various assignments which he carried out to the satisfaction of the third respondent in question. Appreciation letters have also been appointed by the writ petitioner reference whereof has been given in para 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition.
12. Since the regular pay scale/salary was not being extended to the petitioner and one Sri Amit Mishra, who was also sailing on the same boat, so they preferred writ petition No. 106 of 1996 (S.B.) seeking relief for a mandamus commanding the respondents therein to pay regular salary to the petitioners from the date of the appointment with all consequential benefits including arrears.
13. However, in the meantime, on 18.03.1994 an order passed by the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. whereby the appointment of the writ petitioner was disapproved on the post of Lecturer (Electronics). Consequently, an amendment application was filed in the said writ petition which was allowed. Subsequently, the said writ petition was transferred to this court from the Lucknow bench and was re-numbered as Civil Misc. Writ A No. 25791 of 1997.
14. Records further reveal that the officiating Principal of the third respondent- institution passed an order dated 14.03.2001 terminating the services of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed of Writ A No. 11976 of 2001 (Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others).
15. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 30.03.2001, which is extracted as under:
"Until further orders, the operation of the impugned order dated 14.03.2001 and dispossession of the petitioner from the official accommodation shall remain stayed."
16. The Writ A No. 25791 of 1997 (Amit Mishra and another Vs. State of UP and another) challenging the order dated 18.03.1994 passed by the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. came up for final consideration on 23.08.2016, wherein the order dated 18.03.1994 passed by the second respondent was set aside observing that the premise on which the disapproval has been made was non-existent as approval was not needed of the second respondent at the stage of conducting selection but approval was needed prior to the issuance of the appointment order, in view of the language employed under Section 22 (F) of the 1962 Act. However, in the operative portion of the order while setting aside the order dated 18.03.1994, the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. was directed to examine the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2016 passed in Writ-A No. 25791 of 1997 (Amit Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) is being quoted below;
"17. Director now shall examine the matter afresh and pass a appropriate order in accordance with law and if he does find any otherwise valid reason for disapproval, approval shall be granted and petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of their appointment.
18. In the result and subject to above direction, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.03.1994 is hereby set aside."
17. On the same day, the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner, Writ A No. 11976 of 2001 challenging the termination order dated 14.03.2001 passed by the third respondent-institution came to be allowed entitling the writ petitioner for all consequential benefits.
18. Pleadings further reveal that the order dated 23.08.2016 passed in both the writ petitions was subject matter of challenge in SLP(C) ..... CC No. 6810 of 2017 and SLP (C) ..... CC No. 8260 of 2017 before the Apex Court which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 01.05.2017 with liberty to approach high court by way of filing review petition.
19. It has also been informed that the review applications preferred by the respondents have been rejected on 04.12.2019.
20. Post remand, now the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. has proceeded to pass an order date 13.09.2017 cancelling the entire selection process while holding that the selection process was not in accordance with the law.
21. Questioning the order dated 13.09.2017 second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. as well as seeking mandamus directing the respondents to restore the recommendation of the selection committee dated 22.01.1994 for a selection and appointment of the writ petitioner as Lecturer (Electronics) in the third respondent-institution, the present writ petition has been filed.
22. While entertaining the present writ petition on 01.11.2017, the order dated 13.09.2017 was kept in abeyance and notices were issued to the third and fourth respondent calling response.
23. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of first and second respondent sworn by the Head of the Department, Computer Government Girls Polytechnic, Allahabad on 15.12.2017 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on 11.03.2018. On behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who happens to be the Managing Committee of the Committee in question and the Principal, a counter affidavit has been filed on 03.04.2018 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on 14.04.2018. Further a supplementary affidavit has been filed dated 18.09.2001 which is available on record.
24. A compilation of the judgments has also been filed which is also on record.
25. Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav along with Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner have sought to argue that the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. suffers from patent illegality and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on various grounds, firstly the selections are of the year 1994 and they could not have been canceled after a period of approximately 13 years, particularly, when the writ petitioner was appointed through a selection committee constituted in accordance with the scheme of administration duly approved by the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. pursuant to an advertisement and conferring of benefit while issuing of an appointment order on 12.03.1994 and joining on 23.04.1994. Secondly, the order dated 18.03.1994 passed by the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. did not question the selection and the appointment of the writ petitioner on the ground of any illegality committed in the selections, however, the only ground taken for disapproval was that prior approval of the Director was not taken before conducting selections and once the said ground stood disapproved in a judicial scrutiny by this Court affirmed up to the Apex Court and in review petitions then taking of a new ground questioning the selections is totally impermissible as it amounts to be an afterthought just to denude the writ petitioner of his legitimate rights. Thirdly, a procedure has been contemplated under the statute itself being the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 for the purposes of prescribing qualifications of appointment of Principal and Teachers and the mode of selections, then the guidelines/the letter of the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. addressed to the Principals of the institution dated 17.05.1989 would not apply and thus while adopting the said criteria with regard to holding the selection to be illegal is not permissible. Fourthly, the selection committee has selected a candidate on the basis of over all assessment then the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. has no authority under law to annul the said decision while holding the said selection to be illegal. Fifthly, while taking a decision for approving or disapproving the selection/appointment, the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. was not required to go into the issue with regard to the subjective and the objective analysis of the selection committee while awarding marks and further in absence of any provision contained in the statute in question nothing could be borrowed from outside. Sixthly, the order of the Director of Technical Education impugned in the writ petition tantamount to review which is thoroughly impermissible as fresh grounds have been injected to the denude the claim of the writ petition.
26. In a nutshell, the argument of learned Senior Counsel who appears for the writ petitioner is that the selection of the writ petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Electronics) was strictly in accordance with law as per the scheme of the administration approved by the Director Technical Education, thus, there being no complaint of any corner, the selections could not be said to be illegal, particularly, when the grounds which have been taken post remand were never the ground which was earlier pressed into service.
27. Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner further summits that the guidelines which the respondents are proposing to apply in the selections which has been issued under the signatures of the Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. addressed to the Principals of Aided Institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh is in a form of a letter, as such it does not partake the character of any Rule, Regulation or a Government Order and thus it tantamounts to introduce certain aspects which are not provided under the act itself, consequently, the said letter even does violence to the statutory enactment and the same is ultra vires. It is thus, being sought to be argued that any direction issued by the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. which is not contemplated under the Rules cannot be pressed into service so as to point out any deficiency in the selections. Submission is, only under the statutory provisions of the 1962 Act, the power vest under Section 22 of the 1962 Act to frame rules and under Section 24 to make bylaws. As the letter of the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. dated 17.05.1989 does not either qualify to be a rule or regulation, thus, the respondents could not have canceled the selection on the premise that the guidelines stipulated in the said letter was not followed while making selections. Further submission has been made on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had got himself discharged from Indian Air force and had applied for the post in question, hence it would be quite hard to cancel the selections in the year 2017 which were held in the year 1994 as in the entire service and academic career would be jeopardized. Accordingly, he prays that the order impugned in the writ petition dated 13.09.2017 passed by the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. be set aside and the writ petitioner be accorded all the benefits as sought in toto.
28. Countering the said submission Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena for the State-respondents has argued that the decision of the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. is perfectly valid in accordance with law and no fault whatsoever can be attributed in that regard. He submits that though, the advertisement was issued in the year 1993 and the selections were conducted in the year 1994, however, the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. proceeded to decline approval to the appointment of the writ petitioner on a wrong premise that prior approval was needed under Section 22-F of the 1962 Act before conducting selections, however the same was rightly turned down in the writ proceedings at the behest of the writ petitioner in Writ A- No. 25791 of 1997 decided on 23.08.2016 while remitting the matter back to the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. to examine the matter a fresh and to pass appropriate orders. Consequent to the examination of the entire issue after perusing the record, the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. found that there were glaring irregularities conducted in the selection by the selection committee which occasioned passing of the impugned order.
29. Submission is that there is no delay in cancellation of the selection as consequent to the order passed on 23.08.2016 by Writ Court when the issue was examined then in the year 2017, the order impugned has been passed on 13.09.2017. He submits that in the wake of the fact that the order dated 13.08.1994 was an order which even in fact was not passed after examining the criteria and the procedure adopted by Selection Committee but the same was passed on the premise that prior approval before selection was not taken from the second respondent, thus it is contended that the action of the respondents cannot be faulted. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the State while inviting the attention towards the order impugned in the writ petition has submitted that with respect to the selection of Lecturer (Electronics), two posts were advertised and as many as 110 applicants applied. He submits that as per the minutes of the selection committee, the first page of the same has been signed by the Dr. G.B. Singh, Principal, Sri K.K. Tripathi, Special Secretary and Sri Y.P. Singh, chairman, however the second page wherein a chart has been tabulated containing the heading of academic qualification, technical qualification, attainment of marks over and above the minimum qualification and interview, there is a signature only of the Principal, members-Secretary, however the signature of Special-Secretary and chairman are found missing and in the third page, the signatures of three members is already there. It is being further demonstrated that once a selection committee comprises of three members then obviously separate marks is to be awarded under the aforesaid heading by all the three members, however there has been no separate marks awarded by the three members which even in fact is a glaring irregularity. While drawing attention towards the letter of the Director dated 17.05.1989 providing for the guidelines and the yardsticks according to which marks are to be awarded by the members of the selections committee under different heads, it is sought to be submitted that the entire selection has been tailored in such a manner so as to confer benefit to the petitioner herein and one Sri Amit Mishra as in the case of the writ petitioner (Kuvendra Pal Singh), he obtained only 5 marks under the parameter of academic qualification maximum marks being 10 and 20 marks under the parameter of technical qualification maximum 40 marks. However, he was awarded 29 marks under the parameters of viva voce, maximum 30 marks. So far as Amit Mishra is concerned, he also obtained 5 marks under the parameter of academic qualifications out of 10 marks and 30 marks under the parameters of Technical qualification maximum whereof is 40 marks and 28 marks in viva voce totally 30 marks just in order to secure selection to them as the other candidates namely Atul Srivastava and Km. Jyoti Rawat, Ashok Kumar, they were awarded 10 marks under the parameter of academic qualification, 40 marks under the parameter of technical qualification, and they were awarded only 8 marks in interview. Illustration to the said effect has been given in the case of Atul Goyal, Piyush Chandra Gupta, Arvind Srivastava, etc. Additionally, it has been argued that as per the letter of the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. dated 17.05.1989 in case a candidate possesses higher qualifications then the minimum qualification so required then the maximum marks would be 20 and looking into the qualification and experience, the marks would be awarded and so far as the marks with regard to experience is concerned, two marks are to be awarded each year maximum to 10.
30. The submission is that since in the interview 1/3rd marks were required for being selected being 10 marks out of 30 marks, the selection committee just in order to eliminate the chances of deserving candidates had awarded less than 10 marks under the criteria interview out of marks 30 marks, despite the fact that those candidates had obtained higher marks under the parameters of Academic qualification and Technical qualification. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the letter of the Director of Technical Education dated 17.05.1989 was loud and clear and the same cannot be said to be ultra vires of any of the provisions contained under the 1962 Act. Additionally, it is also argued that in the normal conduct of business it is widely known that the selecting body, the case may be either U.P. Public Service Commission or Union Public Service Commission and U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission they can device there own procedure for awarding marks under different category, once the same does not find presence in the statutes.
31. Apart from the same, it has been further argued that under Section 22-F of the 1962 Act, deliberately the word "approved" has been employed which signifies that the Director before taking a decision either to approve or disaprove the selection or the appointments has to apply its independent mind after going through the records in order to be satisfied as to whether the selections were held in a legal manner or not. Thus, it is being sought to be argued that the Director cannot act as a post-office while putting his rubber stamp without perusing and being satisfied in that regard.
32. Before embarking an enquiry upon the arguments advanced by the rival parties with relation to the legality and validity of the orders impugned in the writ petition. it would be apposite to notice not only relevant statutory provisions but also the documents which would be germane for deciding the controversy in question.
Minutes of Selection Committee dated 22.01.1994 चयन समिति की बैठक दिनांक 22.01.1994 की कार्यवाही की संलग्नक अंक तालिका।
प्रवक्ता इलेक्ट्रानिक्स पवद (सामान्य) क्र०सं० अभ्यार्थी का नाम ऐकेडेमिक योग्यता के आधार पर प्राप्तांक टेक्नीकल योग्यता के आधार पर प्राप्तांक न्यूनतम से अधिक योग्यता के आधार पर प्राप्तांक साक्षात्कार के आधार पर प्राप्तांक 1 श्री अनिल कुमार सोनी 10 30
-
10 2श्री राम कमल शर्मा 10 30
-
8 3श्री अतुल श्रीवास्तव 10 40
-
8 4श्री आघास कुमार शर्मा 10 20
-
10 5श्री राहुल वर्मा 10 30
-
5 6श्री विक्रम सिंह पवार 10 20
-
12 7श्री मो० सुल्तान अहमद अन्सारी 0 20
-
10 8श्री सत्यप्रकाश तिवारी 5 30
-
10 9श्री अनुज कुमार सक्सेना 5 40
-
9 10श्री बसन्त कुमार 10 30
-
10 11श्री अवधेश कुमार गौतम 5 20
-
8 12श्री नरेन्द्र सिंह 10 30
-
11 13श्री उपेन्द्र कुमार शुक्ला 10 30
-
12 14कु० ज्योति रावत 10 40
-
8 15श्री अतुल गोयल 10 40
-
4 16श्री निवास अगनोरा 10 20
-
10 17श्री अरविन्द श्रीवास्तव 10 40
-
3 18श्री राजेश कुमार तमैया 10 30
-
10 19श्री पियूष चन्द्र गुप्ता 10 40
-
9 20श्री संजय कुमार 10 20
-
8 21ज्योति स्वरूप गुप्ता 10 30
-
11 22श्री विवेक श्रीवास्तव 10 30
-
10 23श्री मनोज कुमार मित्तल 10 30
-
10 24श्री अशोक कुमार 10 40
-
8 25श्री मोहम्मद सलीम वेग 10 40
-
9 26श्री गोविन्द कुमार शर्मा 10 30
-
11 27श्री देवेश कुमार द्विवेदी 10 30
-
12 28श्री सुशील कुमार सिंह 5 30
-
10 29श्री काली प्रकाश श्रीवास्तव 10 30
-
13 30श्री राजेश तिवारी 5 20
-
9 31श्री रामफल सत्यार्थी 5 20
-
9 32श्री विजय कुमार शुक्ला 10 20
-
10 33श्री कुवेन्द्रपाल सिंह 5 20
-
29 34श्री राजीव कुमार सिंह 5 30
-
10 35श्री राजीव कुमार गुप्ता 10 30
-
8 36श्री रजनेश कुमार यादव 5 30
-
12 37श्री शरद संजीव शर्मा 10 30
-
10 38श्री मौन अहमद इदर्शी 10 30
-
11 39श्री वीरेन्द्र कुमार सिंह 10 30
-
10 40श्री प्राणेश कुमार 10 30
-
10 41श्री विजय कुमार अग्रवाल 10 30
-
12 42श्री सुशील कुमार शर्मा 5 20
-
5 43श्री योगेन्द्र सिंह 5 30
-
5 44श्री महेशपाल सिंह चौहान 10 20
-
12 45श्री हेमन्त पुरोहित 10 30
-
10 46श्री सन्दीप अग्रवाल 10 30
-
10 47श्रीमती अन्जुल गंगवार 10 40
-
8 48श्रीमती जिज्ञासा आत्रेय 5 30
-
10 49श्री योगेन्द्र सिंह 5 20
-
5 50श्री मनियाल 10 30
-
12 51श्री सुदीप कुमार पण्डा 5 30
-
11 52श्री राजेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव 10 20
-
8 53श्री हरीपाल यादव 10 30
-
10 54श्री अनुरूद्ध कुमार रांगा 5 30
-
10 55श्री अमित मिश्रा 5 30
-
28 56श्री आत्माराम 10 30
-
10 57श्री सदरसू महेश्वरी 10 30
-
10 58श्री उमेश सिंह 5 30
-
11 59श्री कपिल कुमार श्रीवास्तव 10 30
-
12 60श्री दिनेश चन्द्र 10 30
-
12 61श्री प्रमोद कुमार अग्रवाल 5 30
-
12 62श्री हेमचन्द्र विष्ट 10 30
-
12 63श्री सत्य कामत 10 30
-
10 64श्री राजीव रन्जन पाण्डेय 10 30
-
11(डा० जी०पी० सिंह प्रधानाचार्य सदस्य सचिव प्रबन्ध समिति, एम०जी० पालीटेक्निक, हाथरस।
(के०के० त्रिपाठी) विशेषज्ञ सचिव, हेड आफ डिपार्टमेंट, इलेक्ट्रानिक्स, इंजी०, एच०बी०टी०आई, कानपुर।
(वाई०पी० सिंह) अध्यक्ष, प्रबन्ध समिति, एम०जी० पालीटेक्निक, हाथरस।
Order dated 13.09.2017 of the Director of Technical Education मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित उक्त आदेश के अनुपालन में याचीगणों के चयन के अनुमोदन पर निर्णय लिये जाने हेतु संस्था एम०जी० पालीटेक्निक, हाथरस में चयन समिति द्वारा प्रवक्ता इलेक्ट्रानिक्स के 02 पद एंव प्रवक्ता विद्युत के 02 पद पर की गई चयन की कार्यवाही से सम्बन्धित संस्था प्रधानाचार्य के पत्र सं० 16 ई०एस०(ए)/481 दिनांक 15.02.1994 द्वारा प्रेषित प्रस्ताव एंव संलग्न अभिलेखों का पुनः परीक्षण किया गया, जिसमें निम्न कमियां/त्रुटियां पाई गईः-
1- संस्था के प्रेषित पत्र दिनांक 15.02.1994 द्वारा प्रवक्ता इलेक्ट्रानिक्स के 02 पद हेतु 110 अभ्यर्थियों के प्राप्त आवेदन पत्रों के आधार पर उनका विवरण उल्लिखित करते हुए 7 पृष्ठो पत्र संलग्न है तथा प्रवक्ता विद्युत (सामान्य) के 01 पद हेतु कोई विवरण पत्र संलग्न नहीं से मिलान (स्क्रीनिंग) करते हुए प्राप्त वैध आवेदन पत्र एंव निरस्त किये गये आवेदन पत्रों का निर्माण कर वैध आवेदनकर्ताओं को साक्षात्कार हेतु बुलाने का निर्माण किया जाना चाहिए था, परन्तु उक्त पपत्रों पर न तो चयन समिति के सदस्यों के हस्ताक्षर हैं और न ही जन्म अनुभव प्रमाण पत्रों का मान्य/अमान्य माने जाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई टिप्पणी अंकित की गई है जो नियमों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में सही नहीं है।
2. प्रवक्त इलेक्ट्रानिक्स के पदों पर गठित चयन समिति की बैठक दिनांक 22.1.1994 से सम्बन्धित अंको का चार्ट प्रेषित किया गया है, जिसमें 64 अभ्यर्थियों का चयन समिति द्वारा साक्षात्कार के पश्चात प्रदत्त अंकों का विवरण 02 पृष्ठों में प्रेषित किया गया है, जिसमें प्रथम पृष्ठ पर मात्र तत्कालीन प्रधानाचार्य, एम०जी० पालीटेक्निक, हाथरस के ही हस्ताक्षर हैं तथा समिति के अन्य 02 सदस्यों के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है। पृष्ठ-2 पर चयन समिति के तीनों सदस्यों क्रमशः 1- डा० जी०पी० सिंह, प्राधानाचार्य/सदस्य-सचिव, 2-श्री के०के० त्रिपाठी विशेषज्ञ/सदस्य, (इलेक्ट्रानिक्स) 3-श्री वाई०पी० सिंह, अध्यक्ष, प्रबन्ध समिति द्वारा हस्ताक्षर किये गये है। प्रथम पृष्ठ पर मात्र प्रधानाचार्य के हस्ताक्षर होने से चयन समिति के सभी सदस्यों द्वारा साक्षात्कार के अंक प्रधान किये गये है, सिद्ध नहीं होता है तथा एकल हस्ताक्षर होने के कारण उसको बदले जाने (Manipulation) की सम्भावना से भी इन्कार नहीं किया जा सकता है। नियमानुसार अंक चार्ट के सभी पृष्ठों चयन समिति के सभी सदस्यों के हस्ताक्षर होने आवश्यक हैं, क्योंकि चनय समिति के सभी सदस्यों द्वारा साक्षात्कार के अंक प्रदान किये जाते हैं।
3. चयन समिति द्वारा अभ्यर्थियों का साक्षात्कार निम्न आधार पर किये जाने का उल्लेख किया गया हैः-
ऐकेडेमिक योग्यता टेक्निकल योग्यता न्यूनतम से अधिक योग्यता साक्षात्कार के अधिकतम अंक 10 40 20 30 उक्त संदर्भ में निदेशक प्राविधिक शिक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश के पत्र सं० 17-35 ए०डी० कैम्प/ई-35-एक्स विविध दिनांक 17.05.1989 द्वारा समस्त प्रधानाचार्य, सहायता प्राप्त बहुधंधी संस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश को नियुक्ति हेतु शैक्षिक योग्यता, अनुभव तथा साक्षात्कार के लिए अंकों के मापदण्ड का निर्धारण किया गया है, जिसमें व्याख्याता पद हेतु इण्डरमीडिएट प्रथम श्रेणी-10 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी-05 अंक, (अधिकतम-10 अंक) डिग्री 75 प्रतिशत से अधिक-40 अंक, प्रथम श्रेणी-30 अंक, द्वितीय श्रेणी-20 अंक, (अधिकतम-40 अंक) निर्धारित अर्हता से उच्च प्राविधिक अर्हता-10 अंक, अनुभव के लिए 02 अंक प्रतिवर्ष अधिकतम 10 अंक (कुल 20 अंक) (अर्हता तथा अनुभव की प्रकृति को देखते हुए चयन समिति द्वारा अंक दिये जायेगें) तथा साक्षात्कार हेतु 30 अंक (साक्षात्कार में एक तिहाई से कम अंक प्राप्त होने पर चयन नहीं किया जायेगा) कुल 100 अंक का निर्धारण करते हुए चयन किये जाने का प्राविधान किया गया है।
उपर्युक्त आदेश के परिपेक्ष्य में चयन समिति द्वारा न्यूनतम से अधिक योग्यता के 20 अंक प्रदर्शित किये गये हैं तथा अनुभव से सम्बन्धित किसी भी अभ्यर्थी को कोई भी अंक आवंटित नही किया गया है, जो नियमानुसार सही नहीं है।
चयन समिति की बैठक दिनांक 22.01.1994 की कार्यवाही के साथ संलग्न अंक चार्ट क्रमांक-19, क्रमांक-24, क्रमांक-25 पर दर्शाये गये अभ्यर्थियों को एकेडमिक एंव टेक्निकल योग्यता के अंक10+40 तथा क्रमांक-9 के अभ्यर्थी को 05+40 अंक दिया जाना प्रदर्शित है, जो कि अधिकतम अंक है। परन्तु इन अभ्यर्थियो को चयन समिति द्वारा सुनियोजित तरीके से साक्षात्कार में 03 से 09 अंक प्रदान किये गये है, ताकि उनको चयन से वंचित रखा जा सके, चूंकि निदेशक, प्राविधिक शिक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश के पत्र दिनांक 17.05.1989 में साक्षात्कार में एक तिहाई से कम अंक प्राप्त होने पर चयन नही किया जायेगा, का उल्लेख है। संलग्न अंक चार्ट के प्रथम पृष्ठ पर मात्र प्रधानाचार्य के ही हस्ताक्षर होने के कारण (चयन समिति के समस्त सदस्यों के हस्ताक्षर न होने के कारण) उक्त पृष्ठ को बदले जाने अथवा (Manipulation) किये जाने की सम्भावन है। अतः उक्त कार्यवाही नियमों के परिपेक्ष्य में त्रुटिपूर्ण एंव नियम विरूद्ध है।
4. चयन समिति द्वारा प्रेषित अंक तालिका में 64 अभ्यर्थियों में 62 अभ्यर्थियों का साक्षात्कार में न्यूनतम 03 एंव अधिकतम 13 अंक ही प्रधान किये गये है तथा मात्र 02 अभ्यर्थी अमित मिश्रा को 28 अंक दिये गये है, जिसमें प्रथम स्थान पर चयनित श्री अमित मिश्रा के (05+30+28) कुल 63 अंक तथा द्वितीय स्थान पर चयनित श्री कुवेन्द्र पाल सिंह को (05+20+29) कुल 54 अंक तथा प्रतीक्षा सूची में श्री काली प्रसाद श्रीवास्तव के (10+30+13) कुल 53 अंक होते है। जबकि पूर्ण चयन सूची में 09 अभ्यर्थी जिनके एकेडमिक योग्यता के 10 अंक और टेक्निकल योग्यता (डिग्री) के 75 प्रतिशत अंक से अधिक होने के कारण 40 अंक अर्थात कुल 50 अंक पूर्व से ही निर्धारित होने के कारण, सुनियोजित तरीके से साक्षात्कार में एक तिहाई से कम अंक प्रदान करते हुए उनका चयन नहीं किया गया क्योकि साक्षात्कार में एक तिहाई से कम अंक प्राप्त होने पर चयन नही किया जायेगा का उल्लेख समिति के तीनों सदस्यों द्वारा साक्षात्कार के समय अभ्यर्थियों को दिये गये अंकों का अलग अलग विवरण पत्र संलग्न नही है, नियमानुसार तीनों सदस्यों द्वारा दिये गये अंको का औसत निकाल कर साक्षात्कार के अंक प्रदान किये जाने चाहिए थे तथा उक्त कार्यवाही किये जाने की स्थिति में सभी 64 अभ्यर्थियों के साक्षात्कार के अंक पूर्णांक में नही हो सकते, उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि चयन समिति द्वारा नियमानुसार चयन की कार्यवाही पूर्ण नहीं की गई, अतः चयन की कार्यवाही त्रुटिपूर्ण है। उक्त से स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त चयन प्रक्रिया निष्पक्ष/पारदर्शी रूप से सम्पन्न नहीं की गयी है।
5. निदेशक, प्राविधिक शिक्षा के पत्र दिनांक 17.05.1989 द्वारा सहायता प्राप्त संस्थाओं में सीधी भर्ती से नियुक्ति हेतु गठित चयन समितियों के लिये शैक्षिक योग्यता, अनुभव तथा साक्षात्कार के लिये अंको के मापदण्ड का निर्धारण किया गया, जिसमें व्याख्याता पद हेतु अनुभव के अभ्यर्थियों की योग्यता अनुभव के विवरण पत्र में अभ्यर्थियों के दर्शाये गये अनुभव के आधार पर अनुभव के कोई अंक प्रदान नहीं किये गये है, जबकि उक्त पत्र में साक्षात्कार के लिए निर्धारित 30 अंक (साक्षात्कार में एक तिहाई अंक प्राप्त होने पर चयन नहीं किया जायेगा) को आधार मानते हुए प्रवक्ता इलेक्ट्रानिक्स में 09 अभ्यर्थियों को साक्षात्कार में एक तिहाई से कम अंक देकर उनका चयन नहीं किया गया, तथा अभ्यर्थियों को अनुभव का कोई अंक प्रदान न कर चयन में अनियमितता बरती गई है, उक्त कार्यवाही त्रुटिपूर्ण है।
6. प्रवक्त विद्युत के पद हेतु निदेशक प्राविधिक शिक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश के पत्र सं० 29258/ई-35-एक्स-56(एस) दिनांक 24.07.1993 द्वारा प्रवक्ता विद्युत हेतु प्राविधिक शिक्षा अधिनियम-1962 के नियम-22 एफ के क्रम में प्रेषित सूची में तीन नामों का निम्नांकित पैनल संस्था को प्रेषित किया गयाः-
1. डा० विश्वनाथ सिन्हा, प्रो० इलेक्ट्रानिक्स इंजी०, आई०ई०टी० लखनऊ।
2. विभागाध्यक्ष, विद्युत इंजी०, रूडकी विश्वविद्यालय, रूड़की।
3. डा० एल०पी० सिंह, प्रो० रिटायर्ड विद्युत इंजी० विभाग, आई०ई०टी० विभाग, टाइप- पांच आई०आई०टी० लखनऊ।
प्रबन्ध समिति द्वारा विशेषज्ञ सदस्य हेतु किसी 01 नाम का चयन प्राविधिक शिक्षा अधिनियम-1962 (यथा संशोधित-1974) के प्रस्तर-22 एप (3) के अनुसार किया जाना चाहिए था, परन्तु प्रधानाचार्य द्वारा दिनांक 21.01.1994 को चयन समिति की बैठक में उपर्युक्त तीनों विशेषज्ञों के स्तान पर श्री के०के० त्रिपाठी हेड आफ डिपार्टमेंट इलेक्ट्रानिक्स इंजी०, एच०बी०टी०आई०, कानपुर को विशेषज्ञ/सदस्य नियुक्त किये जाने के कारण उक्त चयन विधिक रूप से अमान्य है। क्यों कि प्रवक्ता विद्युत पद हेतु गठित विशेषज्ञ पैनल से विषय विशेषज्ञ न लेकर इलेक्ट्रानिक्स विषय हेतु गठित पैनल से विशेषज्ञ श्री के० के० त्रिपाठी से साक्षात्कार कराया जाना नियम विरूद्ध है।
अतएव उपरोक्त कमियों/त्रुटियों के कारण प्रधानाचार्य, एम०जी० पालीटेक्निक हाथरस के पत्रांक 16 ई०एस०(ए)/481 दिनांक 15.02.1994 द्वारा प्रेषित चयन समिति की संस्तुति के आधार पर प्रवक्ता इलेक्ट्रानिक्स पद हेतु चयनित अभ्यर्थी श्री अमित मिश्रा एंव श्री कुवेनद्र पाल सिंह तथा प्रवक्ता विद्युत पद हेतु चयनित श्री अनुराग सिंह एंव श्री रामनयन निषाद (अनुसूचित जाति) के चयन का अनुमोदन प्रदान किया जाना सम्भव नहीं है।
अतः मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 23.08.2016 के अनुपालन में परीक्षणोंपरान्त चयन का अनुमोदन प्रदान न करते हुए, चयन की कार्यवाही को निरस्त किया जाता है।
(कफील अहमद) निदेशक प्राविधिक शिक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश।
Letter of Director of Technical Education order dated 17.05.1989 प्रेषक, निदेशक, प्राविधिक शिक्षा, कानपुर।
सेवा में, समस्त प्रधानाचार्य सहायता प्राप्त बहुधन्धी संस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश।
संख्याः- 17-35 एडी कैम्प/ई-35-एक्स-विविध कानपुरः दिनांक 17 मई 1989 विषयः- सहायता प्राप्त पोलीटेकनिकों में चयन समितियों के अन्तर्गत पदों पर सीधी भर्ती से नियुक्ति हेतु गठित चयन समितियों के लिए शैक्षिक योग्यता अनुभव तथा साक्षात्कार के लिए अंकों के मापदण्ड का निर्धारण।
महोदय, उपर्युक्त विषयक सहायता प्राप्त संस्थाओं में नियुक्तियों के सम्बन्ध में निर्देश दिये जाते हैं कि तत्काल प्रभाव से विभिनन्न पदों पर नियुक्तियों के चयन हेतु शैक्षिक योग्यता, अनुभव तथा साक्षात्कार के लिए निम्न प्रकार अंको का मापदण्ड निर्धारित किया जाए। चयन के लिए गठित समितियाँ इसके अनुसार ही अभ्यर्थियों का चयन करेंगी-
अनुदेशक का पद अर्हता- हाईस्कूल + डिप्लोमा अनुदेशक का पद अर्हता- इण्टर + डिप्लोमा व्याख्याता का पद अर्हता इण्टर + डिप्लोमा 1 2 3 हाईस्कूल प्रथम श्रेणी 10 10 10 द्वितीय श्रेणी 5 इण्टरमीडिएट प्रथम श्रेणी 10 10 10 द्वितीय श्रेणी 5 डिप्लोमा 65% से 70% 10 30 30 70% से अधिक 75 % तक 20 75% से ऊपर 30 डिग्री 75% से अधिक 40 40 प्रथम श्रेणी 30 द्वितीय श्रेणी 20 निर्धारित अर्हता से उच्च प्राविधिक अर्हता 10 20 20 20 अर्हता तथा अनुभव की प्रकृति को देखते हुए चयन समिति द्वारा अंक दिये जायेंगे।
अनुभव के लिए (2 अंक प्रतिवर्ष अधिकतम 10) साक्षात्कार 20 30 30 (साक्षात्कार में एक तिहाई से कम अंक प्राप्त होने पर चयन नहीं किया जायेगा) अधिकतम अंकों का योग 80 100 100 यह भी निर्देश दिये जाते है कि कृपया उपर्युक्त निर्णय से चयन समितियों के सदस्यों को यय़ासमय अवगत कराया जाना सुनिश्चित करने का कष्ट करें।
भवदीय (जे०वी० गुप्त) निदेशक प्राविधिक शिक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश
33. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record carefully.
34. Undisputedly, the present controversy relates to the selection on the post of Lecturer Electronics in third respondent- institution, M.G. Polytechnic, Hathras. It is not in dispute that as per the Section 22-A of the 1962 Act, there happens to be an approved Scheme of Administration of the third respondent-institution. Further parties are also in agreement that the said Scheme of Administration was approved by the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. on 28.12.1990. As per the rival parties on 08.04.1991, four posts of Lecturers in Electronics were sanctioned and on 24.07.1993 in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, a selection committee was constituted for selection on the post of Lecturer Electronics comprising of Shri K.K. Tripathi, Head of the Department Electronics Engineering HBTI, Kanpur as expert member. Pursuant to the advertisment, the writ petitioner along with the others applied and they were selected. The contention is that the selections held in the year 1994, selecting the writ petitioner could not have been cancelled after a period of approximately 13 years as it was too late of the day to cancel the selections. The said argument of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner though appears to be attractive at the first blush but it is liable to be rejected at the very threshold as the entire exercise undertaken by the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. was in pursuance of the order of the Writ Court dated 23.08.2016 passed in Writ-A No. 25791 of 1997 (Amit Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby though the disapproval order dated 18.03.2014 was set aside by this Court but matter was remitted back to the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Once the order of the Writ Court has attained finality then the objection of delay, if any, is not available with the writ petitioner.
35. So far as the another limb of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner that the grounds which have been taken in the order impugned was available with the Director before he proceeded to pass the order dated 18.03.1994 is concerned, the same also does not hold any water, particularly when the Director at the time of the passing of the order dated 18.03.1994 had not adverted to the merits but had proceeded to pass an order on the premise that prior approval before selection was not taken.
36. As regards, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner that the impugned order dated 13.09.2017 suffers from malice in law and fact, since the said grounds for disapproval were never taken either at the stage of filing of Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and review is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that there was no occasion for the second respondent-Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. to have taken the said grounds in the pleadings either in Special Leave Petition or Review as the said ground became available post remand by virtue of the order dated 23.08.2016 in Writ A No. 25791 of 1997.
37. Much emphasis has been laid upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, that Section 22-A, 22-E read with Section 22-F provides for the appointment of the members of the selection committee, qualifications for appointment of Principals and Teachers and is wide enough to govern the selection procedure to be adopted by the selection committee and thus the letter of the Director of Technical Education, second respondent being non-statutory is ultra vires and in excess of the authority vested with it and accordingly the reliance so placed on the letter of the Director dated 17.05.1989 for holding the selections illegal was totally uncalled for, in the opinion of the Court, is misconceived and out of context, inasmuch as, the 1962 Act no doubt is a statutory enactment dealing with the various aspects of the matter, however, from the plain reading of the statutory enactment in the shape of 1962 Act, this Court finds that there is no procedure envisaged as to how the Selection Committee is to award marks and what would be the criteria in awarding the marks. In order to deal with the said eventuality, the Director of Technical Education has modulated a guidelines which is in the form of the letter dated 17.05.1989. Even in fact the guidelines in the shape of letter dated 17.05.1989 does not supplant and does violence with the provisions of the statutory enactment but it provides an aid for giving effect to the aims of the object of the statute for conducting selections. Moreover, law does not contemplate vacuum as once certain aspects of the matter are missing in a statute then they can obviously be dealt with by filling the gaps while issuing Government orders or departmental letters in that regard. Obviously, the Selection Committee cannot be given a free hand to conduct selections according to its whims and fancies as there has to be a codified guidelines providing for the awarding of marks under various parameters. Thus, according to Court, the inter- departmental letter dated 17.05.1989 of the Second respondent- Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. cannot be said to be illegal or ultra vires more so, when the writ petitioner had not challenged the said letter in the present petition.
38. Now coming to another aspect of the matter, whether there was any discretion available to selection committee in awarding marks to the respective candidates in the wake of the letter of the Director Technical Education, second respondent dated 17.05.1989. A close reading of the recommendations/minutes of the Selection Committee dated 22.01.1994 with regard to post of Lecturer Electronics would go to show that though they were two posts earmarked for Lecturer Electronics but as many as 110 applicants applied for the same. 64 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee. The total number of marks for selection on the post of Lecturer Electronics was 100. Bifurcation of the same is maximum 10 marks for Academic Qualification, 40 marks for Technical Qualification, 20 marks for a candidate who is possessing higher qualifications then the minimum qualifications and 30 marks for Interview. The letter of the Director Technical Education, Kanpur dated 17.05.1989 further bifurcates the marks under various parameters with regard to Instructors having High School plus Diploma, Instructors Intermediate Plus Diploma and Lecturers, Intermediate plus Degree. Here, as apparent from the minutes of the Selection Committee dated 22.01.1994 the candidates have been awarded marks under the Academic Qualification, Technical Qualification and Interview, however, none of the candidates were awarded marks under the parameters of possession of higher marks then the minimum marks which is maximum 20. The letter of the Director Technical Education, Kanpur dated 17.05.1989 itself provides maximum 20 marks for those candidates who have educational qualification over and above the minimum qualification with experience and with regard to experience, two marks have to be awarded every year maximum to 10. Though it is being sought to argued on behalf of learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner that it was the discretion of the members of the Selection Committee to award marks under the said parameter or not and their assessment cannot be put to scrutiny by the second respondent- , Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P. and even by this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus the awarding of marks by the experts could not be questioned. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel who appears for the State-respondents submits that there is no question of any discretion available with the Selection Committee as these marks are codified and once any candidate has educational qualifications more than the minimum and experience then he/she ought to have been granted marks and it is highly inconceivable that none of the candidates were to be granted marks under the said parameters.
39. In the opinion of the Court, the marks which were earmarked to be 20 under the parameters of possession of higher qualification then the minimum qualification and experience is codified mark thus non-awarding of the marks itself amounts to a situation whereby the Selection Committee had committed an error, particularly, when large number of candidates were already present and participated in the selections. Insofar as the other finding recorded in the order impugned that just an order to eliminate the chances of selections of deserving candidates, they have been granted less marks under the parameter, interview is concerned, a perusal of the minutes of the Selection Committee dated 22.01.1994 shows that the candidate at serial No. 3 Atul Srivastava, serial No. 14 Kumari Jyoti Rawat, serial No. 15 Atul Goyal, serial No. 17 Arvind Srivastava, serial No. 24 Ashok Kumar, serial No. 25 Md. Salim Beg, serial No. 47 Smt. Anjul Gangman had obtained 10 marks under the parameters of academic qualification and 40 marks under Technical qualifications, however they were awarded 08, 08, 04, 03, 08, 09 and 08 marks in interview. As already discussed above, the total marks for interview was 30 and in case a candidate obtained less than 1/3rd marks that he would be eliminated from selection, thus as per the impugned order in order to deprive the said deserving candidates, they were awarded less marks, as whereas the writ petitioner whose name finds place at serial No. 33 he obtained 5 marks under academic qualification, 20 marks under Technical qualification and was awarded 29 marks under the parameter of interview so as to give him total 55 marks. In the case of one Sri Amit Mishra whose name finds at serial No. 55, he obtained 5 marks under the parameter of academic qualification and 30 marks under Technical qualification and he was awarded 28 marks making him selected. Though Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that awarding of marks in interview is based upon various factors, performance of the candidates and its alertness at the time of interview and the said assessment of selection committee cannot be questioned. On the other hand, Sri Shashi Nandan who appears for the State respondents submits that there is no quarrel to the said proposition but the facts of the case are itself clear that just in order to eliminate the deserving candidates, the entire exercise has been undertaken and it cannot be said a sheer co-incidence as the same can be with respect to one or two candidates but not with regard to many candidates as depicted in the minutes of the Selection Committee and in particular the fact that no marks were awarded under the parameters of possession of higher qualifications over and above the minimum qualifications and experience.
40. Though the Courts of law are not experts in academic matters relating to the award of marks by the selection committee and they cannot travel into the mind of the academicians who awarded marks under various parameters. However what is to be seen is the fact that as to whether there exist a codified procedure or criteria for awarding marks or not in the shape of any guidelines. In the present case, there exist a letter of the Director of Technical Education, second respondent dated 17.05.1989 dealing with the said subject providing for the criteria on the basis where of marks are to be awarded to a candidate under various parameters. A close look of the minutes of the selection committee dated 22.01.1994 read with the letter of the Director dated 17.05.1989 clearly goes to show that the marks have been awarded in such a manner so as to oust the deserving candidates. The Courts of law cannot be a mute spectator and in case it is found from the perusal of the documents available on record that illigality has been committed in awarding marks then obviously, the Courts would not interfere with the decision taken by the appropriate authorities under the relevant statute who are enjoined to take decision while annulling the selections. In view of the irregularities, noticed in the order of the Director of Technical Education, second respondent dated 13.09.2017, this Court finds inability to take a different view from a view which has already been taken by an authority enjoined under the statute to take a decision.
41. Noteably, the Director of Technical Education under section 22-F of the 1962 Act is to accord approval to the appointments. The said power is wide enough so as to examine the record in order to find out as to whether the selections were done in accordance with law or not. The Director on the receipt of the recommendation of the selection committee is to apply its mind which signifies that he has to seriously go through the process and the procedure adopted by the selection committee and act in a impartial and transparent manner. The Director cannot be a postman so as to put his rubber stamp while approving the selection. The legislature while enacting Section 22-F was quite conscious and that is why approval was required at the stage of appointment and not at the stage of selection as the two said stages are quiet different. Approval at the stage of appointment implies that the Director in exercise of powers under Section 22-F of the 1962 Act is to examine the various aspects relating to the merits of the selection and the procedure adopted by the selection committee.
42. Interestingly, the impugned order passed by the Director of Technical Education records valid reasons for disapproving the appointments which this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot hold to be illegal, particularly when the Director of Technical Education is an expert of the said subject enjoined under the statutory provision to examine the record and to take a decision either to approve or disapprove the appointments.
43. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has though relied upon the judgement in the case of Asha Saxena Vs. S.K. Chaudhari and Ors. a full Bench decision reported in 1991 (17) ALR 267 so as to contend that it was not justified on the part of the respondents in cancelling the selections after a long span of time, however, the said judgement is of no aid to the writ petitioner, particularly when the said judgements relates to a seniority dispute wherein the seniority list was challenged by the aggrieved person after enormous and unexplained delay which resulted in creation of vested rights in favour of the other party. However, in the present case, the issue is with regard to selections and by virtue of the order of the Writ Court in a writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner itself the matter was remitted back to the Director of Technical Education to pass appropriate orders. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ-C No. 5497 of 2020 (Dr. Prasannanshu Vs. Selection Committee Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi & Anr. decided on 14.09.2020, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53334 of 1999 (Rajendra Bharti Vs. Director of Technical Education, U.P. Kanpur & Others) decided on 20.05.2004, Dr. Salik Tewari Vs. Chancellor, Gorakhpur University and others in 1999 (1) AWC 407, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan in 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 168, B.C. Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa Vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors. reported in JT 2008 (11) SC 73, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21318 of 2004 (Ramesh Pati Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 02.04.2007, Writ A No. 19620 of 2014 (Amar Pal Vs. State of U.P. And 3 others) decided on 08.01.2014, Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. decided on 07.10.2005, J.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 1571, Dr. Keshav Ram Pal Vs. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, reported in AIR 1986 SC 597 and Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1986 (1) SCC 133, so as to buttress the submission that the selection committee vest with wide powers to award marks and the said assessment cannot be put to judicial scrutiny and further delay in cancellation of selection is not either justified nor permissible under law. There is no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition of law, however applicability of the judgements depends upon the facts of the individual case. Here in the present case, the decision of the selection committee was put to scrutiny before the Director of Technical Education as per the statute, the Director of Technical Education being an expert found glaring irregularities in the selection procedure. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in writ jurisdiction cannot act as a super expert sitting over the decision of the Director who is also an expert in the relevant subject.
44. More so, when in the present case, there are certain redeeming features which even in fact denude then the writ petitioners for grant of benefits namely (i) letter dated 17.05.1989 not only provides for the parameters under which marks is to be awarded but also codifies the marks (ii) non-awarding of marks to any candidates by the Selection Committee under the parameter of possession of higher qualification than the minimum and experience totaling to marks 20 marks. (iii) Awarding of less than 1/3rd marks in many cases under the parameter of interview, the candidates who obtained higher marks under the parameters of Academic and Technical qualifications. (iv) awarding of higher marks under the parameters of interviews to those candidates who had obtained less marks under the parameters of Academic qualification and Technical qualification (v) Non-challenge to the letter of the Director Technical Education dated 17.05.1989 providing for the guidelines for awarding marks under various parameters (vi) Director of Technical Education while considering the case approval/disapproval is enjoined to examine the records of the Selection Committee and to take a decision after recording reasons and passing an informed decision. (vii) There is no delay in canceling the selection.
45. Lastly, it has also been argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that none of the candidates who had appeared in the selection and who have been awarded lesser marks in the interview had filed any complaint or preferred any writ petition alleging that they were illegally excluded from the selection thus, the exercise of the power by the Director Technical Education, second respondent, could not be said to be justified. In the opinion of the Court, mere non-challenge on the part of any of the candidate would not matter, particularly when selections have been conducted in utter disregard to the letter of the Director of Technical Education dated 17.05.1989 and there were various shortcomings noticed by Director, Technical Education.
46. Though in the order impugned of Director of Technical Education, second respondent other shortcomings have been noticed that the every page of the minutes of the selection committee dated 22.01.1994 did not bear signatures of the three members of the selection committee but in view of the other core and fundamental issues, noticed and discussed above, this Court is not addressing to the same.
47. On equity, Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner has been confronted with a peculiar situation as one hand, he after getting himself discharged from Indian Air force had applied for selection and appointment on the post of Lecturer (Electronics) but his appointment was not approved by the Director of Technical Education and on the other hand on being terminated by the officiating Principal of the Institute on 14.03.2001, the writ petitioner preferred Writ A No. 11976 of 2001 in which an interim protection was granted and finally the writ petition was decided in his favour on 23.08.2016 but he was never allowed to join the post in question. He thus submits that the entire academic qualification and service career of the writ petitioner would be jeopardized. This Court in the wake of the categorical finding recorded by the Director of Technical Education in its order dated 17.09.2017 is unable to come to the rescue of the writ petitioner. However, in case of non-according of joining on the post of Lecturer (Electronics) at the end of the management of the respondent-institute, it is always open for the writ petitioner to claim damages from it.
48. Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order of Director of Technical Education, second respondent dated 13.09.2017 does not suffer from any manifest illegality so as to warrant any interference in the present proceedings.
49. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
50. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
51. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 21.08.2023 Ashutosh