Allahabad High Court
Ram Janam Yadav & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 February, 2010
Author: Shishir Kumar
Bench: Shishir Kumar
Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6016 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ram Janam Yadav & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- M.A. Zaidi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D.V. Singh Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard Sri M.A. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P Pandey who appears for respondents no.4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel.
The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that for the post of selection of Head Master in the institution, the procedure as provided in Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) has not been followed as the advertisement has not been made in two widely circulated newspapers. Rule 7 is being reproduced below:
7. Advertisement of vacancy.-- (1) No vacancy shall be filled, except after its advertisement in at lease two newspapers one of whom must have adequate circulation over the State and the other in a locality the school is situated.
(2) In every advertisement and intimation under clause (1), the Management shall give particulars as to the name of the post, the minimum qualifications and age-limit, if any, prescribed for such post and the last date for receipt of applications in pursuance of such advertisement.
Sri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.5 who has been selected and his appointment has been approved, a submission has been made before this Court that he is not in a position, on the basis of the relevant record, to state that proper advertisement as provided in Rule 7 of the Rules has been done. Though he has submitted that there is a presumption to this effect that it has been published in the newspapers as other eligible persons has also participated in the selection proceeding. It has further been submitted that on the basis of selection by a Selection Committee, which was properly constituted, considerations have been made and the selection has been approved and the appointment of respondent no.5 has also been approved by the competent authority, therefore, there cannot be any presumption in law that there is a fault in the selection process. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has also submitted that from the record it does not appear that proper procedure as provided in Rule 7 has been followed.
In such circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, as parties have consented that ultimate result of the writ petition will be the same in case the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit are exchanged, in view of the fact that Rule 7 of the rules, which is mandatory in nature, has not been followed in making the appointment. Therefore, in my opinion, in such circumstances the appointment/selection of respondent no.4 cannot be said to be valid and if on that basis an approval has been granted, that can also not be sustained in view of the fact of violation of Rule 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, the order dated 23.1.2010 is not sustainable in law and is hereby quashed. The Committee of Management is directed to take necessary steps for selection for the post of Head Master in the institution strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010 V.Sri/-