Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The said advertisements were challenged by the Principals, who were already heading some institutions on ad- hoc basis, and the senior-most teachers of various institutions mainly on the grounds that : (i) the cut off date i.e. 6th August, 1993 fixed by the 1998 amendment, for regularizing the ad- hoc Principals/teachers was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (ii) the exclusion and inclusion of candidates eligible for selection was not in conformity with Appendix A of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short `the Intermediate Act') (iii) the regionwise consideration and declaration of the result for the post of Heads of the Institution, unlike the teachers, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (iv) sub rule (5) of Rule 12 was unreasonable and discriminatory as it gave undue importance to educational qualifications and no importance to the service record; (v) the manner of allocation of marks and the selection process was arbitrary and (vi) the Principal Act did not provide for any reservation for the post of the Head of the Institution for backward class or scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidates, which was contrary to the provisions and in violation of the U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short the 1994 Act).

8. On the basis of rival stands of the parties, including the State, the learned Single Judge formulated as many as 15 points for determination.

9. The learned Single Judge answered all the 15 points, so formulated, against the writ petitioners. Consequently, vide order dated 14th February, 2001, all the writ petitions were dismissed.

10.Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners carried the matter in Special Appeals to the Division Bench. The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge on all the points except on one point (No.(iii)), namely, in regard to the requirement of minimum qualification mentioned in the advertisements. The Division Bench held that under sub rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Rules, the qualification as laid down in Appendix A of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Intermediate Act had been adopted for appointment to the post of teachers, which includes Principals. For the post of Principal, the said provision provides only for 4 years teaching experience of class IX to XII and not the teaching experience of 4 years as Lecturer, as prescribed in the advertisements. Therefore, by prescribing in the advertisement 4 years teaching experience as a Lecturer, the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction, which, being contrary to law could not be permitted. Thus, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the advertisement issued by the Board prescribing teaching experience of 4 years as Lecturer for the post of Principal of an Intermediate College was contrary to the statutory requirement of academic qualifications stipulated in Appendix A of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of Intermediate Act, as adopted by sub rule 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules and as a result thereof it was possible that many candidates having 4 years teaching experience of class IX and X could not apply, resulting in serious prejudice to them. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the selections made in pursuance of the said advertisements were set aside. It is this common judgment which is questioned in these appeals by the selected candidates.

14.In order to appreciate the rival stands on the issue, it would be expedient to briefly notice the historical background of the statutory provisions relating to the selection of heads of educational institutions in the State of U.P. Prior to the enactment of the Principal Act, by U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, selections for the posts of Head of the educational institutions were made as per the provisions of the Intermediate Act by the Selection Committee constituted by the Committee of Management, managing the institution, with the prior approval of the concerned District Inspector of Schools. Minimum qualifications for the post of the Head in an Institution were prescribed in Appendix A in reference to Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Intermediate Act. However, with the coming into force of the Principal Act, with effect from 14th July, 1981, selections for the posts were entrusted to a Commission, in order to ensure that good and competent persons were selected and appointed to the said posts. Relevant rules in this behalf were framed by the State Government for the first time in the year 1983, called the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. However vide Notification dated 13th July, 1998, the 1998 Rules, enforced with effect from 8th August, 1998, were notified. As noted above, selections in question were held under the 1998 Rules.

21.Applying the aforenoted principles, we are of the opinion that the `Note' appended to sub rule (5) of Rule 12 of the 1998 Rules has the effect of modifying the conditions of qualifying experience mentioned in Appendix A of the Regulations under the Intermediate Act.

22.Having come to the said conclusion, the issue which still survives for consideration is whether for appointment to the post of Principal, the qualifying experience as stipulated in the said `Note' would apply or the one prescribed in the Appendix-A to Regulation I of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Act. In our view, answer to the question can be found in Section 32 of the Principal Act, which provides that the provision of the Intermediate Act and Regulations made thereunder will continue to be in force in case they are not inconsistent with the Principal Act and the Rules made thereunder. As noted hereinbefore `Note' to sub rule (5) of Rule 12 of 1998 Rules prescribes the requirement of experience for the post, which is different from what is prescribed in the said Appendix A and, therefore, there being a conflict between the two provisions, in the teeth of Section 32, the said `Note' shall have an overriding effect over Appendix A insofar as the question of experience is concerned. In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the impugned advertisements were in conformity with the said `Note' and, therefore, the selection procedure could not be faulted on that score. We do not think that the contention of the writ petitioner that some persons who had essential qualifications had been excluded from consideration or any person who ought not to have been considered for the said post had been considered for selection, is well founded. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Division Bench had erred in law in reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge on the point.