High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bal Kishan v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Firozabad & Others - WRIT - A No. 7968 of 2001  RD-AH 9735 (22 May 2007)
Court No. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7968 of 2001
Bal Kishan Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari & others
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
On the retirement of the then Head Master, a vacancy occurred on 30.6.2000 on the post of Head Master of the respondent-institution. The Committee of Management sought approval from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 18.8.2000 and thereafter advertised the vacancy in the local newspaper on 5.9.2000. On 11.9.2000, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari appointed the District Inspector of School as his nominee in the selection committee. Pursuant to the advertisement, ten applications were received and the selection committee, consisting of the Manager of the institution, nominee of the Basic Shiksha Adhikar as well as the nominee of the Manager i.e. Treasurer participated in the selection process held on 17.9.2000, in which the petitioner was found most suitable. On 18.9.200 the Manager submitted the papers relating to the selection proceedings before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari recommending for appointment of petitioner as head Master, which was received in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 18.9.2000 itself. The matter remained pending before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. On expiry of one month's period, which was on 18.10.2000, in terms of Rule 10 (5) (iii) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools Rules, 1978, since the approval was deemed to have been granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter by the Manager of the Committee of Management on 1.1.2001. In pursuance thereof the petitioner joined as Head Master of the institution on 5.1.2001. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Respondent no.1, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been denied and it has been directed that fresh selection be held for appointing the Head Master of the institution.
I have heard Ms. Rashmi Tripathi, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.R.Maurya, learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.1, Sri Deepak Verma for Respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and have perused the record.
It has been admitted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in his counter affidavit that papers relating to the selection of the Head Master of the institution had been received by him on 18.9.2000. It is also not denied that in the selection process, his nominee had participated. It is also accepted that one month's period had expired from the date of receipt of the papers of the selection process but no orders had been passed by him. Thus under Rule 10 (5) (iii) of the 1978 Rules, the approval to the selection of the petitioner as Head Master of the institution would be deemed to have been granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.
The submission of the Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for Respondent no.1, is that on a complaint filed by the Member of Parliament and some other persons, an enquiry was got conducted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and certain lapses were found in the selection process, on the basis of which the impugned order dated 8.1.2001 had been passed. It is very surprising that even though there was no complaint by the nominee of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari with regard to the selection process, still enquiry had been got conducted on a complaint by a Member of Parliament of the area. It is true that a Member of Parliament is a public representative and has a right to make a complaint where illegalities are committed but in the present case, even after the enquiry what has been found by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed) is that though certain irregularities and not any illegality had been committed by the college in the selection process for appointment of the Head Master. The irregularity committed was that while granting initial approval on 18.8.2000 for making selection of Head Master, it was provided that 15 days time should be provided for inviting applications, whereas only ten days time had been granted by the institution. Further, the advertisement was to be made in a well known newspaper which, according to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, was not done. It has been categorically stated in the writ petition, and admitted by the respondents, that the newspaper in which the advertisement had been issued was a very old newspaper continuing since 1925 and was well known in the area. With regard to the time of only 10 days, instead of 15 days, given by the institution for filing the applications, it is not the case of the respondents that some persons who were eligible and wanted to apply, could not apply because of such short notice. Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to place any provision of law whereby it would be mandatorily required to give 15 days time. What is required is that a reasonable time should be given and in the absence of any report that eligible persons could not apply because of short notice of only ten days, the entire selection process cannot be said to be illegal. Once the nominee of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had participated in the selection proceedings and had not raised any such objection, it would be construed that the entire process was conducted in a fair manner or else the entire purpose of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari sending his nominee would become meaningless. If such points are allowed to be raised on a complaint made by a politician, then no selection can ever be finalized. Thus, in my view, the reasons for disapproving the selection of the petitioner as Head Master of the institution are baseless and cannot be justified in law as I find that no illegality was committed by the Committee of Management in such selection process.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Respondent no.1 is quashed. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari is directed to pass fresh order, in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove, as well as the provisions of Rule 10(5)(iii) of the 1978 Rules. Such order may be passed within six weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him.
This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.