Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VASHISTH DEO PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vashisth Deo Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 42133 of 1999 [2003] RD-AH 426 (4 November 2003)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

C.J.'s Court

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42133 of 1999

Vashisth Deo Pandey  vs. State of U.P. and others

Connected with:

Writ Petition Nos.1245, 2133, 27649 of 2000, 1934, 2318, 3451, 3724, 4154, 4827, 4980, 5417, 5733, 5815, 7047, 13382, 13688, 16771, 21477, 22068, 22073, 22196, 22294, 25842, 27483, 28332, 29364, 30867, 34705, 38628, 43361 of 2001, 13078, 15738, 16132, 17328, 18041,19297, 19377, 19583, 21758,  22459, 24113, 25361, 25744, 26400, 29786, 32374, 40065, 44117, 44540, 46600, 46630, 46634, 46649, 47325, 47361, 47991, 48873, 50196, 52691, 53060, 53062, 54087, 54773, 54777, 54780, 54867, 55369 of 2002 and 223, 235, 240, 901, 903, 1781, 2010, 2223, 3283, 3409, 3645, 4971, 5986, 6014, 6127, 6552, 7569, 7814, 8214, 9325, 9887, 11419, 15912, 17182, 20706, 21383, 23848, 25679, 25957, 26019, 26124, 26861, 26921, 28690, 29690, 29781, 30658, 32946, 33815, 34002, 34915, 38192, 38535, 40990, 41855, 42772, 43648, 44154, 44506, 44661,  44847, 44990, 45124, 45319, 45726, 45918, 46868, 47268 of 2003

And

Special Appeal Nos.138, 216, 217, 221, 294 and 840 of 2003

*****

Hon'ble Tarun Chatterjee,C.J.

Hon'ble R,K.Agarwal,J.

In all these Writ Petitions and Special Appeals the process of selection on the post of Head of the Institution of Private Intermediate Colleges and High Schools in the State of Uttar Pradesh initiated by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad as well as the advertisements issued by the Board in the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2002 are under challenge.  The learned counsel for the petitioner have challenged the validity of the cut off date, i.e., 6th August 1993, for regularising the services of the ad hoc Principal, mentioned in Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as inserted in the year 1998 in the Act.  They have also challenged the minimum qualifications as given in the advertisement for the post of the Head of the Institution on the ground that the same does not conform to the qualifications prescribed in Appendix A to the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as adopted by Rule 5 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1998 Rules). They have also contended that in view of the provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Class) Act, 1994, reservation should have been provided on the post of the Principal/Head of the Institution also.

The learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as also the learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the minimum qualification as advertised is in conformity with Rules 5 and 12(5) of the 1998 Rules and, therefore, the advertisement and selections made pursuant thereto is valid. They further submitted that no reservation can be applied on a single cadre post and, therefore, the provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Schedule Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Class) Act, 1994 is not applicable. According to them, the cut off date, i.e., 6th August 1993, mentioned in Section 33-C of the Act for regularising the services of ad hoc Principal is valid and does not suffer from any arbitrariness.

The learned counsel for the parties have advanced the same contentions which were advanced by the counsel for the parties in Special Appeal No.159 of 2001, Anand Narain Singh vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others, decided on 29th September 2003. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has upheld the validity of the cut off date for regularisation of services of ad hoc Principal provided under Section 33-C of the Act.  This Court has further held that the reservation would not apply to the post of the Principal/Head of the Institution as it is a single cadre post. However, this Court has held that in the advertisement the minimum teaching experience published is different than the minimum qualification prescribed in Appendix A in the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and adopted by the State Government under Rule 5 of the 1998 Rules and, therefore, had set aside the advertisement and the selections made pursuant thereto.

In the advertisement the following qualifications for the post of Head of the Institution was prescribed:-

"ANIVARYA AHARTAYEN:- (KA) SHAIKSHIK YOGYATA - VIDHI DWARA STHAPIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA/SANSTHA KI SANTKOTTAR PARIKSHA ATHAWA SAMKAKSH UPADHI.

(KHA) PRASHIKSHAN YOGYATA - B.ED., L.T., B.T., B.ED.S.C. ATHAWA SHIKSHA SHASTRI YOGYATA.

ATHAWA KISI MANYTA PRAPTA SANSTHA ME PRAWAKTA VETANKRAM ME 10 VARSH KE SHIKSHAN ANUBHAV KE SATH SATH PRATHAM YA DWITIYA SHRENI KI SNATOKATTAR UAPADHI YA PRAVAKTA VETANKRAM ME 15 VARSH KE SHIKSHAN ANUBHAV KESATH TRITIYA SHRENI KI UPADHI.

ATHAWA VIGYAN ME PRASHIKSHIT SNATOKATTAR DIPLOMADHARI JISNE DIPLOMA PATHYAKRAM PRATHAM YA DWITIYA SHRENI ME UTTIRNA KIYA HO TATHA MANYATA PRAPT SANSTHA ME DIPLOMA PATHYAKRAM UTIRNA KARNE KE PASCHAT KRAMASHAH 15 YA 20 VARSH PRASANSNIYA SEWA KI HO.

KSHISHAN ANUBHAV - SANSTHA PRADHAN (HIGH SCHOOL) KE LIYE MANYATA PRAPT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL KE PRADHANADHYAPAK KE RUP ME ATHAWA HIGH SCHOOL/INTERMEDIATE COLLEGEME PRASHIKSHIT SNATAK VETANKRAM ME ATHAWA KISI VISHYAVIDYALAYA ME YA USASE SAMBANDH KISI UPADHI MAHAVIDYALAYA PRASHIKSHAN MAHAVIDYALAYA YA ANYA RAJYON KE PARISHADO KI AISI SANSTHA ME JINKI PARIKSHAYEN PARISHAD DWARA MANYATA PRAPT HO, PRASHIKSHIT SNATAK VETANKRAM YA USASE UCHCHTAR VETANKRAM ME KAM SE KAM 04 VARSH KA SHIKSHAN ANUVHAV.

SANSTHA PRADHAN - (INTERMEDIATE) COLLEGE KE LIYE MANYATA PRAPT HIGH SCHOOL KE PRADHANADHYAPAK PAD PER USKE VETANKRAM ME ATHAWA INTER COLLEGE ME PRAVAKTA VETANKRAM ME ATHAWA KISI VISHWAVIDYALAYA ME USASE SAMBADDH KISI UPADHI  MAHAVIDYALAYA YA PRASHIKSHAN MAHAVIDYALAYA ME YA ANYA RAJYON KI PARISHADON KI AISI SANSTHA ME JINKI PARIKSHAYEN UTTAR PRADESH MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD DWARA MANYATA PRAPT HO, PRAVAKTA VETANKRAM ATHAWA USASE UCHCHTAR VETANKRAM ME KAM SE KAM 04 VARSH KA SHIKSHAN ANUBHAV."

The minimum teaching experience which have been given in the advertisement is contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed in Appendix A framed in Regulation l of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which has been adopted by Rule 5 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998. This Court in Special Appeal No. 159 of 2001 ( Anand Narain vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others) decided on 29th September, 2003 has held that the minimum qualifications given in the advertisement is contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Head of the Institution and had accordingly set aside the advertisements issued by the Board. Since the qualifications which have been given in the advertisements issued in the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 is the same which had been considered by this Court in the case of Anand Narain Singh (supra), the advertisements cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.

The writ petitions and the special appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

November 4, 2003

vkp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.