High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chandra Pal Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 52437 of 2003  RD-AH 361 (8 January 2007)
Court no. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52437 of 2003
Chandra Pal Singh and another
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 5.9.2003 by which the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has refused to give approval to the petitioner to be recognized as Head Master of the Basic school in question.
The institution namely Shri Sharda Krida Sthaliya Vyavasthapika Sabha, Junior High School, Baruth, Mathura is recognized and aided institution governed under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the services of its employees are also recognized under the provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic Education (Junior High School) Recruitments and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978.
In the institution in question, a substantive vacancy for the post of Head Master had fallen vacant on 30.6.2001 when the erstwhile permanent Head Master Sri Bhanwar Singh Jayas superannuated.
The petitioner was the senior-most teacher and was appointed as officiating Head Master.
Subsequently the process of selection of a new Head Master was started. The post was duly advertised in two newspapers and thereafter the selection committee was appointed under Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules, 1978.
It is the contention of the petitioner no.1 that the process of selection was carried out in accordance with the relevant Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules concerned and all documents were produced before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who ignored the documents as sent by the petitioners, which include the list of selected candidates for interview and quality points awarded to them.
The Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed the order on 5.9.2003 in which he has raised eight objections. Firstly he says that there was no basis made in the process of selection and the quality point was not given to the candidates, who were called for interview. He also says that the seniority was not laid down. The second objection is that the selection committee did not inform the members of the committee of management and they did not participate in the selection. Thirdly the impugned order states that the advertisement did not give time for people to apply. The fourth objection is that in the institution due regard was not paid to the seniority. The fifth objection is that the documents do not disclose the candidate who appeared and who did not appear, as their signatures were not obtained at the time of interview. The sixth objection is that although the candidates of Ist Class/Ph.D and experienced teachers having appeared in the interview, there no reason mentioned why they have not been selected. The seventh objection is that the seniority of selected candidates was not made out and last objection is that therefore the selection process should be restarted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that all the objections made in the letter dated 5.9.2003 were duly met by the petitioner no. 1 and the committee of management of the institution and the entire process of selection was also in accordance with the Rules 10 and 11. The advertisement was made properly. The selection committee was constituted properly. The quality marks were duly given and the seniority according to the petitioners is reflecting from the list of the candidates, who were shown from column filled in the chart where the experience itself has been noted down.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the objections have already been met and they are baseless and even though, the petitioners had placed all the relevant documents and material before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who has failed to take them in the proper prospective and has wrongly directed that fresh selection process shall be undertaken.
Learned counsel appearing for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has argued that the objections are valid and are subsisting. The selection process was not undertaken in accordance with the Rules 10 and 11 and therefore the selection process was bad and fresh selection is liable to be made.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the documents which he has appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition as well as to the supplementary affidavit themselves disclosed that the process of selection was fair and proper and due compliance of Rules 10 and 11 have been made.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who will pass orders specifying why he has rejected the documents appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition and Annexure SA-1 to the affidavit and shall also specifically state as to why these documents do not meet with the requirement of Rules 10 and 11 of Rules, 1978.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that these documents (Annexure 6 to the writ petition and Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit) are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Rules 10 and 11, therefore while hearing the matter on remand, the petitioners will be given an opportunity of hearing in establishing their case on the basis of the documents already present and no fresh evidence need be taken by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The matter on remand will be reconsidered by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case, an order is passed in favour of the petitioners, they will be confirmed but it is not done so, then the fresh process for selection will be initiated by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for appointment of the Head Master in the institution in question so that regularly selected candidate is appointed immediately.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.