PREM DUTTA Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5.1.1998, Annexure 'C' under which the respondent No. 1 has ordered that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal is ab initio void as he did not possess the required essential qualification as defined in the advertisement and as prescribed in the recruitment rules for the post as on 10.4.1995, the last date of receipt of application for the purpose. Further the order of appointment of the petitioner on the said post was ordered to be cancelled.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 19th October, 1982, the petitioner was appointed as Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT) in the respondent No. 2 establishment. Vide advertisement dated 24th February, 1995 of the respondent, the applications were invited for appointment to the post of Principal by selection, 17th March, 1995 is the date on which the petitioner submitted his application for the post of Principal. The petitioner was called for interview vide memo dated 15th June, 1995and he appeared before the Selection Committee for interview on 22nd June, 1995. The petitioner was selected for the said post and under the order dated 21st July, 1995 of the respondent he was appointed on the post of Principal. The petitioner was given the appointment on probation for a period of two years subject to the condition of the extension thereof, if necessary. Under the notice dated 21st March, 1997 of the respondent No. 1 he was called upon to show cause as to why his appointment as Principal should not be cancelled as it ab inito void. The ground on which this appointment of the petitioner was sought to be cancelled was given in the notice. The petitioner was stated to be not possessing the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 4th April, 1997 and after giving personal hearing to him, the impugned order has been made. Hence, this Special Civil Application before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are estopped from cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as the respondent had appointed the petitioner with full knowledge about the fact that petitioner has experience of 12 years and 5 months instead of 15 years. It has next been contended that the petitioner has not concealed any fact and when the respondent knowing well that he lacks the requisitie experience of 15 years and he was given the appointment by the respondent then the requisite experience is deemed to have been waived. It has next been contended that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner after about two and half years of his date of appointment is illegal and arbitrary. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner contended that by now the petitioner has completed 15 years experience of teaching as he has taken the periods in secondary and higher secondary sections as Principal and as such his order of appointment should not have been cancelled. In support of his contenion, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ramgiri Keshavgiri Goswami vs. KM. Raval reported in 1985 GLH 351 and of the App. Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1991 SC 309.