JOHARI DEVI GIRLS INTER COLLEGE, KANPUR AND ANOTHER Vs. U. P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission hereinafter preferred to as the Commission prepared a panel of two candidates in order of merit for being appointed as the Principal of Juhari Devi Girls Inter College, Kanpur. Smt. Sudha Shukla was placed at Serial No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 Smt. Sarojini Tripathi was placed at Sl. N. 2. For ore reason or the other Smt. Sitdha Shukla could no join the Institution as a Principal. The Commission and the Regional Inspectress of Girls School are insisting that Smt. Sarojni Tripathi should be given a letter of appointment by the petitioner, which alleges itself to be the management of the Institution concerned. The management is resisting this direction of the Commission and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. Hence this petition.

(2.) It is stated that the selection took place sometime in the year 1986. The argument is that in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 7(2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, which provide, of its notification by the Commission, the panel prepared by the Commission has lapsed and, therefore, Smt. Sarojni Tripathi has no right to be appointed as the Principal of the Institution. In other words, the case set up by the petitioners is that they can ignore the aforesaid direction of the Commission and the Regional Inspectress of Girls School.

(3.) We do not consider it necessary to go into the question as to whether the provisions as contained in Rule 7(2) are mandatory to the extent that every panel prepared by the Commission in accordance with law shall automatically lapse upon the expiry of a period of one year from the date of its notification. In our opinion this petition can be disposed of on the short ground that the petitioners do not have sufficient locus standi to maintain this petition on the ground on which it is being maintained in this Court. This is not the case of the petitioners, nor can it be, that the commission selected the candidates without complying with the requisite rules. The selectees of the Commission were not in any manner disqualified to appoint a Principal. There has to be a Principal of the Institution, and the management has got to appoint Principal upon the recommendation of the Commission. In this situation, we feel that the petitioners should not be allowed to frustrate the recommendations of the Commission on a mere technicality, although we do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.