PRASHANT KUMAR KATIYAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 1982') two separate source of appointment (other than absorption/regularization) have been provided against the post of teachers of recognized Intermediate institutions i.e.:

(2.) SO far as the direct recruitment is concerned, the appointment can be made by any of the following modes:

(3.) THE Court held that in respect of posts to be filled by direct recruitment, it is for the management to resort any of the modes available to it, under Clause a, b, and c as above. However, such discretion was limited to the stage of requisition being sent to the Selection Board as per the statutory requirement of Rule 11 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998. THE Court found that once the requisition is sent by the Management to the Selection Board, the vacancies come within the jurisdiction of Selection Board. THE Selection Board in turn, after computation of vacancies is required to advertise the same for direct recruitment and for the purpose to apply reservation. Any interference in the process in between by reducing the vacancies so requisitioned would result in the entire selection being prejudiced. Similarly the selected candidates can opt for the post which had been requisitioned but has subsequently been filled by transfer or by compassionate appointment so as to create an uncalled for complication. It was also held that under Section 13(5), adjustment of a selected candidate can only be made against a vacancy advertised in the same Advertisement. This is more so when no application for compassionate appointment on the post of teacher was pending on the date of requisition.