KEDAR NATH AWASTHI Vs. ADMINISTRATOR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA FUNCTIONING AS MANAGER OF AMINABAD INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the selection/recommendation made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission for the appointment of opposite party No. 3 Sri R. K. Agarwal on the post of Principal of Aminabad INtermediate College, Lucknow, which is run and managed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, the opposite party No. 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) IT has been averred in the writ petition that Sri H. S. Tandon was functioning as Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow (for short the College). He died on 19th November, 1981 and on his death the office of Principal fell vacant and the petitioner Sri Kedar Nath Awasthi, being the senior most lecturer of the College -was appointed as Principal by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow after due approval having been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 3-12-1981. The petitioner is, thus, serving as Principal of the College over since then. However, the post for appointment to the Principal was advertised in news paper 'Swatantra Bharat' on 13th August, 1983, but the name of the institution was incorrectly indicated as Nagar Mahapalika Inter College, Aminabad, Lucknow. IT has been further averred that earlier to it, some times in the month of March, 1983, the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow had written to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad (for short the Commission), which was establised under section 3 of the U. P. Act No. V of 1983 indicating that the petitioner being the senior most lecturer in the institution was promoted to the post of Principal of the College with effect from 3-12-1981 and since then he is functioning as such, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, wherein it is mentioned that there is one post in L. T. Grade for teaching English subject on which Sri S. P. Singh for C. T. Grade, who is qualified for appointment on the post, is to be promoted and that two posts of L. T. Grade are being vacant on which appointment are to be made. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that the commission had not passed any order on the said letter of the Administrator, but a post for appointment of Principal was advertised on 13th August, 1983. He further pointed out that under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the said Act, the management of the College was required to forward the names of two senior most teachers alongwith copies of their service records as also character rolls and such other records and particulars as the Commission may require in that behalf. IT was also pointed out that according to Rule 6 it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to have called for interview two senior most teachers of the institution whose names were forwarded by the management under clause (1) of Rule 4. In the instant case, however, neither the management of the institution had forwarded two names of the senior most teachers as was required to be done under subclause (1) of Rule 4 to the Commission for being considered for the appointment on the said advertised post, which according to the petitioner was wrongly advertised as it was not lying vacant, nor the Commissioner had called for interview the two senior most teachers of the institution, including the petitioner, who being the senior most lecturer was already working as Principal ever since 3-12-1981. This fact has been averred in para 12 of the petition that neither the petitioner, who was senior most lecturer and acting as Principal of the institution, nor the other senior lecturer next to him Sri Vishnu Narain Rastogi were called for interview.

(3.) IN reply to the contention of the petitioner that the Commission had not called the petitioner for an interview nor had considered the candidature of the petitioner as a teacher candidate for the appointment on the post in question as is required under the Rules and Regulations framed under the Act, it has been averred in para 9 of the counter affidavit that the contents of paragraphs No. 11 and 12 of the writ petition are based on mis-reading and interpretation of Rule 6 of the Rules ; hence the same were denied as advised. We, thus, find that the averment of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was not issued any interview call letter has not been specifically denied. It has, however, been averred that even if the Commission was under an obligation to call for interview the senior most teachers under the said Rules, the said requirement was fulfilled by the Commission. It is averred that the petitioner had received information through letter dated 21-1-84 from the office of the DIOS that the petitioner was called upon to appear for interview on 4-2-1984. If the petitioner chose not to appear before the interview he is to blame himself for the same. IN the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri U. C. Agarwal, Sahayak Nagar Adhikari on behalf of opposite party No. 1 it has been averred that the petitioner and Sri B. N. Rastogi were called by him to his office on receiving letter dated 28-1-1984 (Annexure A-6) from the DIOS and had directed them to appear before the U. P. Education Service Commission on 4-2-1984 at Allahabad for interview as was desired in the said letter by the DIOS. It is, however, not disputed that nothing was given in writing to the petitioner or to Sri B. N. Rastogi in that behalf so that they could, on the basis of any such direction given in writing, appear before the INterview Board, which is said to have held interview on 4-2-1984 only of external candidates for the appointment on the post IN question. It has, however, not been disputed that the Commission itself had not issued any call letter to the petitioner or to Sri B. N. Rastogi requiring them to appear for interview held on 4-2-1984.