MOHD IDRIS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M. M. D. Agarwal for the appellants and Shri R. N. Singh for the respondents.

(2.) THE appointment of the fifth respondent Mohd. Tariq, as Principal H. M. S. Inter College, Etawah was sought to be cancelled under Section 16-E (10) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. THE State Government rejected the representation preferred by the petitioners and maintained the appoint ment of the fifth respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment under chal lenge in this appeal holding, inter alia, that the selection committee had considered the academic qualifications, experience certificates and other relevant materials in respect of all the candidates and then recommended the name of the fifth respondent for appointment.

(3.) ON merits we find that the selec tion of the fifth respondent was approved by the authorities under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act, 1921 and chal lenge to the appointment was made by the petitioners four years after his selection and appointment. The challenge, it maybe observed, was based on the ground that the fifth respondent was found using unfair means at the Intermediate examination and he was debarred from appearing in the subsequent examination. The learned counsel submitted that the said conduct of the fifth respondent would show that he was undesirable and unsuitable for the post of Principal which is a post of pivotal importance in the life of an institution. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Supreme Court in Day a Shankar Pandey v. The High Court of Allahabad and others, AIR 1987 SC 1469. In our considered view, the decision therein has no application to the facts of the present cases. The appel lant therein was appointed as a judicial officer and thereafter, with the permission of the Court, he appeared in L. L. M. Ex amination at Aligarn University where he was found using unfair means. This con duct of the judicial officer led to his removal from service. In the instant case, the offending conduct of the fifth respon dent was not after he was selected for the post of Principal. Therefore, the decision aforesaid is of no avail to the appellants.