COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, SRI CHHATRASAL ZILA PANCHAYAT UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, LALITPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the facts of both these cases are inter -connected, with the consent of the parties, both these writ petitions are taken up together. Mr. Ranbir Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Jagdeo Singh Chauhan in writ petition No. 16217 of 1997. Mr. K.N. Saxena, appears for the Committee of Management being respondent No. 2 in writ petition No. 16217 of 1997. Mr. A.K. Yadav appears on behalf on U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. Mr. I.R. Singh appears on behalf of Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain, petitioner No. 2 in writ petition No. 34982 of 1997.

(2.) I have heard all the counsel at length who had addressed the Court on the merits of both the writ petitions.

(3.) IN writ petition No. 34982 of 1997 moved by the Committee of Management and Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain a case has been made out in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that on the records of the Commission, the name of the petitioner's Institution was not mentioned though they were intimated that an interview would be held on 4th May, 1996 for selection of Head Master of the said school by the District Inspector of Schools. Such intimation was described by Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain to have been made under mis -conception. Though statements have been made indirectly to show that petitioners were not given opportunity to participate in the interview, but in fact no specific statement has been made that pursuant to such intimation, the petitioners could not participate in the interview or the petitioner was refused participation in the interview. In the absence of such specific statement, a normal presumption would be that the petitioner Suresh Kumar Jain was asked to appear in the interview on 4th May, 1996. If he had not participated in the interview, he had done same at his peril. If he had participated in the interview, in that event, he now cannot challenge the wrong spelling of the Institution in the advertisement in view of the principle laid down in the cases of Arun Kumar Shukla v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, 1984 (1) UPLBEC 477 and Om Prakash Shukla v. A.K. Shukla : 1986 1 Lab. I.C. 790, wherein it has been held that after being unsuccessful, a candidate cannot turn round and challenge the selection on certain technical grounds or on the ground of absence of authority or otherwise.