Smt. Punam Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2891 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 22 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Punam Kumari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Gopal Ji Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Gopal Ji Rai for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 3; and Sri K. Shahi for the respondent no.2.

2. This intra-court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 12.12.2022 dismissing Writ A No.20663 of 2022 filed by the appellant for quashing the notification dated 13.11.2022 notifying a select panel of two candidates, namely, respondents 5 and 6, for appointment on the post of Principal in Gulab Devi Balika Intermediate College, Ballia.

3. The facts as regards which there exist no dispute are as follows : An advertisement no.03 of 2013 inviting applications for appointment on various posts including the post of Principal at Gulab Devi Balika Intermediate College, Ballia was published by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (for short the Board). The last date for submission of application form was 31.01.2014, which was extended to 25.02.2014. The relevant eligibility qualification notified in the advertisement for appointment on the post of Principal was specified as follows :

"mRrj izns'k ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok p;u cksMZ

23] ,yuxat bykgkckn&211002

foKkiu la[;k [email protected]

laLFkk iz/kku inksa gsrq foKfIr

mRrj izns'k ds lgk;rk izkIr v'kkldh; b.Vj dkystksa ,oa gkbZLdwy ds laLFkk iz/kkuksa ds fjDr inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr izk:i ¼ifjf'k"V ^^d^^½ ij vkosnu i= leLr izek.k i=ksa dh izekf.kr ;k LogLrk{kfjr Nk;kizfr;ksa ds lkFk vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSA

vfuok;Z vgZrk;sa&1

¼d½ izf'kf{kr ,e-,- ;k ,e-,l-lh ;k ,e- dke- ;k ,e-,l-lh ¼d`f"k½ ;k blds led{k dksbZ LukrdksRrj ;k vU; mikf/k ds lkFk 04 o"kZ dk f'k{k.k vuqHko vFkok

¼[k½ fdlh ekU;rk izkIr b.VjehfM,V laLFkk esa izoDrk in ij 10 o"kZ ds f'k{k.k vuqHko ds lkFk&lkFk izFke ;k f}rh; Js.kh dh LukrdksRrj mikf/k ;k izoDrk osrudze esa 15 o"kZ ds f'k{k.k vuqHko ds lkFk r`rh; Js.kh dh LukrdksRrj mikf/kA vFkok

¼x½ foKkiu esa izf'kf{kr LukrdksRrj fMIyksek/kkjh ftlus fMIyksek ikB~;dze izFke ;k f}rh; Js.kh esa mRrh.kZ fd;k gks rFkk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk esa fMIyksek ikB~;dze mRrh.kZ djus ds i'pkr dze'k% 15 ;k 20 o"kZ dh iz'kaluh; lsok dh gksA^^

4. As per the requirement of Rule 11(2)(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 while notifying the vacancy through the Inspector with regard to the post of Principal, the management is required to forward the names of two senior most teachers along with copies of their service records including character roll and such other records or particulars as the Board may require from time to time.

5. It is not in dispute that the management had forwarded the names of two senior most teachers, namely, Smt. Punam Kumari (the appellant herein) and Smt. Anju Patil (non party) serving in the institution. In the forwarding letter, which is there on record at page 103 of the paper book, the date of appointment of the appellant as a lecturer is entered as 29.09.2005. The appellant is not shown to be a trained teacher and the educational qualification mentioned therein is M.A. Prabhakar. With regard to the past work experience it is mentioned that with effect from 01.07.2011 the appellant is officiating as a Principal in the institution and prior to her appointment in the institution she served as a music teacher of classes 1 to 12, with effect from 02.12.1989 to 30.04.2002, at Balika Vidyapeeth, Lakhisarai, Bihar and since 01.05.2002 she had been a music teacher at G.D. Dev Public School, Devghar, Jharkhand of which certificates provided by the appellant were appended along with the letter.

6. The experience certificates in respect of appellant's experience as a music teacher have been brought on record at pages 85 to 88 of the paper book. These certificates only disclose that the appellant had served as a music teacher but there is no disclosure whether the appellant was duly appointed by any procedure known to law and served as a lecturer in music.

7. It is also not in dispute that before the candidates were called for interviews, a circular letter dated 02.01.2022 was issued by the Secretary of the Board requiring the District Inspector of schools to scrutinize the applications and forward only those applications where the candidates held prescribed eligibility qualifications by 25.02.2014.

8. Sri K. Shahi, who appears for the Board, invited our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 515 of 2022 Mohan Singh and others Vs State of U.P. and others) wherein the cut-off date 25.02.2014 in respect of the advertisement in question i.e. no.03 of 2013 was the subject matter of challenge. In that matter, the Division Bench upheld the cut-off date by applying the general principle that eligibility of a candidate, qualification-wise or experience-wise, has to be reckoned with reference to the last date for filing the application form. As the last date for filing the application form was 25.02.2014 therefore, the cut-off date 25.02.2014 to ascertain the eligibility of a candidate was not found arbitrary or illegal. In the above backdrop, as the appellant did not possess the requisite experience, her candidature was not forwarded for consideration by the Board.

9. It is not in dispute that the candidature of the appellant was non-suited because she did not hold ten years of teaching experience as a lecturer. Had the appellant been a trained teacher the experience required would have been four years but since it is not in dispute that the appellant was not a trained teacher, the experience required was ten years.

10. The case of the appellant is that the District Inspector of Schools should have forwarded the name of the appellant because it was for the Board to test whether those certificates make the appellant eligible or not. Otherwise also, if the District Inspector of Schools had been of the opinion that those certificates would not make the appellant eligible, the District inspector of Schools ought to have provided opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a single Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Ajay Kumar Das Vs State of U.P. and others 2010 (7) ADJ 47, wherein it was observed that in a case where there is a serious dispute with regard to the requisite experience, in the event of there being documents relied by a candidate, there should be a proper enquiry before non suiting his candidature. By placing reliance on the above decision, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the certificates of experience were there on record, a proper enquiry ought to have been held either at the level of the learned single Judge or at the level of the District Inspector of Schools before non-suiting the candidature of the appellant.

11. In response to the above submissions, Sri K. Shahi, who appears for the Board, submitted that when a certificate is vague or ambiguous and does not unequivocally state regarding experience as a lecturer, even if its genuineness is accepted, it would not make a material difference therefore, even if an enquiry into its genuineness is not held no prejudice is caused. He has submitted that the certificates on which reliance is placed by the appellant are not in respect of working as a lecturer but as a music teacher of class 1 to XII. As to whether there was appointment as a lecturer on fulfilment of the requisite qualifications is completely lacking in the certificates provided, therefore these certificates are completely vague and cannot form basis to hold that the appellant did possess the requisite experience for sustaining her candidature.

12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions as also to the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not possess the qualification of a trained teacher and therefore the appellant needed a minimum of ten years experience as a lecturer to be eligible for appointment on the post of Principal. From the material placed before us it is established that eligibility had to be reckoned with reference to the last date for submission of application forms which was 25.02.2014 and this cut-off date has already been upheld by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Singh (supra). We have therefore to examine whether the District Inspector of Schools was justified in not forwarding the name of the appellant for consideration for appointment on the post of Principal in the institution concerned. The District Inspector of Schools in his counter affidavit stated that by 31.01.2014 the appellant had only 8 years, 4 months and 3 days of experience as lecturer, which by 25.02.2014 would be slightly higher but still less than 10 years. No doubt, there is no specific averment with respect to the merit of the experience certificates annexed but the forwarding letter of the management of the institution dated 17.02.2022, which is at page 103 of the paper book, discloses the date of appointment of the appellant as lecturer in the institution as 29.09.2005 which means that by the last date of submission of application form, if the experience of the appellant is to be counted from 29.09.1995, she had less than nine years of experience. The experience certificates with regard to functioning as a music teacher in CBSE affiliated college, though appended along with the forwarding letter of management, do not disclose that the appellant had experience of teaching as a lecturer. The said certificates only disclose that the appellant had been serving the institution as a music teacher and taking classes from Class 1 to 12. One of the certificates, which is at page 87 of the paper book, also discloses about the petitioner possessing M.A. in Vocal music from Bhagalpur University, Bihar and Prabhakar from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad. But none of the certificates indicate that the experience gathered was as a lecturer, as is required by the Rules and the advertisement.

13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to his understanding classification of teachers as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade Teacher or Lecturer may not be there in an CBSE affiliated institution therefore, once a teacher is taking classes from class 1 to 12, his/her experience as such should be counted as that of a lecturer.

14. The issue that now arises for our consideration is whether the decision of the District Inspector of Schools in not forwarding the name of the appellant for consideration of her candidature could be considered vulnerable merely because a detailed probe was not held as regards the merit of those certificates. In our view, the certificates relied by the appellant were not unequivocal or categorical as to indicate that the appellant held the requisite experience as a lecturer. In view whereof, a detailed inquiry in respect of value of those certificates was not required, particularly, when the burden to prove eligibility lies on the candidate. Therefore, if the District Inspector of Schools found the appellant ineligible, as not having the requisite experience, its decision cannot be considered perverse as to warrant an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. For the reasons above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 28.1.2023.

Rks.