Allahabad High Court
State Of Uttar Pradesh, Through Its ... vs Rajeev Kumar And 2 Others on 17 March, 2025
Author: Siddhartha Varma
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39670-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 452 of 2024
Appellant :- State Of Uttar Pradesh, Through Its Secretary Basic Education And 2 Others
Respondent :- Rajeev Kumar And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Tej Bhanu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Bhushan
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
1. In the institution known by the name of Sarojni Naidu Junior High School, Bodh Ashram District- Firozabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution') one post of Headmaster and three posts of Assistant Teacher fell vacant. On 21.12.2015, the Institution wrote to the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad seeking permission to fill up those vacancies. The permission desired by the management was granted vide order dated 08.01.2016. Pursuant to the permission, vacancies were advertised on 6.2.2016 in two newspapers. The respondent no.1 was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher for Hindi/Sanskrit and the respondent no. 2 was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher for Science. Thereafter, papers were sent to the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, for approval. When no order was granted by the Basic Education Officer then, as per the Rule 10(5)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1978'), the petitioners services were deemed to have been approved after one month of the sending of the communication for seeking approval and therefore the petitioners started functioning as assistant teachers with effect from 11.5.2016.
2. When, however, no salary was being paid, the petitioners approached this Court by means of Writ (A) No.33056 of 2016 (Rajeev Kumar & another Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) wherein on 04.01.2018 the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad was directed to take a decision with regard to the grant of approval to the appointments of the petitioners. The latter when rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 06.02.2018, then in the very same writ petition wherein the order dated 4.1.2018 was passed by this Court, by means of an amendment application the order dated 06.02.2018 was subsequently challenged. The writ petition was finally allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 and the matter was remanded back to the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad to consider the matter afresh.
3. Thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, vide order dated 03.07.2020 again rejected the approval of the petitioners on the ground that the Selection Committee had not done the selection in conformity with the provisions of the Rules of 1978 inasmuch as the names of three candidates as were required to be sent as per the Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of 1978 were not sent. The Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978 is being reproduced here as under:-
"10. Procedure for selection. (1) The Selection Committee shall, after interviewing such candidates as appear before it on a date to be fixed by it in this behalf, of which due intimation shall be given to all the candidates, prepare a list, containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference, of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment.
(2) The list prepared under clause (1), shall also contain particulars regarding the date of birth, academic qualifications and teaching experience of the candidates and shall be signed by all the members of the Selection Committee.
(3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management.
(4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer.
(5) (i) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that-
(a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post;
(b) the procedure laid down in the rules for the selection of Headmaster or assistant teacher, as the case may be, has been followed he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and shall communicate his decision to the management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4).
(ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee.
(iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee."
4. The petitioners thereafter approached the writ court by means of Writ - A No. 7694 of 2020 and when that writ petition was allowed by the judgement and order dated 30.1.2022, the instant special appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the names of three candidates were not sent, there was a violation of the Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 1978 and, therefore, the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners, however, in reply, submitted that the Rule 10 of the Rules 1978 was directory in nature and not mandatory and since on the date fixed for the interview less than three candidates had appeared then as per the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978 only names of such candidates who had appeared could be sent.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners further had before the writ court submitted that words "as far as possible" as had been used in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978 definitely could not specifically mandate the Selection Committee to abandon the selection if on the date fixed for interview only two candidates had appeared despite the fact that all the candidates who had applied had been intimated.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent states that the word "as far as possible" would mean that the Selection Committee had to stick to the principle of sending of three names unless it was impossible to send the same. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Smt. Rani vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 1959 RD 102 and submitted that unless it was not possible to follow the dictate of the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978, it could be followed and he further submitted that the law did not expect the authorities to do a thing which was impossible.
9. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that by sending less than one name as were provided under Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 1978, the Committee of Management did not commit any error as it was impossible to send the names of three candidates when that number had not appeared before the Selection Committee.
10. Under such circumstances, we are unable to find any illegality in the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Writ - A No. 7694 of 2020 and, therefore, the Special Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.03.2025
PK
(Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
