Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JAI PRAKASH SHARMA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on
September 3, 1985 in CMWP No. 174/85.
The admitted position is that the appellant was working
as a Headmaster in a Junior High School from July 1974. In
July 1976, the school was upgraded as a High School. The
question had arisen for appointment of Headmaster to the
said school. An advertisement was made for selection of the
Headmaster. The appellant along with other had applied for
ad the Selection Committee constituted under Section 16-E of
the U.P. Intermediate Eduction Act. 1921 selected the fifth
respondent to the said post. Calling in question the
selection of the fifth respondent, namely, Man Singh Verma,
the appellant filed a writ petition and obtained stay. The
Writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, holding that
the appellant was not possessed of the requisite
qualification of four years’ experience and, therefore, the
selection was not vitiated on that count.
Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant
contends, that since at the time of upgradation of the
school as full-fledged High School, the appellant was
already having the requisite experience, and was working on
ad hoc Headmaster, he would have been confirmed as promotee;
therefore, the selection by the Committee was not necessary.
Hence, the view of the High Court is not correct in law. We
find no force in the contention. It is seen that under
Regulation 2(1) of the Regulations made under the Act, the
post of Head of an institution shall be filed by direct
recruitment, after reference to the Selection Committee
constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 16F or, as the
case may be, under sub-section (1) of Section 16FF. Appendix
A of Part V attached to the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Commission Rules, 1983 lays down the qualifications
which postulates "with an experience of teaching for at leas
four years in a training institution recognised by the
Department or in higher classes of a recognised higher
secondary School or in both combined or having at least four
years’ experience as a trained Graduate Headmaster of a
Junior High School recognised by the Department, provided
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
also that he/she is not below 30 years in age."
The post of Headmaster under Section 16-E(2) has be
filled in by promotion or by direct recruitment after due
publication by the Committee. The proviso to sub-section (3)
should not be used as a routine for exempting the persons
who were not possessed or the requisite qualifications as a
short route to appoint unqualified persons to the post of
Headmaster. It should be used sparingly and not as a
routine, with all reasons for such an appointment which
would be subject to judicial review.
It is seen that the appellant was appointed in July
1974, as the Headmaster of a Junior High School which was
upgraded in the year 1976. Thus, he did not have the due
experience of four years as a Headmaster of a Junior High
School. Though Shri Garg has placed before us the previous
experience of the appellant at different places, they are
only in his capacity as Assistant Teacher, for the years
1964-65, 1965-66; in the Higher Secondary School, he is said
to have worked as Hadmaster Secondary School, he is said to
have worked as Headmaster of tow years. Up is seen that
since he has not completed the requisite experience to be
eligible to the post of Headmaster, the selection of fifth
respondent made by the committee constituted by the
Inspector in this behalf, is correct in law.
The appeal, therefore, falls. It is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.