The nominee’s absence alone does not vitiate selection proceedings under the 1984 Rules.

The petitioner sought payment of salary from 18 October 2013 and regular monthly salary for his appointment to a Class-IV/Peon post in a recognised and aided Junior High School governed by the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984 (“1984 Rules”).

Following the retirement of the previous incumbent, the Committee of Management notified the vacancy to the District Basic Education Officer (“DBEO”) on 23 July 2013 and published an advertisement on 4 August 2013.

Although the management repeatedly requested the DBEO to nominate his representative/observer for the selection, no nominee was deputed, and the proposed interview was postponed.

The selection committee subsequently conducted the selection on 9 September 2013 and recommended the petitioner as the first-ranked candidate.

The proceedings were forwarded to the DBEO for approval on 12 September 2013. As no approval or rejection was communicated within the period prescribed under Rule 15(5) of the 1984 Rules, the petitioner claimed that approval was deemed to have been granted.

An appointment letter was issued on 15 October 2013, and the petitioner joined on 18 October 2013. Despite repeated representations, salary was not released, leading to the writ petition.

Whether the selection and appointment of the petitioner were invalid merely because the DBEO did not nominate a representative/observer who was absent from the selection proceedings?

Whether, in the absence of any order approving or rejecting the selection within the prescribed period, approval of the selection stood deemed to have been granted under Rule 15(5) of the 1984 Rules?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of salary and continuation in service from the date of joining, namely 18 October 2013?

The Court applied Rules 13, 14 and 15(5) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984, which regulate notification of vacancies, constitution of the selection committee, the selection process and approval by the DBEO.

The Court held that, where the management has duly notified the vacancy, complied with the recruitment procedure, repeatedly requested nomination of the DBEO’s representative, and the representative is not deputed without any disclosed justification, the selection is not invalid merely because the nominee was absent.

The Court relied on State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Lucknow v. Praveen Kumar Mishra, Special Appeal No. 667 of 2014, which recognised that failure of the DBEO to send an observer, followed by failure to approve or disapprove the selection within one month, resulted in deemed approval under Rule 15(5).

It also relied on State of U.P. v. Gunjan Singh, Special Appeal No. 1014 of 2024, which held that the management may proceed with selection where the vacancy was duly notified, the nominee was repeatedly sought but not sent, and no bona fide reason for the omission was shown.

The Court found that the vacancy had been properly notified and advertised and that the management had made repeated efforts to secure the DBEO’s nominee.

The selection was therefore not vitiated by the nominee’s absence, particularly since the authorities did not disclose any genuine or bona fide reason for failing to nominate a representative.

Applying the principles in Praveen Kumar Mishra and Gunjan Singh, the Court held that the selection committee was entitled to complete the process rather than allow the vacancy to remain unfilled indefinitely.

Since the selection papers were forwarded to the DBEO and no decision was communicated within the statutory period, deemed approval under Rule 15(5) operated in the petitioner’s favour.

The respondents could not rely on their own failure to nominate a representative or act upon the selection to deny the petitioner salary after he had joined and continuously discharged his duties.

The Court directed the DBEO/respondent no. 2 to pass the appropriate order for payment of the petitioner’s current salary month by month, with disbursement by respondent no. 3.

The DBEO was further directed to permit the petitioner to continue discharging duties as Peon in the institution.

Arrears of salary were ordered to be paid from 18 October 2013 until commencement of current salary, together with 8% interest, and the entire exercise was to be completed within two months from production of the certified copy of the order.