BALBIR KAUR & ANR. versus U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, ALLAHABAD & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 16-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 130 
BALBIR KAUR & ANR. 
v. 
U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES 
SELECTION BOARD, ALLAHABAD & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.3938-3939 of 2008) 
MAY 16, 2008 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 
D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
c 
UP Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982 with 
amending Acts of 1985, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 1998; Ss. 2(1), 
10, 11, 32 and 33(C)IUP Secondary Education Services Se-
lection Board Rules, 1983 with amending Act of 1998; rr 112(b) 
and 12(5)/UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921; Appendix A 
D of Regulation I of Regulations framed thereunder/UP Public 
Service (Reservation for Scheduli~d Castes, Scheduled Tribes 
and Other Backward Classes Act. 1994: 
Selection of Principals in eclucational institutions - UP 
Board issuing advertisement for recruitment of Principals -
E Challenged by Principals officiatirg on adhoc basis on ground 
of qualifications etc. - Dismissed by Single Judge of High 
Court - Reversed by Division Bench of High Court setting 
aside selection/appointment of Principals - Correctness of -
Held: Incorrect - Note appendeo to r 12(5) of the Rules ex-
F eludes teaching experience poss9ssed by Assistant Teacher 
but making the experience posSE!SSed by serving Headmas-
ter/Lecturer relevant - The 'Note' has the effect of modifying 
the conditions of qualifying experience mentioned in Appen-
dix A of Regulations under 1921 Act - Since the impugned 
G advertisement is in conformity with the 'Note', the selection 
procedure could not be faulted on that score - Division Bench 
of the High Court erred in law in reversing the decision of Single 
Judge of the High Court on this ground - Hence, judgment of 
the Division Bench of the High Court, to the extent of revers-
H 
1~ 
f 
BALBIR KAUR & ANR. v. U.P. SECONDARY 
131 
EDUCATION 
ing the decision of the Single Judge, is set aside restoring the A 
;udgment of Single Judge of the High Court. 
Direct recruitment of Principals - Reservation of vacan-
cies in accordance with 1994 Act - Requirement of - Held: 
Not required - S.10 of 1994 Act expressly excludes the post 
of the Principal from the purview of 1994 Act - Thus, intention B 
of Legislature in not providing any reservation against the post 
of Principal under the 1994 Act is manifestly clear - More-
over, providing reservation against the post of Principal would 
result in 100% reservation which violates Articles 15 and 16 of 
the Constitution -
Thus, advertisement in question not viti-
C 
ated for want of provision for reservation - Constitution of In-
dia, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16. 
Notification in Hindi and English in terms of Appendix D, 
R 12(b) (i) of 1998 Rules - Ambiguity in Hindi version - Effect D 
of - Held: No prejudice has been caused to respondents as 
the discrepancy had been rectified by issuing a corrigendum 
to that effect. 
Amendment in 1982 Act - Insertion of r33(c) regulariz-
ing adhoc services of Principals holding the post upto August E 
7, 1993, though amendment was made effective in 1998 -
Validity of - Held: Valid - In terms of amending Act of 1993 
a/so, cut off date fixed for regularization of adhoc services of 
Principals - Hence, it cannot be said that fixing of August 6, 
1993 as the cut off date for regularization is arbitrary, warrant-
F 
ing interference by Supreme Court. 
Selection - Region-wise/district-wise - Whether violative 
of equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
- Held: - No. 
Words & Phrases: 
Year of recruitment - Meaning of in the context of s. 2(1) 
of the UP Secondary Services Selection Board Act, 1982. 
Uttar Pradesh Secondary Selection Board issued an 
G 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 
A advertisement in terms of U.P. Secondary Education Se-
lection Board Act, 1982, the Principal Act, for direct recruit-
ment to the posts of teachers, lecturers and the heads of 
several institutions regionwise. The Board was also re-
quired to consider the names .of two senior most teach-
8 ers of the Institutions concerned, for which names were 
to be forwarded by the management in accordance with 
Rule 11 (2) (b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services 
Selection Board Rules, 1988. The advertisement so issued 
by the Board was challenged by the serving Principals, 
c who were officiating on ad hoc basis on the grounds that 
(i) the cut off date as fixed in terms of the 1998 amend-
ment, for regularizing the ad-hoc Principals/teachers was 
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.