JAI PRAKASH SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 20-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAi PRAKASH SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, .TJ.] 
Seivice Law : 
U.P. Intennediate Education Act, 1921 : 
C 
S. 16-E(2)-Headmaster of High School-Appointment--Qualifica-
tio11-Junior High School Upgraded as High School-Post of Headmaster 
adverlised---Headmaster of Junior High School and others applied-Head-
master of Junior High School not selected as he did not have requisite 
expe1ie11ce-He chal/e11ged appointment-Held, since the wlit petitioner/ap-
D pellant has not completed the requisite expelience to be eligible to the post of 
Headmaster, the selection of the respondent made by the selection committee 
is correct· ill law-if.P. Secondary Education Se1vices Commission Rules, 
1983. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 17 of 
E 
1986. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.85 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 174 of 1985. 
D.K. Garg and Satpal Singh for the Appellant. 
R.C. Verma for R.B. Misra, (Pramod Swarup) (NP) and Mrs. Rani 
Chhabra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
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 Head-
master in a Junior High School from July 1974. In July 1976, the school 
H was upgraded as a High School. The question had arisen for appointment 
154 
J.P. SHARMA v. STATE 
155 
of Headmaster to the said school. An advertisement was made for selection A 
of the Headmaster. The appellant along with others had applied for and 
the Selection Committee constituted under Section 16-E of the U.P. Inter-
mediate Education 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 B 
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, C 
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 D 
under the Act, the post of Head of an institution shall be filled 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 least four years in E 
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 also that he/she is 
not below 30 years in age." 
The post of Headmaster under Section 16-E(2) has to be filled in by 
promotion or by direct recruitment after due publication by the Commit-
F 
tee. The proviso to sub-section (3) should not be used as a routine for 
exempting the persons who were not possessed of the requisite qualifica-
tions as a short route to appoint unqualified persons to the post of G 
Headmaster. It should be used sparingly and not as a routine, with all 
reasons for sm:h 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. H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A Thus, he did not have the experience of fuar 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 Secon-
dary School, he is said to have worked a

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