LexKIRAN GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
KIRAN GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
B
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
Service Law
UP. Secondary Education, Services Commission and Selection Boards
C Act, 1982-Section 9(a)-Validity of-Held provisions do not suffer from the
vice of excessive delegation of essential legislative functions-UP. Secondary
Education Service Commission Rules, 1995-Rule 12(3)-Selectionfor posts
of Principals and Headmasters-Exclusively by interview after scrutiny and
awarding quality points-Held neither arbitrary nor illegal.
D
Mode of Selection by interview-Allotment of marks-Assessment on
various heads as per guidelines framed by Secondary Education Services
Commission-Non-Allocation of separate marks for each item qnd awarding
marks in lump sum-Held, does not vitiate. the selection.
E
Administrative Law.
Mala fides-UP. State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975-
Section-2-Notification issued restraining further selection from I 7.4. 1997-
Select list despatched -by the Service Commission on 15.4. 1997 received by
F Regional Deputy Director on 20.4.1997-Allegation that select list
antedated-Held, in the absence of any incontrovertible and irrefragable
material such allegation is unsustainable.
In 1982, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection
Boards Act, 1982 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982) was enacted, which required the
G management of all schools to appoint teaching staff only on recommendation
by the Commission. Under Section 35 of the Act, the State Government was
given the power to make rules. The Government enacted the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Commission (Amendment) Rules, 1995. Rule 12 deals
with the procedure for direct recruitment of Teachers, Principals/Headmasters
H and Lecturers. The Commission is required to call for interview five
474
KIRAN GUPTA v. STATE
475
candidates for each vacancy on the basis of the quality points secured by them. A
The State of U.P. which had 1504 vacancies of teachers, Principals/
Headmasters, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible
persons to appoint suitable candidates. After short-listing the applicants, 7,500
500 candidates were called for interview and selection for the posts of
Principals/Headmasters of 13 regions, including the Meerut region, was B
completed. There were 258 posts in Meerut region and out of them interviews
were held for 253 posts. The selection of Principals/Headmasters in Meerut
region, based on oral interview and the panel of selected candidates were
challenged by the unsuccessful candidates who were senior most teachers,
in the High Court.
C
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 9, 10 and
11 of the U.P .. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection
Boards Act, 1982 as amended by U.P. Act of1995 and also Rule 12 of the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Rules, 1995 ('the
1995 Rules'). The selection of candidates by the U.P. Secondary Education D
Services Commission (for short 'the Commission') and the notifications issued
on August 3, 1996 and August 30, 1996 were found to be valid. The panel of
selected candidates prepared on April 15, 1997 was held not vitiated by the
notification issued by the Government of U.P. on April 17, 1997 and it was
directed that the same should be implemented by the educational authorities
in accordance with law; it was left open to the Director of Education, and if so E
ordered by him, to the Deputy Director of Education to inquire into the
requisite qualifications of the selected candidates; if it was found that the
requisite qualifications for the post of Principal/Headmaster were not
possessed by any of the selected candidates, the Director of Education/Deputy
Director of Education shall, determine the question and thereafter refer it to F
the Board which was directed to reconsider his selection after giving due
opportunity to the candidate and for that limited purpose the matter should be
deemed to be pending before the Board under the provisions of sub-section
(6) of Section 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 ('the Act') as
amended by the U.P. Act No. 25of1998.
The High Court took the view that their claims must have been settled
under sub-section (l·A) of Section 33-A of Act No. 5of1982 long before the
cut-off date (April 6, 1991). It was observed that if any dispute with regard to
G
any indivExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.