VIVEK MUDGIL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 05-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1068                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
VIVEK MUDGIL
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11863-11864 of 2018 etc.)
DECEMBER 05, 2018
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – To the post of Principal – Qualification –
Requirement of 10 years teaching experience – Appointment of
appellant – Complaint questioning the appointment as the appellant
was only having teaching experience of 9 years 3 months –
Appointment cancelled – Writ petition by the appellant on the ground
that the period of his study leave should be computed for the purpose
of computing the teaching experience of 10 years – Single Judge
of High Court dismissed the petition – Special appeals, taking the
plea that qualification of 10 years teaching experience cannot be
regarded as essential qualification in view of power conferred on
the Board under Proviso to s. 16-E(3) of 1921 Act – Division Bench
of High Court dismissed the appeal – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Notice issued by order dated 8.7.2015 – In view of the order dated
8.7.2015 Board exempted the qualification in favour of the appellant
– Exemption order challenged in High Court by way of writ petition
– The petition is transferred to Supreme Court – Held: Teaching
experience of 10 years was rightly considered as a necessary
qualification – Appellant was having only 9 years 3 months of
teaching experience on the last date of submitting the applications
– His study leave period  cannot be considered as a teaching
experience – When the matter was seized before the Court,
respondent-Authorities should not have passed any order granting
exemption – It is clear from order dated 8.7.2015 that there was no
direction to consider for grant of exemption – However, the
exemption order was not given retrospective effect – Therefore, grant
of exemption would also not cure the disqualification – Uttar
Pradesh Secondary Education  Services Selection Board Rules,
1998 – Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1068
1068
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1069
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. It is not in dispute that as on the last date of
submission of applications pursuant to the advertisement issued
by the Board inviting applications for appointment to the post of
Principal, the appellant herein was having only 9 years 3 months
of teaching experience.  Even as per the notification, having
regard to academic qualification possessed by the appellant, there
was a requirement of 10 years of teaching experience. Mainly
the writ petitions were filed in the High Court alleging that his
period of foreign study leave is to be computed for the purpose
of computing the teaching experience of 10 years. It is not in
dispute that from 15.04.1992 to 08.03.1996 he was studying in
Czechoslovakia and same cannot be considered as a teaching
experience.  Further, having regard to the requirements in the
Regulations, teaching experience of 10 years is rightly considered
as a necessary qualification by the Division Bench of the High
Court. [Para 9][1072-D-H]
2.1 It is pleaded that in view of the exemption granted he
is entitled to continue as Principal of the college.  Such an
exemption is granted in view of the order passed by this Court
on 08.07.2015.  It is clear from the order dated 8.7.2015 that
there was no direction at all to consider for grant of exemption.
By all fairness, when the matter is seized before this Court,
respondent-authorities should not have passed any order granting
exemption in favour of the appellant.  In any event, from the
perusal of the order, it is clear that no retrospective effect is
given to such exemption proceedings. Even by grant of such
exemption it will not cure the disqualification of the appellant as
on last date of submission of the applications and on the date of
preparing the panel.  [Paras 10 and 11][1073-A-B; 1073-D-F]
2.2 Having regard to the notified required qualifications
under the Regulations, such qualification of 10 years of teaching
experience is necessary qualification for appointment to the post
of Principal. [Para 11][1073-G-H]
3. However, the issue, whether the respondent-authorities
are empowered to grant any order of exemption in exercise of
powers under proviso to Section 16-E(3) of the 1921 Act, after
enforcement of the provisions of the 1982 Act is left open.
[Para 12][1074-A-B]
VIVEK MUDGIL v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1070                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS          

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