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.
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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.