Kamayani Kashyap (Smt.) vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Since W.P.(S) No. 2762/2008 and 5703/2008 involve common facts and question of law, and as such, both the petitioners are being considered by this common order. Challenge in W.P.(S) No. 2762 of 2008 is to the select list dated 06.12.2005 (Annexure P/5) wherein the name of respondent No. 3 i.e. Prabodh Kumar Adhikari (for short ''Adhikari'') has been placed in the waiting list for appointment on the post of Principal (DIET), the order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P/4) whereby Adhikari was appointed on the aforesaid post. Further, a direction to the respondent/State and the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short ''the PSC'') to appoint the petitioner i.e. Smt. Kamayani Kashyap (for short ''Ms. Kamayani'') as Principal (DIET).

In W.P. (S) No. 5703 of 2008 also, the same order and the select list are under challenge and the petitioner herein i.e. Alok Sharma (for short ''Sharma''), also seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him as Principal (DIET).

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner in the first petition are that Ms. Kamayani holds Master''s Degree in Zoology (M.Sc.) and also Master''s Degree in Education (M.Ed.). The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the service of the State Government w.e.f. 03.07.1986 and later on, she was appointed as Principal, Higher Secondary School, through State Public Service Commission w.e.f. 16.04.1997. The respondent No. 1 and 2 invited applications through the advertisement dated 04.07.2003, for direct appointment on the post of Deputy Director, Principal (DIET) and Lecturer. The petitioner applied for the post of Principal (DIET) alongwith respondent No. 3 and 4 and others. Ms. Kamayani was called for interview on 08.01.2005 and a select list (Annexure P/2) was prepared by the respondent No. 2. Adhikari was placed at serial No. 2, Sharma at serial No. 20 and Ms. Kamayani at serial No. 14.

Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Kamayani would submit that Adhikari was not qualified to be appointed as Principal (DIET) because he had no experience of working as Principal of Higher Secondary School and also of teaching from class 1 to 8 but even then, he was appointed as Principal (DIET), vide order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P/4). In the same way, the name of Sharma could also not be included in the supplementary list for the post of Principal (DIET), as he was also not having the requisite qualification. Thus, in that situation, Ms. Kamayani was most suitable for appointment as Principal (DIET) as she was fulfilling all the criteria as prescribed in the Madhya Pradesh School Education District Institute of Education and Training (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991 (for short ''the Rules, 1991''). Shri Tamaskar would rely on the comparative chart (Annexure P/7) wherefrom it would be clear that Ms. Kamayani is more meritorious and fulfills all the requisite qualification for holding the post of Principal (DIET). In an identical situation, the selection of two candidate namely Ajay Vishwas and Smt. Kishwar Begum were rejected on account of not holding the requisite experience, which is evident from the information (Annexure P/6) received by Ms. Kamayani under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. Shri Tamaskar would further submit that earlier, the application of Sharma was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on account of not having requisite qualification and experience.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for Sharma would submit that Sharma was initially appointed as Lecturer in School Education Department in the year 1985. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.07.2003 for selection and appointment on the post of Principal (DIET), he made an application to the respondent - PSC. He was called for interview. Adhikari also appeared in the recruitment process. In the said recruitment process, Sadhna Agrawal was declared as successful candidate. Since there were several irregularities in the selection process, number of writ petitions were filed one of which was filed by Alok Sharma being W.P. No. 598/2005 (Alok Sharma & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) on the ground that Sadhna Agrawal, Hemant Upadhyay and Adhikari did not fulfill the requisite qualification of experience required for the post which was disposed of by order dated 16.11.2005 with a direction to the respondent authorities to re-scrutinize the select list of Principal, (DIET) and republish a fresh select list within a period of 30 days. However, the PSC, without scrutinizing the list declared Adhikari as selected candidate whereas he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the Rules, 1991. Sharma alone fulfills the eligibility criteria as required and thus, he should have been appointed as Principal (DIET) as he had worked as Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School for 10 years and four months. Even the marks awarded under the experience column to Sharma and Adhikari are erroneous and Sharma ought to have been awarded more marks than Adhikari.

Shri Shrivastava, in response to the pleadings in the petition of Ms. Kamayani would submit that she has made only bald allegations without any supporting document that Alok Sharma was not eligible for appointment on the post of Principal (DIET). There is no record that Sharma was ever declared disqualified. Submission of Ms. Kamayani that she alone was eligible candidate is a mere self same statement.

Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent would submit that there is no relief claimed directly against the State, and it is only a formal party and the relief has been sought mainly against the PSC. Shri Thakur would further submit that the selection has been made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1991 and further in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Mohan Lal Jaiswal & Others v. State of C.G. & Others, W.P. No. 599/2005 and other connected matters, decided on 16.11.2005.

Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - PSC would submit that the appointments were made in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1991. Adhikari was having all the requisite qualification as prescribed in Schedule III of the Rules, 1991. The experience of Adhikari was examined by the academic experts during the selection process, and thereafter, he was selected for the post of Principal (DIET). The PSC, in pursuance of the order dated 16.11.2005 passed in Mohan Lal Jaiswal (supra), scrutinized and prepared a revised list dated 06.12.2005 wherein Adhikari, who was having 3 years of experience in Government Higher Secondary School and also having experience of elementary education, was selected.

Shri Guru would further submit that so far as awarding of marks to Sharma is concerned, he had never worked as Principal, thus, one mark was awarded to him for experience gained by him by working in other fields of educational institutions like Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Formal Education etc. and in comparison to Adhikari, Ms. Kamayani and Sharma, both were less meritorious. Thus, both the petitions being devoid of merit, may be dismissed. Further, both the petitions suffer from laches and inordinate delay of three years as the select list was published way back in the year 2005 and the petitioners in both the writ petitions have approached this Court in the year 2008. Thus, on this count also, these petitions may be dismissed.

Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Adhikari would submit that the PSC had scrutinized the selection of the candidates in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the matter of Mohanlal Jaiswal (supra). In the review list, Ms. Kamayani was allotted 24.7 marks for educational qualification, experience and interview, and Adhikari was allotted 29.82 marks and Alok Sharma was allotted 29.14 marks. Thus, Prabodh Kumar Adhikari was rightly selected. Adhikari is having all the eligibility criteria as he is having 12 years experience of teaching in Higher Secondary School and more than three years experience of Education Administrator (Principal) related with elementary education. Thus, he is better suited for the post of principal (DIET) from the initial date of his appointment and has also been confirmed on the said post by the respondent No. 1. The selection list was issued on 06.12.2005 and the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly after a period of three years. Thus, on this count alone, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

Scheduled III to Rule 8 of the Rules, 1991 provides for qualification and experience for the post of Principal (DIET). The essential qualification are (i) Master''s Degree in Humanities Social Sciences/Sciences/Mathematics/Behavioural Science, (ii) M.Ed. preferably with specialization Elementary/Adult Education/NFE/Educational Planning and Administration/Teacher Education or Degree/Diploma in Educational Planning and Administration Adult Education/Child Development/Community Development/Rural Development Social work/Communication/Women''s studies.

In the experience column (6) of Schedule III, provides that--(1)(A) years of the following kinds with at least years of each. (i) Teaching in a school preferably elementary school. (ii) Teaching in a TEI, preferably ETEI or providing other teach, resource support to School Education, preferably Elementary Education; (iii) Education administration at least of the level of a higher senior secondary school or project officer of AE/NFE or district level responsibility in Women''s development or Teaching B.E.D/M.E.D classes. Provided that either as teacher''s or as a educational administrator/supervisor, the candidate should have at least 3 years experience related to Education, or (B)(i) Seven year''s experience of teaching in a school (ii) three year''s experience in educational administration at least at the level of principal of a higher/senior school or project officer of AE/NFE and district level responsibility in women''s development: Provided that either as teacher or as educational administrator the candidate should have at least 3 years experience related to Elementary Education. (C)(i) Seven years experience in administration of AE/NFE programmes at least of the level of project officer or district level responsibility in women''s development or in providing technical resources support to such programmes at a senior level. (ii) Three years experience of teaching in school/TEI (Preferably elementary level and/or School Education Administration. Essential (2)(i) should have excellent record of service in the above capacities. (ii) should have been a successful team leader; and (ii) should have a substantial record of education innovation/experimentation.

The desirable qualification are - (i) Three years experience of providing technical resource support to Elementary Education or AE or NFE: (ii) Work in the area of Education of SC/ST/Women/Girls/Minorities. The term Technical Resource support has been explained that the activities relating to training curriculum development preparation of teaching/learning materials, evaluation and research in the relevant field. Elementary Education/AE/NFE.

Sharma, alongwith other candidates in W.P. No. 598/2005, and other connected matters, challenged the select list pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.07.2003 of the Deputy Director as well as Principal (DIET). This Court, having considered all the issues at length, by its order dated 16.11.2005, held, inter alia, as under:

(1) The process and mode of selection adopted by the Public Service Commission is held to be in order.

xxx xxx xxx

(4) The Commission is directed to republish the select list of general category of Deputy Directors without treating one post as reserved for women candidate considering the case of Smt. R. Bambra and the case of Nam Niwas Singh, on inter se merits alongwith other candidates.

(5) The selection of Sadhana Agrawal to the post of Principal (DIET) is set aside.

(6) The selection of Shri Ghan Shyam Netam, Shri Hemant Upadhyay and Shri Prabodh Adhikari pertaining to the Post of Principal (DIET) shall be subject to the scrutiny of their forms by the Public Service with a view to find out as to whether they possess the basic statutory qualifications and experience as per Schedule III of the M.P. School Education District Institute of Education and Training (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1991 or not. This scrutiny shall be done strictly on the basis of provisions of the aforesaid Rules taking aid and assistance of the decision on various points rendered by this Court this Court in this judgment.

6.1 If they fulfill statutory qualifications and experience, their selection would be valid otherwise they will be treated as not selected.

6.2 After the scrutiny the Commission will republish the revised selection list of Principal (DIET) among the overall results of the candidates before them.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a select list was published in which Adhikari secured total 29.82 marks, Ms. Kamayani secured 24.7 marks and Sharma secured 29.14 marks and Adhikari was selected for the post of Principal (DIET).

Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition on 30.04.2008, 13.10.2008, respectively. On appointment vide order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P/4), Adhikari has acquired a right, however, the same was not challenged by the petitioners herein immediately but after a period of about 26 and 32 months, respectively seeking recalculation of the marks awarded to Adhikari, Ms. Kamayani and Sharma. In response, the PSC has already explained that Adhikari was Post Graduate Degree in Mathematics and Post Graduate Degree in Education, having 12 years teaching experience in Higher Secondary School, Seoni (Champa) and Model Government Higher Secondary School, Sakti as Lecturer and having more than 3 years experience of Education Administrator (Principal) related with Elementary Education in Model Government Higher Secondary School, Sakti where Adhikari had worked as Principal from classes 6th to 12th.

It is difficult to accept a comparative chart prepared by Ms. Kamayani and annexed as Annexure P/7, as no document in support of the chart has been produced. The decision and explanation in regard to qualification and experience, acquired by them submitted by the PSC and State, merit acceptance. The entire process has already been considered earlier in W.P. No. 598/2005 and other connected matters.

On perusal of the list, it is not found that Adhikari was less meritorious candidate. Earlier, Ms. Kamayani has not filed any petition for declaration of the select list as invalid wherein this Court directed that if Adhikari has qualifying marks and experience, his appointment was valid. Sharma and Ms. Kamayani have filed these petitions after a period of 26 and 32 months. The petitioners are questioning the method and allotment of marks to the Adhikari which was duly considered by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Thus, this petition has no merit firstly on the ground that the issue has already been settled by this court in W.P. No. 598/2005, and other connected matters, holding the appointment of Adhikari as valid, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility and experience criteria, which indisputably is possessed by Adhikari. Secondly, Ms. Kamayani and Sharma have raised the issue after a period of 26 months and 32 months respectively, without explaining the inordinate delay.

Thus, on this score alone, this petition is not maintainable, though, on merit, the petitioners have failed to establish that they deserve more marks than Adhikari, even after re-scrutiny.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, both these petitions, being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.