Maujood Ahmad Siddiqui and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

We have heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission.

The U.P. Public Service Commission initiated the process of selection for 216 posts of Principals in Government (Boys/Girls) Inter Colleges in the State. The examinations and the interviews were held in 1997. A large number of candidates were not found eligible for variety of grounds including that they were teaching in private schools and self financed institutions. They successfully challenged the rejection of their candidature in the Supreme Court by means of Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 1999 connected with other Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 10th January, 2001 held that teaching experience in private school is not excluded in the statutory rules, from the consideration of the eligibility provided they were drawing salary in the pay scale applicable to lecturer and that all the candidates who were interviewed should be allowed an opportunity to represent to the Commission.

A large number of contempt petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. They were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 28th November, 2002. The directions given by the Supreme Court in Contempt Petitions , concluding the matter, are quoted below:

After hearing both the parties, instead of initiating contempt proceedings, we direct the Commission and the State Government to make appointments on the following basis:

All the candidates who were called for interview and whose names are on the merit list shall be appointed in order of merit if they

(a) possess requisite educational qualification and;

(b) have 3 years teaching experience working as a full time teachers and paid regularly monthly salary not less than Rs. 1400/-.

Part time teachers would be excluded from consideration. However, it is made clear that there cannot be a class of exclusion of teachers who are working in self-financed institutions. Any exclusion of a candidate on the basis that he or she is a part time teacher must be made only in individual cases after proper verification.

Prima facie the certificate provided by the candidate which is duly certified by the designated authority shall be taken as final unless there are reasons for not doing so. However, before rejecting such certificate, a reasoned order in writing shall be passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the candidate concerned.

Appointment however would be made against available posts either in general category or reserved category as the case may be subject to verification of reserved category candidates.

Candidates who have already been appointed on the basis of the merit list prepared in 1996-97 will not be disturbed or displaced.

A large number of candidates, who had appeared in the interviews, represented to the U.P. Public Service Commission.

The Petitioners were not called for interview. They had not filed any writ petition challenging the issue of the eligibility. It is only after the cases of those Petitioners, who had appeared in the interview and had approached the Supreme Court, were directed to be considered by the Commission, that the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 40078 of 2002 in the High Court. This Court by the order dated 7th October, 2005 directed the Commission to decide the representation.

The U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad has, by the order dated 31st January, 2006/28th February, 2006, rejected the representation on the ground that the orders of the Supreme Court for re-consideration of the candidature on the ground of eligibility were applicable only to those candidates who were called and had appeared in the interview. The candidates who had not appeared in the interview are not covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that once the conditions of the eligibility were interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Petitioners'' exclusion on the same ground should have been taken into consideration by the Commission and that this Court may consider the Petitioners'' eligibility and direct the interview to be taken. It is submitted that similarly situated persons were interviewed by the U.P. Public Service Commission.

In the case of Sri Anil Kumar Shahi cited by the Petitioners along with others, the said Petitioner had filed Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 before the Supreme Court against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 8th September, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 7144 of 1998. The Supreme Court had entertained the matter and directed the Commission to pass appropriate orders and communicate to the Petitioners. Anil Kumar Shahi was agitating the matter and had filed Civil Appeal in the Supreme Court. It is in that context that he was allowed to be interviewed by the Commission.

So far as the present Petitioners are concerned, they approached the High Court for the first time almost six years after they were not called for interview. The Supreme Court has confined its judgment for reconsideration of the cases of only those candidates who had appeared in the interview.

It will, therefore, not be appropriate for the Court to issue any direction, at this stage, for consideration of the claim of the Petitioners.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.