High Courts

Shyam Lal Yadav vs U.P.Secondary Education Services Selection Board,Allahabad and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 12 October 2000 · Citation: (2000) 10 AHC CK 0044

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.H.Zaidi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 43282 of 2000
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 657 words

R.H. Zaidi, J.—By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner on the post of adhoc Principal of the institution, known as, Shiv Intermediate College, Katehara, post office Katehara, district Allahabad and to declare the provisions of Rule 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 as null and void.

2.

It has been stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade. The college was, thereafter, upgraded and the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (History) on 12121975 on adhoc basis for a period of six months which was extended from time to time. It has also been stated that on account of managerial dispute between the two rival Committees of Management, the salary of the petitioner has not been paid and the petitioner is not being permitted to function as adhoc Principal of the College. Hence, the present petition.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was legally entitled to continue to function as adhoc Principal of the College as there was no legally selected and appointed candidate to take over charge of the office of the Principal. It has also been urged that Rule 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 provides no guidelines, the same is therefore, arbitrary and illegal.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

5.

According to his own case, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in History on adhoc basis for a period of six months which, according to him, used to be extended from time to time. It has also been stated that on retirement of the permanent Principal of the College, the petitioner was appointed as Principal on adhoc basis in the year 1999 and that his appointment was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools in the aforesaid capacity. On the record of the writ petition, nothing has been brought by the petitioner to show that anybody was interfering in the functioning of the petitioner was the Principal of the College in adhoc capacity, the petitioner, therefore, has got no cause of action for the relief claimed by him and to restrain the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as Principal of the College on adhoc basis. So far as the validity of the Rule 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 is concerned, it provides as detailed procedure and exhaustive guidelines for recruitment of Principals of Intermediate Colleges, Head Masters, Teachers and Lecturers of High Schools. It provides for advertisement of the vacancies specifying categories thereof in the daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State inviting the applications for being considered for selection in the proforma published in the advertisement. Provision for specifying the institution where candidates are to be appointed requiring the candidates give their choice for not more than three institutions in order of preference. Said rule provides for scrutiny of the applications and also provides for written examination consisting of one paper of general aptitude test of two hours based on the subject at the centres to be fixed in the district headquarters. The method of evaluation of answersheets through examiners or through computer has also been made. The manner of allotment of marks for the post of Head Master and Principals has also been provided besides other necessary details and guidelines. Therefore, the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, to the contrary, cannot be accepted. I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid rule. The same is thus, held to be quite valid and ultra vires. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

6.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.