Silver Moon Knox vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri N.C. Tripathi for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, Sri R.P. Tewari for respondent No. 5/1 and Sri Rahul Jain for respondent No. 6.

With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi (respondent No. 2), whereby it has recalled its approval dated 2.12.1997 granted to the petitioner''s promotion to the post of Principal in Christian Inter College, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as "College") on the ground that neither the petitioner was qualified for the said promotion nor the procedure followed by the Committee was consistent with Section 16F and 16FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "1921 Act"), the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed. The College is recognized governed by the provisions of 1921 Act. Since it is receiving grant-in-aid, the matter of payment of salary of teaching and other staff of the College is governed by the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Teachers and other Employees) (Payment of Salary) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "1971 Act"). The College, being minority institution, it is said that by virtue of Section 30 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "1982 Act"), the said Act of 1982 is not applicable to the College and in the matter of selection of the Principal, the procedure laid down u/s 16-FF of 1921 Act read with Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under 1921 Act (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations") has to be followed. The respondent No. 4 sought to fill in the vacancy of Principal of the College by direct recruitment making an advertisement on 2.4.1997 and 6.4.1997 in daily news papers "Northern India Patrika" and "Dainik Jagran" respectively. The post of Principal was likely to fall vacant on 30.6.1997 and hence the Management started proceeding a bit earlier so that a validly selected candidate may be available as soon as the vacancy occur. The respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 23.4.1997 requested the Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi to nominate a Government Expert for interview to be held by the Management for recruitment to the post of Principal. By order dated 23.7.1997 the respondent No. 2 nominated Sri Narain Singh Bisht, District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi as Departmental Expert. Consequently, interview was held on 30.7.1997 wherein 18 candidates including the petitioner appeared and interviewed. This included Vinod Kumar Paul, respondent No. 6, also. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the merit list while Sri Vinod Kumar Paul was placed at Sl. No. 3. The papers were sent by selection committee to respondent No. 2 for seeking his approval which was ultimately granted by order dated 2.12.1997 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) pursuant whereto the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 2.12.1997 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and he jointed on 3.12.1997.

Sri Vinod Kumar Paul filed Writ Petition No. 42115 of 1997 challenging the order dated 2.12.1997 which was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 17.1.2006 permitting Sri Paul to make a representation with respect to objection to the selection of petitioner, before the Deputy Director of Education who was required to consider and decide the same after giving opportunity to all other necessary parties. It is pursuant to this order that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 which is subject matter of the present writ petition.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, submits that Section 16FF has no application in the case in hand being a minority institution. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondent No. 2 in revoking the order dated 2.12.1997 that in view of Section 16FF a Departmental Expert could not have been of the same district in which the College situate has no basis. He further submits that the only ground to withhold his approval is lack of minimum qualification possessed by the selected candidate. In the case in hand, under the Regulations, the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Principal included four years experience of teaching higher Classes. It is contended that the petitioner did possess the said qualification but the respondents in taking a view otherwise have acted illegally.

The respondents have separately filed their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order. I need not to detail the facts stated in the counter affidavit and propose to refer the same while dealing with the relevant issues on merit.

Only two questions are up for consideration in this matter, (1) Whether the petitioner possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Principal; and (2) Whether the selection committee was validly constituted or not.

Coming to the first question, according to the averments made by the petitioner himself, in para 17 to 20 of the Writ Petition, he obtained M.A. degree in Sociology in the year 1979, in Political Science in the year 1981 and in English in the year 1990. He also obtained degree of Bachelor of Education from Kanpur University in the year 1972. He claim to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in St. Mark''s College, Jhansi in January 1973 where he worked till January 1984. The St. Mark''s College is recognized by Delhi Board awarding certificate of ICSE for High School and ISC for Intermediate students and was imparting education to the students from Class 6th to 12th. The said College was not receiving any grant. The certificate dated 15.4.1997, said to have been issued by Sri S.B. Lall, Principal, St. Mark''s Inter College, has been placed on record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) in the College with effect from 7.1.1984. He claim that being qualified he was allowed to teach senior classes, i.e. 9th to 12th in the subject "Biology" and Classes 9th and 10th in the Subject "Chemistry" since very beginning and thereafter in the subjects of English since 1991 till he was appointed as Principal. In this regard he also claim to have been issued a certificate by the Principal of the College on 28.6.1996 and 12.4.1997 filed as Annexure 7 and 8 to the writ petition. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner did possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Principal and the respondent No. 2 has erred in law by holding that the petitioner lack minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Principal in the College.

The qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Principal of secondary institution is provided in Appendix ''A'' to the Regulations and reads as under:

Essential qualifications

Sl. No.

Name of the post

Educational Training Experience

Age

Desirable qualificati on

1

2

3

4

5

1.

Head of the institution

(1) Should be a trained M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com or M. Sc. (Ag.) or any equivalent post-graduate or other degree which is conferred by any body as referred to in above mentioned para and should possess teaching experience from any training institution recognised by the department or any degree college affiliated with any University or institution or any degree College affiliated with such institution as referred to in above-mentioned first para or at least four years teaching experience in classes 9-12 in any institution recognised by Board or in any institution affiliated with the Boards of other States or alike institutions, whose examinations are recognised by Board, or should possess at least four years'' experience as trained graduate Headmaster in any Junior High Schools recognised by Deptt.:

Provided that he/she should not be less than thirty years of age.

or

(2) Teaching experience of Ten years in Intermediate classes of any

recognised institution with first or second class post graduate degree, or third class post graduate degree, with 15 years'' teaching experience.

or

(3) Post graduate diploma holder in Science; provided that he has passed this diploma course in first or second class and has served meritoriously for 15 or 20 years respectively in any recognised institution after passing such diploma course.

Note -

(1) At least second class post graduate degree and on special teaching experience of 10 years in intermediate classes of recognised institutions, training eligibility of Asstt. Teachers may be relaxed (As per the provisions in the Act).

(2) Teaching prior to training or after training or both, are included in teaching experience.

(3) Higher classes mean classes classes 9-12 and teaching experience of these classes is admissible for the post of principal in Intermediate College.

Minimum 30 years

There is no dispute with respect to the academic qualification. The issue is confined only whether the petitioner possess the requisite experience of four years teaching of Classes 9th to 12th . The Counsels for the parties do not dispute that this case is covered by Item-1 in Column 3 of the Schedule and Items 2 and 3 are not applicable in this case.

The teaching experience has been further explained in Note 2 and 3 of Appendix ''A'' which provides that the teaching experience before training and after training both are included.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that it is not the mere certificate of experience issued by the Principal of the College but it has to be seen in the light of the facts as to whether the petitioner was holding an office in discharge of duties whereof he got the said experience otherwise even if a person is not appointed with a clear status, if he can obtain a certificate that he was taking classes of 9th to 12th, he would claim to be qualified for appointment to the post of Principal and that would defeat the very object and purpose of prescribing this experience as requisite minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Principal. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teaching (C.T. Grade) and in that capacity, he was not supposed to take higher classes, i.e., 9th to 12th . For the first time, he completed ten years of service in C.T. Grade in the year 1994 and in view of the Government Order dated 28.2.1990 was promoted in L.T. grade in the year 1994. Hence, for the purpose of experience, teaching higher Classes in the earlier period can neither be accepted nor otherwise be taken into note in law.

It appears that the respondents'' case is that the teaching experience contemplated in Item 1 Column 3 Appendix ''A'' Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations, in respect to the post of Principal, must have been attained after appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) while case of the petitioner is that since no specific kind of teaching experience has been referred in the Regulations, therefore, if the petitioner has actually taught students of Classes 9th to 12th that would satisfy the requirement of the qualification with respect to teaching experience of four years and the respondents cannot insist upon that the petitioner ought to have been appointed on a post whereupon he would have been entitled to take Classes 9th to 12th . The counsel for petitioner contended that this amounts to reading certain words in the statute which are not there.

Regulation 1 Chapter II Appendix ''A'' of the Regulations with respect to qualification of the Head of the Institution and in particular the teaching experience has come up for consideration before this Court earlier also and it would be appropriate first to have a glance over the said authorities whether they answer the dispute up for consideration in the case in hand or not. In case, the matter is covered by the earlier judgments of this Court, it would not be necessary to go further in the matter.

The first judgment sought to be relied by the petitioner is Committee of Management, B.D. Bajoria Inter College, City and District Shaharanpur and Ors. v. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow and Ors. (2000) 1 UPLBEC 46. Therein, the respondents No. 5, whose appointment on the post of Principal was under challenge had more than four years experience of teaching in Class 9th to 12th though his appointment was on ad hoc but then it was said that the Regulations does not talk of gaining experience only in a permanent capacity and not in an ad hoc capacity therefore it would not be prudent to ignore teaching experience gained by a person though after getting his appointment on ad hoc basis as that would satisfy the requirement of law under Appendix ''A'' Regulation 1 Chapter II of the Regulations. The Court held that wherever such was the requirement of law, it has been made specific in the statute for example Regulation 6 Chapter II of the Regulations. The above judgment may help the petitioner only to the extent that when the statute does not talk of something specifically, it would not be necessary to infer something but in the case of Committee of Management, B.D. Bajoria Inter College (supra) the incumbent was actually appointed on the post in question for the purpose of gaining experience, may be on ad hoc basis, though in the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teaching (C.T. Grade) whereof he could not have taught higher classes but despite that having obtained a certificate from Principal, the petitioner claims that he was permitted to take higher classes and that would suffice and satisfy the requirement of four years teaching experience of higher classes. In my view, this judgment does not answer the question up for consideration in the case in hand.

Next case is a Division Bench decision in Dr. U.S. Sinha v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 1 UPLBEC 673 challenging the selection of one Dr. P.C. Saxena as Principal of a State Medical College. In para 12 of the judgment, the Court observed that Dr. P.C. Saxena was appointed on the post of Professor and his continuance on the post of Professor and receiving salary on the said post till the date of selection was never challenged by anybody. In view of this finding, the Court found that he did possess the requirement of ten years teaching experience as Professor as provided in the statute. The above judgment, therefore, in my view also does not help to answer the issue raised in the present case.

Then comes the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Laxmishankar Mishra, providing for absorption shows that one should have worked on the post for a minimum period of seven years in the same institution and should have ten years teaching experience in any recognized institution of Madhya Pradesh. The issue raised before the Apex Court was whether working on the post for a minimum period of seven years in any capacity, whether officiating or as in-charge would be sufficient to satisfy the said requirement or one should be a confirmed or substantive appointee. The Apex Court held that "On a pure grammatical construction of the expression "should have worked on the post for a minimum period of 7 years in the same institution" it would indisputably appear that the person claiming to be absorbed must have worked on the post of Head Master/Principal of a High/Higher Secondary School for a minimum period of 7 years. Emphasis is on the experience gained by working on the post of Head Master/Principal. A person incharge of the post also works and discharges the duties and functions of the post of which he has taken charge. Even an officiating incumbent of the post does discharge the functions and duties of the post."

I have no reason to take any exception of the above view taken by the Apex Court but again the obstruction in the case in hand is that the petitioner was not appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in any capacity whatsoever but what he claims that since he was allowed or required or permitted to teach students of Classes 9th to 12th, though he was appointed as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade), and, in that capacity could not have discharged the said function, yet, since he was required to do so and a certificate in this regard has been issued by the Principal, therefore, he should be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of four years teaching experience under the statute. In my view, this judgment also lends no assistance to the petitioner.

Similar is the position in Dr. Asim Kumar Bose Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein also the question was whether it is the actual teaching experience of the Specialist or the capacity in which such teaching experience is gained. The incumbent therein also held the post of Radiologist as a matter of fact and it is in this context and the factual background, the Apex Court in para 29 held as under:

It is necessary to emphasise that the recruitment rules nowhere provide that the teaching experience gained by a Specialist in a teaching hospital in the capacity of an Associate Professor (ex-officio) shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience. There is no provision made in the Rules that the teaching experience must be gained on a regular appointment. There is hardly any difference so far as teaching experience is concerned whether it is acquired on regular appointment or as Specialist in a teaching hospital with the ex-officio designation. As the statutory rules do not provide that the teaching experience gained in an ex-officio capacity shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience, the teaching experience gained by the appellant while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital cannot be ignored in determining his eligibility for appointment as Professor of Radiology in Maulana Azad Medical College.

In my view, even this judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed before this Court the judgment in Smt. Bharati Roy v. Deputy Director of Education, II, Kanpur and Ors. 2008 (3) AWC 2310; Vipin Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and Ors. (1993) 3 UPLBEC 1800 and Brahm Dutt Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, However, the said judgments are also inapplicable to the dispute involved in the case in hand inasmuch as in Smt. Bharati Roy (supra) and Vipin Kumar (supra) the question was whether grant of L.T. Grade pursuant to Government Order dated 28.2.1990 would amount to promotion in L.T. Grade or not and this Court negatived the above contention holding that the grant of L.T. Grade after rendering ten years of service in C.T. Grade or Lecturer''s Grade after rendering a particular length of service in L.T. Grade would not amount to promotion to the post of Lecturer or Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) since grant of a higher scale does not amount to promotion on the higher post.

Brahm Dutt Tripathi (supra) is a judgment where the relevant cut of date for the purpose of qualification was considered and that is also not the issue in this matter.

One of the nearest judgment, in my view, is Shri Prakash Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43309 of 2003) decided on 10.4.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) wherein this Court has considered Rule 8 of U.P. Educational (General Education Cadre) Service Rules, 1992 and one of the essential qualification prescribed therein was at least three years experience in teaching Intermediate or higher classes necessary for appointment to the post of Principal. The question as to what would be the relevant teaching experience which would qualify for appointment came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Mohammad Altaf and Ors. v. Public Service Commission and Anr. in Special Appeal No. 961-962 of 1999 decided on 20.2.2002 and thereafter the matter was again taken up by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 372 of 2002 (Shamim Khanam v. K.P. Pandey and Ors.) and these facts and observations of the Apex Court have been noted by this Court in Sri Prakash Dwivedi (supra) in para 8 of the judgment as under:

This issue was agitated in a writ petition before this Court and ultimately came to be considered by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 961- 962 of 1999 Mohd. Altaf and Ors. v. Public Service Commission and Anr. Decided on 20.2.2002 wherein the Apex Court held that in view of the Regulations framed by the State Government, the three years experience in higher classes would be from Classes IX to XII and experience of teaching of these classes is admissible for the purpose of Headmaster of Intermediate Colleges. Consequently, it directed the Commissioner to examine the cases of all the candidates in the light of the various documents submitted by them and take appropriate decision regarding their eligibility. There appeared to be some confusion and the matter again attracted the attention of the Apex Court in Contempt Petition No. 372 of 2002 Shamim Khanam v. K.B. Pandey and Ors. decided on 28.11.2002 when the position was clarified with respect to the candidates who may be considered eligible as under:

All 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.

A Candidates who have already been appointed on the basis of the merit list prepared in 1996-1997 will not be disturbed or displaced.

This Court observed that in view of the Apex Court''s decision, only those candidates who could be considered to possess requisite qualification are the one who have three years experience working as full time teacher and paid regular monthly salary for the said purpose.

Coming to the regulation applicable in the case in hand, the experience contemplated in Item 1 Column 3 Appendix A is in three forms as under:

Teaching experience from any training institution recognized by the department.

Four years teaching experience in Classes 9th to 10th in any Institution recognized by Board or in any institution affiliated with Board of other State of alike institutions whose examinations are recognized by the Board.

Four years service experience as trained graduate Head Master.

It is true that specifically regulation does not mention as to in what manner the experience must have been gained by an incumbent except to the extent of the kind of institution from which it has to be obtained but one thing is clear that from the reference of various kinds of institutions in the Regulation it does appear that it contemplates those institutions where the appointments of teachers are made in accordance with proper scheme and not those institutions which allow a persons to impart education to the students in an ad hoc, stopgap manner by inviting persons like guest teachers or part time teachers etc. and without any appointment to the concerned post. The capacity in which one is appointed in order to impart education or to teach classes 9th to 12th though is not specifically mentioned but in the scheme of the things it cannot be said that someone who has simply taken one or two classes without having any right to teach by virtue of his status of appointment, can also claim the same as valid experience to be counted in the Regulation. Besides, the experience alongwith a particular period would mean that this experience must have been gained by a person as a full time employee and not in an ancillary or incidental manner. From the facts given by the petitioner it is evident that before 1979 he was only a graduate with Teachers Training Qualification of B.Ed. With the above qualification he could not have been appointed as a teacher for teaching the students of secondary classes, i.e., classes 9th to 12th. He has not placed on record his letter of appointment in St. Mark''s College, Jhansi to show in what capacity he was appointed, if any, and what was the job requirement which was to be performed by him. The general certificate issued by the Principal on 15.4.1997 stating that he worked as Assistant teacher from January 1973 to January 1984 for senior classes from the face of it cannot be accepted and relied for the reason that as per his own showing, the petitioner was not qualified to take higher secondary classes upto 1979 inasmuch he passed M.A. (Sociology) in 1979. Besides, the certificate also does not mention the subject in which he was required to teach the students of senior classes inasmuch his first post graduation was in Sociology in 1979, then in Political Science in 1981 and he passed M.A in English only in 1990. The respondents, therefore, have rightly ignored the above certificate and I find no fault therein.

Now coming to the certificate issued by the Principal of the College on 28.6.1996, it says that he was teaching Biology and Science in the High School since he joined and English in Intermediate classes since 1991. Suffice is to mention that once it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed in the College as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade), under the Regulations he was entitled to teach the students of Classes 6th , 7th and 8th only. If in addition to his duties as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade), the Principal of the College unauthorisedly also permitted him to take Classes of Biology or Science in High School, that would not be treated as four years teaching experience of Classes 9th to 12th inasmuch the term of four years teaching experience in any case would cover a full time experience and employment to impart education to the students of Classes 9th to 12th . It would not admit a part time or incidental experience, may be of taking one or two classes in addition to normal duties in the junior classes or even by taking private tuition. So far as the further certificate that he was taking Intermediate classes since 1991, again the same thing would apply. As a matter of fact, the petitioner could get promotion on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) as admitted by him only in the year 1994 and not earlier thereto. Hence, in my view, the petitioner cannot be said to possess the requisite minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Principal in a secondary institution. The order impugned in the writ petition holding the petitioner as lacking requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Principal, therefore, cannot be faulted.

Now coming to the second question as to whether the selection was made in violation of provisions of Section 16E, I am of the view that in case of a minority institution, Section 16E as such would not apply in view of nonobstante clause with which Section 16FF commences and it overrides, to this extent, the requirement of Section 16E. However, if it is assumed that the College is not a minority institution as contended on behalf of the respondent No. 5, even violation of Sub-section 2 (3) of Section 16E would not make the selection itself illegal in view of the declaration made under Sub-section 6 thereof. This view is consistent with what has been said by a Division Bench of this Court in Teaching and Administrative Staff Association, Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad v. Convenor, Steering Committee and Ors. (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1518 though it was considering the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, but this Court held that the defect, if any, in the constitution of Selection Committee, constitute only irregularity and not illegality. In the case in hand, there is already a declaration made by the Legislature that the defect in the constitution of selection committee for the selection of Principal would not vitiate the selection. Hence this issue has to be answered in favour of the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner then argued that lack of experience only makes the appointment irregular and if after the appointment the incumbent has worked for sufficiently long time, that would be treated to be a valid experience and the appointment should not be cancelled. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Sarup Vs. State of Haryana and Others,

In Ram Sarup (supra), after recording a finding that the appointment of the respondent was in violation of Rule 4 (1) of Punjab Labour Services (Class I & II) Rules, 1955, since he did not have five years'' experience of working of labour laws as Labour Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector of shops or Wage Inspector, the Apex Court held that this would make the appointment irregular and as soon as he complete the requisite experience having worked as Labourcum-Conciliation Officer, which is a higher post then the three posts mentioned in the rule, the experience gained by him on such higher post must be regarded as sufficient to constitute fulfillment of the requirement of five years'' experience provided in Rule 4 (1). However, the said judgment was rendered by the Apex Court in the light of the rule as was available in that case. In our case, there is a statutory bar in Rule 16E (3) which provides that no person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or Teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the Regulations. In view of a mandate prohibiting appointment of a person who lacks requisite minimum qualification, in the absence of any relaxation of the minimum qualification by the competent authority, if any, permissible under the Rules, such appointment would be illegal. This is what has been held by the Apex Court in Dr Prit Singh Vs. S.K. Mangal and Others, Berhampur University and another Vs. Dr. Sailabala Padhi, and Mohd. Sartaj and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . This view has also been followed/adopted by this Court in Sushil Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Others, and Committee of Management, Sri Bajrani Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Azambarh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2005) 2 UPLBEC 1374. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal has rightly been held illegal by the respondent No. 2 as the petitioner fails to satisfy the requirement of minimum qualification prescribed in the statute. The order impugned in the writ petition with respect the violation of Section 16E, as already discussed, is not correct but since the other part of the order is being upheld, I find no reason to interfere.

The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of merit. Dismissed. No costs.