# C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1881
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10958 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-st-johns-girls-junior-high-school-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54899
- **Pages:** 15

## Text

_Characters 0–39,762 of 47,867. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39762 for what follows._

4 All. C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1881
77. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, and is hereby, allowed.

78. The impugned order dated 27.06.2019, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mau, is
hereby quashed.

79. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to resume/join his duties
forthwith.

80. It is, however, made clear that since no interim order was operating in favour of the
petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, and the petitioner has admittedly not discharged
any duties for the intervening period, he shall not be entitled to claim salary for the said period, in
consonance with the well-settled principle of 'no work, no pay.'

81. It is further provided that in the event any of the documents, on the basis of which the
petitioner has sought to sustain his claim, are subsequently found to be false, fabricated, or
otherwise not genuine, it shall be open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against
the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1881
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 10958 of 2018

C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether the passing of an administrative order within 30 days satisfies the statute, or must the order be
communicated to the institution within that timeframe to avert "deemed approval"?
(b) Whether the post-selection procedural timeline is to submit papers within one week mandatory or
directory?
(c) Whether an institution's fair selection process can be vitiated if a nominee sent by the authorities
participates in the committee, but the department later claims a lack of formal internal authorization?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions
of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees Rules, 1984: Rules 14, 15, and 16 - The
petitioner is Committee of Management of St. John's Girls Junior High School, Gorakhpur, a recognized, stateaided, minority institution. Staffing and ministerial recruitments are governed by the Rules, 1984. Seeking to
fill a vacant post of Clerk, the Manager obtained formal permission from the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari
(BSA), Gorakhpur, on 23.06.2016. The vacancy was subsequently advertised in two newspapers (Swatantra
Janmitra and Swatantra Bharat) on 26.07.2016.
1882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
On 09.05.2017, the Management requested the BSA to nominate an expert/representative for the selection
committee scheduled for 25.05.2017, as mandated by Rule 14. In response, Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey
(Principal, Rajkiya High School, Barigaon) attended, participated, and signed the selection minutes as the
nominee. The committee unanimously selected Vikas Alexander for the post of Clerk. The selection documents
were not transmitted within the standard one-week timeframe and were ultimately submitted and officially
received by the BSA's office on 04.09.2017 (internally marked to a clerk on 06.06.2017).
On 07.10.2017, the institution received an order dated 28.09.2017, passed by the BSA, disapproving
Alexander's appointment. The envelope revealed that the order was sent via registered post on 05.10.2017, at
6:37 p.m. The Management challenged this order, asserting that the 30-day statutory window for approval
had lapsed, triggering a "deemed approval."(Para 43 to 50)
B. Acts done in substance in compliance with statutory requirements ought not to be invalidated
on mere technical or procedural irregularities, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have
been caused. The participation of the said nominee lends due legitimacy and transparency to the selection
process, fulfilling the very object for which such nomination is contemplated under the Rules. (Para 51)

It is equally well settled that the candidate cannot be made to suffer for any alleged procedural
lapse on the part of the authorities, particularly when the selection has otherwise been
conducted fairly and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Thus, in the absence of any
allegation of mala fide, bias, or prejudice, and there being substantial compliance with the requirement of
inclusion of the nominee, the disapproval of selection on this ground alone is arbitrary, unsustainable, and
liable to be set aside. (Para 53, 54, 75)

Assuming, that there was any irregularity in the manner of nomination, the same would, at best, constitute an
irregularity and not an illegality. The respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by
accepting the participation of the nominee during the selection process and subsequently questioning the
same to defeat the selection. (Para 52, 74)

Where a request has been duly made by the Management for nomination of a representative, but
the BSA either fails to nominate a specific individual or does not communicate the name of such
nominee, the selection process cannot be rendered invalid on that ground alone. (Para 68, 72)

The first ground taken for disapproving the appointment of the said Clerk is that no specific
nominee was indicated in the communication issued from the office of the BSA. However, it is an
admitted position that Principal, Rajkiya High School, Barigaon, participated in the selection proceedings and
duly signed the proceedings of the Selection Committee. Further objection that the District Basic Education
Officer was not empowered to nominate Principal of Rajkiya High School, and that there existed no
justification or occasion for such nomination has no legs to stand. (Para 55, 56, 69, 73)

C. Substantial justice ought not to be defeated on account of technicalities, particularly when the
delay stands reasonably explained. The selection process had already been duly completed in a fair and
transparent manner, and the delay in forwarding papers is a post-selection procedural lapse, which does not
go to the root of the selection. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to any party on account of
the said delay. (Para 60, 61)

The second ground is that, although the selection to the post of Clerk was finalized on
25.05.2017, the provisions contained in Rule 15(3) and 15(4) of the Rules, 1984 mandate that
the entire record of the selection proceedings be forwarded to the office of the BSA within a
period of one week. However, in the present case, the said papers were transmitted only on 04.09.2017,
after a considerable delay. The delay is neither deliberate nor fatal to the selection process. It stands duly
explained on account of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances, namely the severe flood situation
4 All. C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1883
prevailing in Gorakhpur during the relevant period, which disrupted normal administrative functioning. Such
circumstances constitute a valid and sufficient cause, beyond the control of the institution. (Para 57, 58)

D. Procedural provisions relating to timelines are ordinarily directory in nature, unless the
statute expressly provides consequences of non-compliance. Rule 15(3) and (4) of the Rules, 1984,
though prescribing a time frame, do not stipulate that delay in submission of papers would automatically
vitiate the entire selection process. Therefore, the said provision cannot be construed as mandatory so
as to nullify an otherwise valid selection. (Para 59)

E. Provisions contained in Rule 15(5) of the Rules, 1984, clearly stipulate that if no
communication regarding approval or disapproval is made within 30 days from the date of
receipt of the selection papers, the selection shall be deemed to have been approved The
consequence that necessarily follows is that the selection in question stood deemed to have been approved
upon expiry of the prescribed period. (Para 65)

Even if, the date of receipt is taken to be 06.09.2017, the statutory period of 30 days prescribed under the
Rules would expire on 05.10.2017. In the present case, the impugned order was communicated to the
petitioner only on 07.10.2017, i.e., beyond the stipulated period. Accordingly, the subsequent communication
of the impugned order, having been made beyond the statutory period, is rendered inconsequential in the
eyes of law, and the selection of the petitioner, must be held to have attained finality by virtue of deemed
approval. (Para 64, 66)

F. It is a settled principle of law that once a candidate has participated in the selection process
without demur, he/she is estopped from subsequently challenging the same on grounds which
were available at an earlier point of time. (Para 77)

As far as the contention raised regarding non-publication of the advertisement in two
newspapers is concerned, the same is wholly untenable and devoid of merit. The records placed
before this Court unequivocally establish that the advertisement was, in fact, duly published in two widely
circulated newspapers, thereby satisfying the prescribed requirement. (Para 76)

G. Objections relating to maintainability, particularly on the ground of locus standi, ought to be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Permitting such an objection to be entertained belatedly
would not only defeat the cause of substantive justice but would also result in unnecessary protraction of
proceedings that have already attained considerable maturity before the Court. The belated plea of lack of
locus standi is clearly an afterthought and is liable to be rejected. (Para 80, 81, 82)

Impugned order dated 28.09.2017 is quashed. Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Sant Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 Vol. ADJ 212 (LB) (Para 21)
2. Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (Vol.5) ADJ 583 (LB) (Para 22)
3. Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (7) ADJ 250 (LB) (Para 25)
4. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others Vs. Gunjan Singh & Another, Special Appeal No.10140 of 2024; Neutral
Citation:2025:AHC:65115-DB (Para 67)
5. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ambedkar Nagar & Another Vs. Chandraprakash Tripathi & Others, Special
Appeal Defective No.92 of 2016, Order dated 02.03.2016; Neutral Citation:2016:AHCLKO:2515-DB (Para 72)

List of Acts
 U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers)
Rules, 1978; U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees Rules, 1984.
1884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
 non-publication, advertisement, locus standi, teacher, approval, disapproval, procedural, technical, statutory,
delay, stipulated period, nominee.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): A.D. Saunders
For Respondent(s): Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), Ajay Kumar Mishra, C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. A. D. Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar
(Nagvanshi), learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as perused the records.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the
District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, disapproving the appointment on the post of Clerk and
a further prayer to direct the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari to pass necessary orders for the
payment of salary to the selected candidate.

3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the Committee of Management of St. Johns Girls Junior High School, which is a
recognized, aided, and minority institution (hereinafter referred to as 'the institution'). Several
vacancies, including one for the post of Clerk, existed in the said institution. The selection for the
post of Clerk in the institution is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D
Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1984').

4. In order to advertise the vacant posts, including that of Clerk, the Manager of the
institution sought permission from the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari for advertising the posts.
The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, by letter dated 23.06.2016, granted permission to
advertise all the posts, including the post of Clerk. Pursuant to this, the Manager of the institution
advertised the posts, including the post of Clerk, in two newspapers: Swatantra Jantmitra and
Swatantra Bharat, dated 26.07.2016.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, a large number of applications were received
and accordingly, interview letters dated 09.05.2017 were issued to all eligible candidates, fixing
25.05.2017 as the date for the interview before the selection committee.

6. As per Rule 14 of the Rules of 1984, the selection committee was required to be
constituted in such a manner that one member would be nominated by the District Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Gorakhpur. Accordingly, by letter dated 09.05.2017, the Manager requested the District
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, to nominate one representative for constituting the selection
committee, which was scheduled on 25.05.2017. In response, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari
nominated and sent Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Principal of Rajkiya High School Barigaon,
Belghat, Gorakhpur, as the expert for the selection committee.
4 All. C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1885
7. On 25.05.2017, the selection committee convened and selected Vikas Alexander for the
post of Clerk. The Manager of the institution submitted all the relevant documents related to the
selection process to the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, on 04.09.2017, and these
documents were received in his office on the same day, i.e., 04.09.2017.

8. After receiving all the documents along with the covering letter dated 04.09.2017, the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari marked the letter to Shri Dinesh of his office on 06.09.2017. In the letter
dated 04.09.2017, the Manager also informed about the floods in Gorakhpur, explaining that the
documents could not be filed within the prescribed time due to delays caused by the situation of
floods.

9. On 07.10.2017, the institution received a registered post containing a copy of the order
dated 28.09.2017, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, disapproving the selection of Vikas
Alexander as Clerk. According to the envelope, the said letter was posted on 05.10.2017 at 06:37
p.m. and received by the institution on 07.10.2017. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the
aforesaid order.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a delay in submitting the
papers of Vikas Alexander in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, which has been explained in
the covering letter dated 04.09.2017. The delay was caused by the floods in Gorakhpur, which
prevented the timely filing of the papers related to the selection process.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the institution received the
impugned order dated 28.09.2017, which disapproved the selection of Vikas Alexander as Clerk in
the institution. The order also mentioned that the papers be returned and issued a direction to
initiate fresh proceedings for selection, after obtaining approval for publishing notices declaring the
vacancies for the post of Clerk.

12. The Manager, by her letter dated 26.10.2017 addressed to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Gorakhpur, claimed that there was deemed approval, as no order from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari
had been received within the prescribed period of thirty days, as stipulated under Rule 15(5)(iii) of
the Rules of 1984. In response to the aforesaid letter, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari informed the
Manager of the institution that, as per the order dated 28.09.2017, the papers related to the selection
process had been returned with directions to initiate fresh selection proceedings.

13. The Manager of the institution again by letter dated 06.11.2017, reiterated the claim of
deemed approval; however, in response, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued a letter dated
10.11.2017, reiterating his stand and relying upon the impugned order dated 28.09.2017.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.09.2017
on the ground that as per the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and
Group-D employees of Recognized Basic Schools, governed by Rule 1984, the District Basic
Education Officer is required to communicate the decision within one month of receiving the
relevant papers, failing which there shall be deemed approval, accordingly, the impugned order is
illegal.
1886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. He further submits that the papers relating to the selection proceedings for the post of
Clerk were submitted to the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 04.09.2017, and prior to
07.10.2017, no information was received regarding the order dated 28.09.2017 disapproving the
appointment of Vikas Alexander to the post of Clerk.

16. He further submits that though the impugned order is stated to have been passed on
28.09.2017 and posted on 05.10.2017, i.e., after a delay of one week, there is no explanation as to
why the Basic Shiksha Adhikari withheld the impugned order if it had indeed been passed on
28.09.2017.

17. The aforesaid impugned order was posted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 05.10.2017
at 06:37 p.m., seemingly hurriedly, in an attempt to defeat the provisions of Rule 15(5)(iii) of the
Rules of 1984, which stipulates deemed approval.

18. The envelope containing the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 was received by the
institution on 07.10.2017. Since the papers were submitted on 04.09.2017 and the thirty-day period
expired on 03.10.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 15(5)(iii) of the
1984 Rules, deemed approval took effect on 04.10.2017. Consequently, the impugned order
became non-est and infructuous, as no further action could be taken after the deemed approval.

19. It is further submitted that the passing of the order dated 28.09.2017 by the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari is irrelevant, as it requires further steps to communicate the order within 30 days.
While the impugned order may have been passed on 28.09.2017 within the thirty-day period, it was
communicated after the expiration of that period, thereby triggering the provision of deemed
approval.

20. He further submits that in respect of teachers, there exists a rule known as The U.P.
Recognized Basic School (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1978'). These rules also provide for
deemed approval. Rule 10(5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 is analogous to Rule 15(5)(iii) of the 1984
Rules. Rule 10(5)(iii) is quoted herein for ready reference:-

 "If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one
month from the date of receipt of papers under clause (iv), he shall be deemed to have accord
approval to be recommendation made by the Selection Committee."

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court, in the
case of Sant Ram v. State of U.P. and others1, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
considered the provisions of Rule 10(5)(iii) of the 1978 Rules and held that if the order is not
communicated within thirty days from the receipt of the papers regarding the selection process, it
would result in deemed approval.

22. He has also relied upon the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others2, wherein the same proposition of law has been held.
4 All. C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1887
23. Thus, the petitioner submits that, in view of the deemed approval, the impugned order
is ante-dated, becomes non-est. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 13 of the writ
petition that the impugned order is ante-dated. This fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit
filed by the State. The reply to paragraph 13 of the writ petition is provided in paragraph 12 of the
counter-affidavit. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to receive salary, as his appointment has
been ratified by deemed approval.

24. The Selection Committee is constituted under Rule 14 of the 1984 Rules. The Manager
of the institution requested the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to send a nominee to be a member of the
Selection Committee. On 25.05.2017, one Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey appeared as the nominee of
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, and the Principal and Manager of the institution assumed that Sri
Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Principal of Rajkiya High School Barigaon, Belghat, Gorakhpur, was the
nominee of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey participated in the selection
process, and the selection of Vikas Alexander on the post of Clerk was unanimously accepted, with
the papers subsequently forwarded. However, the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 states that no
record exists in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari nominating Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey as
its nominee. In other words, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari did not officially appoint a nominee to the
Selection Committee, thereby rendering the selection process invalid and contrary to law.

25. However, even assuming, without conceding, that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari did not
send a nominee to the Selection Committee, such an omission does not vitiate the selection process.
This contention is supported by the judgment in Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and
others3, where this Court held that the absence of a nominee from the District Basic Education
Officer does not invalidate the selection process. The Committee of Management can proceed with
the selection, and the District Basic Education Officer is required to formally approve the
appointment of the selected candidate after one month from the receipt of the papers for approval.
This judgment is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

26. Even if it is presumed that Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey participated as a nominee of the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the selection process was unanimously decided by the Principal and the
Manager, who were members of the Selection Committee. Even if the participation of Sri Jitendra
Kumar Pandey is disregarded, it would not vitiate the selection process, regardless of whether he
was a nominee of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari or not.

27. As demonstrated above, the papers related to the selection process were submitted on
04.09.2017. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, in his internal administrative capacity, marked the case to
Sri Dinesh on 06.09.2017. However, it is irrelevant when the Basic Shiksha Adhikari took steps in
his administrative capacity, as the papers were received in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
not personally by him. Even assuming, without conceding, that the papers were received by the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 06.09.2017, the thirty day period expired on 05.10.2017. It is evident
that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari hurriedly posted the impugned order on 05.10.2017 at 6:37 P.M.
Even if this is accepted, the thirty-day period had already expired on 05.10.2017, and the order was
communicated on 07.10.2017, i.e., after the thirty-day period, thereby making the selection of
Vikas Alexander perfected by deemed approval prior to the communication of the order.
1888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28. The impugned order further mentions a delay in submitting the papers related to the
selection process, which had already been explained in the letter dated 04.09.2017, citing the floods
in Gorakhpur as the cause of the delay. However, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has not addressed this
explanation and has instead made a mere bald assertion that there was a delay in receiving the
papers.

29. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Manager of the
institution submitted an application dated 08.04.2016 before the District Basic Education Officer
(Respondent No. 2) seeking permission to fill up the post of Clerk. The said permission was
eventually accorded by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 23.06.2018.

30. In the interregnum, the post of Clerk (Class III) was advertised in two widely circulated
newspapers on 26.07.2016. Subsequently, the Manager addressed a communication dated
09.05.2017 to the District Basic Education Officer requesting nomination of an authorized
representative to participate in the selection process, as mandated under law. The interviews were
conducted on 25.05.2017, and the selection proceedings were thereafter placed before the
Committee of Management. The Committee forwarded the entire record to the District Basic
Education Officer for approval on 04.09.2017, which was duly received in the office of Respondent
No. 2 on 06.09.2017.

31. Upon due consideration, the District Basic Education Officer, by a reasoned order
dated 28.09.2017, declined to accord approval to the appointment of one Vikas Alexander, inter
alia, on the ground that the selection had been conducted by an unlawfully constituted Selection
Committee, in flagrant violation of Rules 14, 15, and 16 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools
(Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D
Employees Rules, 1984.

32. The said order dated 28.09.2017 is legally sound, well-reasoned, and in strict
conformity with the applicable statutory provisions, warranting no interference.

33. Learned counsel for the respondents has also raised a preliminary objection with regard
to the maintainability of the present petition, contending that the same has been instituted at the
behest of a member of the Committee of Management and is, therefore, not maintainable in law.
On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

34. He further submits that the Committee of Management lacks locus standi to institute
the present writ petition, inasmuch as the challenge is directed against the order rejecting approval
of the appointment of one Vikas Alexander, who has not been impleaded as a petitioner in the
present proceedings. Consequently, the Committee of Management cannot be said to be an
aggrieved party competent to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Honble Court.

35. Learned counsel for the respondents has further raised an objection that the
advertisement pertaining to the selection was not published in two widely circulated newspapers, as
mandated. Consequently, the same is in clear violation of Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1984.
4 All. C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1889
36. Learned counsel for the respondents has further raised an objection regarding the
improper constitution of the Selection Committee. It is contended that, under the relevant
provisions of the Rules, 1984, one member of the Selection Committee is required to be nominated
by the District Basic Education Officer. However, in the present case, the third member was not
nominated by the District Basic Education Officer but was instead chosen by the Selection
Committee itself, which is clearly impermissible in law.

37. It has also been submitted that the Principal of Government High School, Barigaon,
Bela Ghat, Gorakhpur, is neither under the administrative control nor the supervisory jurisdiction of
the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur. Consequently, such person could not have been
validly nominated by the District Basic Education Officer to act as a member of the Selection
Committee for the purposes of the selection in question.

38. It is also an undisputed fact that the Selection Committee selected Vikas Alexander for
the post of Clerk in its proceedings dated 25.05.2017; however, the relevant papers were forwarded
only on 04.09.2017, after an inordinate delay of three months and ten days, which is in clear
contravention of Rule 15(4) of the Rules, 1984.

39. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 has been passed strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1984, particularly Rule 15(5)(iii) thereof.

40. Thus, the entire selection process conducted by the Selection Committee and the
Committee of Management stands vitiated, having been undertaken in flagrant violation of Rules
14, 15, 16, as well as Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1984. Consequently, the present writ petition is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

41. The Court called upon the parties and perused the records. The impugned order has
been passed primarily on the grounds that the advertisement was not published in widely circulated
newspapers; that no nominee was deputed by the District Basic Education Officer to constitute the
Selection Committee for the post in question; and further, that the proposal for approval was
forwarded after an inordinate delay.

42. In order to effectively adjudicate upon the controversy involved in the present case, it
would be apposite to advert to the relevant statutory provisions governing the field, namely, the
provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules,
1984, which are extracted hereinbelow:-

 "13. Advertisement of vacancy. -

 (1) No vacancy shall be filled, except after its advertisement in at least one newspaper
having adequate circulation in the locality and the intimation of such vacancy to the District Basic
Education Officer.
1890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 14. Selection Committee. - The Management shall constitute a selection committee
consisting of :-

 (1)Manager.

 (2) Headmaster of the recognised school in which the appointment is to be made.

 (3) A specialist nominated by the District Basic Education Officer who will be from
amongst minority in respect of a school established and administered by a minority or from
amongst Scheduled Castes in respect of any other school.

 15. Procedure for selection. -

 (5) (iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within
one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have
accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee."

43. The undisputed facts of the present case are that several vacancies existed in the
institution, including one post of Clerk. In this regard, prior permission was duly sought from the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari for initiating the process of recruitment by way of advertisement.
44. Pursuant to the permission so granted, the vacancies, including the post of Clerk, were duly
advertised in two widely circulated newspapers, namely, Swatantra Janmitra and Swatantra Bharat,
both dated 26.07.2016. Thereafter, 25.05.2017 was fixed as the date for conducting interviews
before the duly constituted Selection Committee.

45. Thereafter, the Manager of the institution, vide communication dated 09.05.2017
addressed to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, requested for deputation of his nominee to serve as a
member of the Selection Committee to be constituted under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1984. Pursuant
thereto, one Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Principal, Rajkiya High School, Barigaon Bela Ghat,
Gorakhpur, participated in the selection proceedings, claiming to be the nominee of the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari.

46. Subsequently, one Shri Vikas Alexander came to be unanimously selected for
appointment on the post of Clerk on 25.05.2017. Thereafter, on 04.09.2017, the Manager of the
institution forwarded the entire record pertaining to the selection process to the office of the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari under a covering letter, which was received in the said office on the same day.

47. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, on 06.09.2017, marked the file to one Dinesh through
internal administrative arrangement for necessary examination. The delay in submission of the
papers was sought to be explained on account of the flood situation prevailing in Gorakhpur at the
relevant time.

48. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 came to be passed by the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, whereby the selection of Shri Vikas Alexander to the post of Clerk in the
institution was disapproved. The said order further directed that the entire record relating to the
4 All. C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1891
selection process be returned, with a direction to initiate fresh selection proceedings after obtaining
prior approval for issuance of advertisement notifying the vacancy of Clerk.

49. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the Manager of the institution had duly requested
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to nominate his representative for inclusion in the Selection Committee,
as mandated under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1984. In pursuance thereof, Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey,
Principal, Rajkiya High School, Barigaon Bela Ghat, Gorakhpur, in fact participated in the
selection proceedings and duly appended his signatures on the proceedings of the Selection
Committee.

50. Once a nominee, representing the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, has in fact
participated in the selection process without any demur, the objection that his name was not
specifically mentioned in the communication, or that he was not formally authorized, is a hypertechnical plea which cannot be permitted to vitiate an otherwise valid selection.

51. It is a settled principle of law that acts done in substance in compliance with statutory
requirements ought not to be invalidated on mere technical or procedural irregularities, particularly
when no prejudice is shown to have been caused. The participation of the said nominee lends due
legitimacy and transparency to the selection process, fulfilling the very object for which such
nomination is contemplated under the Rules.

52. Furthermore, even assuming, without admitting, that there was any irregularity in the
manner of nomination, the same would, at best, constitute an irregularity and not an illegality,
especially when the authority itself permitted such participation and never objected to it at the
relevant point of time. The respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by accepting
the participation of the nominee during the selection process and subsequently questioning the
same to defeat the selection.

53. It is equally well settled that the candidate cannot be made to suffer for any alleged
procedural lapse on the part of the authorities, particularly when the selection has otherwise been
conducted fairly and in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

54. Thus, in the absence of any allegation of mala fide, bias, or prejudice, and there being
substantial compliance with the requirement of inclusion of the nominee, the disapproval of
selection on this ground alone is arbitrary, unsustainable, and liable to be set aside.

55. The first ground taken in the impugned order for disapproving the appointment of the
said Clerk is that no specific nominee was indicated in the communication issued from the office of
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. However, it is an admitted position that Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey,
Principal, Rajkiya High School, Barigaon, Belaghat, Gorakhpur, participated in the selection
proceedings and duly signed the proceedings of the Selection Committee.

56. In view of the above discussion, the further objection that the District Basic Education
Officer was not empowered to nominate Principal of Rajkiya High School, and that there existed
no justification or occasion for such nomination has no legs to stand.
1892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
57. The second ground taken in the impugned order is that, although the selection to the
post of Clerk was finalized on 25.05.2017, the provisions contained in Rule 15(3) and 15(4) of the
Rules, 1984 mandate that the entire record of the selection proceedings be forwarded to the office
of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari within a period of one week. However, in the present case, the said
papers were transmitted only on 04.09.2017, after a considerable delay.

58. The delay, though apparent on the face of record, is neither deliberate nor fatal to the
selection process. It stands duly explained on account of extraordinary and unavoidable
circumstances, namely the severe flood situation prevailing in Gorakhpur during the relevant
period, which disrupted normal administrative functioning. Such circumstances constitute a valid
and sufficient cause, beyond the control of the institution.

59. It is well settled that procedural provisions relating to timelines are ordinarily directory
in nature, unless the statute expressly provides consequences of non-compliance. Rule 15(3) and
(4) of the Rules, 1984, though prescribing a time frame, do not stipulate that delay in submission of
papers would automatically vitiate the entire selection process. Therefore, the said provision cannot
be construed as mandatory so as to nullify an otherwise valid selection.

60. Further, no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to any party on account of
the said delay. The selection process had already been duly completed in a fair and transparent
manner, and the delay in forwarding papers is a post-selection procedural lapse, which does not go
to the root of the selection.

61. It is equally trite that substantial justice ought not to be defeated on account of
technicalities, particularly when the delay stands reasonably explained. The authorities, instead of
adopting a hyper-technical approach, ought to have considered the explanation in its proper
perspective.

62. Thus, the delay in forwarding the papers, being satisfactorily explained and not
affecting the merits of the selection, could not have been made a ground to disapprove the
appointment.

63. It is an admitted position on record that the papers relating to the selection process were
submitted in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, on 04.09.2017, and the same
were internally marked to Shri Dinesh on 06.09.2017 for necessary consideration. Thus, the receipt
of the selection papers in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari stands duly established.

64. Even if, for the sake of argument, the date of receipt is taken to be 06.09.2017, the
statutory period of 30 days prescribed under the Rules would expire on 05.10.2017. In the present
case, the impugned order was communicated to the petitioner only on 07.10.2017, i.e., beyond the
stipulated period of 30 days.

65. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 15(5) of the Rules, 1984, which clearly
stipulate that if no communication regarding approval or disapproval is made within 30 days from
the date of receipt of the selection papers, the selection shall be deemed to have been approved, the
4 All. C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1893
consequence that necessarily follows is that the selection in question stood deemed to have been
approved upon expiry of the prescribed period.

66.