# Imtiyaz Ahamad v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 855
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-31
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 11509 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/imtiyaz-ahamad-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-49427
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Section 16FF -
Minority institution - Officiating Principal
-
Appointment
of
an
ineligible
and
unqualified
candidate
-
Committee's
power - How far exemption from the
provision can be claimed - Held, though,
there is no quarrel to the proposition that
the Committee of Management of a
minority institution is free to choose any
incumbent to officiate but the same is not
an unfettered right so as to create a
situation
whereby
an
ineligible
and
unqualified person is being allowed to
man the post. Otherwise it would create
not only anarchy but would also be
detrimental
to
the
interest
of
the
institution. (Para 33)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,720 of 80,481. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39720 for what follows._

11 All. Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
855

24. Let the original records be handed
over to Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the U.P.
Power
Corporation
for
their
onward
transmission to the respondents.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 855
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 11509 of 2023

Imtiyaz Ahamad ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Naushad Alam, Sri
Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Adv.), Sri Ratnakar
Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Samarath Singh, Sri Sankalp
Narain

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Section 16FF -
Minority institution - Officiating Principal
-
Appointment
of
an
ineligible
and
unqualified
candidate
-
Committee's
power - How far exemption from the
provision can be claimed - Held, though,
there is no quarrel to the proposition that
the Committee of Management of a
minority institution is free to choose any
incumbent to officiate but the same is not
an unfettered right so as to create a
situation
whereby
an
ineligible
and
unqualified person is being allowed to
man the post. Otherwise it would create
not only anarchy but would also be
detrimental
to
the
interest
of
the
institution. (Para 33)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Secretary Malankara Syrian Catholic College
Vs T. Jose & ors. ; (2007) 1 SCC 386
2. Mohd. Ayub Khan Vs State; 2008 (10) ADJ
477
3. Nisar Ahmad Vs Registrar/Inspector of Arabi,
Farsi, Madarsas & ors. ; 2006 (62) ALR 919
4. Ashok Kumar Malhotra & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. ; 2018 (8) ADJ 511
5. N. Ammad Vs Manager, Emjay High School &
ors. ; AIR 1999 SC 50
6. SK. MD. Rafique Vs Managing Committee,
Contai Rahamania High Madrasah & ors. ; 2020
(4) ESC 863 (SC)
7. Writ A No. 45123 of 2008; Sunil Kumar
Sharma Vs State of U.P. & others decided on
16.8.2023
8. Writ A No. 44485 of 2011, Smt. Praveena
Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 8.8.2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha,
learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri
Ratnakar Upadhyay, Sri Naushad Alam,
learned counsels for the writ petitioner, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for
the State official respondents as well as Sri
Sankalp Narain, learned counsel, who
appears for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

2. Since a statement has been made by
the learned counsel for the rival parties
that they do not propose to file any
further affidavits thus with their consent
the writ petition is being decided at the
fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is
that there is an institution by the name of
S.M. National Inter College Machhati,
District Ghazipur, fourth respondent, which
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is a minority institution conferred with
certain protection and benefits under
Article 30 of the Constitution of India
recognised and aided under the provisions
of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
(In short 1921, Act) and the provisions of
U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 stands applicable.
As per the writ petitioner the said
institution has his own approved scheme of
administration. The writ petitioner herein
claims to be working as Lecturer (Physics)
in the institution in question since 1997. It
is the case of the writ petitioner that
seniority list was published on 3.2.2021
wherein the name of the writ petitioner
found place at serial no.2 as whereas the
name of the fifth respondent is at serial
no.8.

4. Records reveal that one Sri
Subhanullah Khan was appointed as the
Principal of the institution in question
however
six
months
before
his
superannuation he proceeded on medical
leave resulting to the fact that a vacancy
stood arisen and one Smt. Farhat Mirza
Khan was handed over the officiating
charge of the Principal in question and her
signatures were also attested 16.3.2021.
One Sri Quamaruddin who claimed himself
to be the senior most Lecturer in the
seniority list challenged the appointment of
Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan as Officiating
Principal while filing a Writ-A No.6467 of
2021 which was dismissed on 16.7.2021.

5. It has come on record that Sri
Subhanullah
Khan
superannuated
on
31.3.2022. Thereafter, Smt. Farhat Mirza
Khan resigned on 6.5.2022, Committee of
Management proceeded to resolve to grant
the charge as Officiating Principal of the
institution
in
question
to
the
fifth
respondent, Shoab Ahamd Khan and he
was accorded joining and signatures were
attested on 17.6.2022.

6.

The
writ
petitioner
herein
questioned the officiation of the fifth
respondent as a Principal in the institution
in question while filing Writ-A No.13591
of 2022, Imtiyaz Ahamad vs. State of
U.P. & 4 others as whereas the fifth
respondent, preferred Writ-A No.21404 of
2022, Shoeb Ahmad Khan vs. State of
U.P. and 3 others for a mandamus
directing the Committee of Management as
well as the District Inspector of Schools to
accord payment of salary to him in the
grade of Principal and not to interfere in his
functioning. Both the writ petitions were
consolidated together and were decided by
a common order on 14.3.2023 which is
quoted herein under :-

1. These two connected matters
relate to the issue of appointment of
respondent no. 5 namely Shoeb Ahmad
Khan as an Officiating Principal of an
Intermediate
College
recognized
and
governed under the Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 and so the entitlement of Mr.
Khan to salary as admissible to the post of
Principal of a recognized and aided
institution while Imtiyaz Ahamad, the
present petitioner in writ petition being
Writ - A No. 13591 of 2022 has questioned
the appointment of Mr. Khan as Officiating
Principal of the Institution for the reason
that he did not possess the requisite
qualification for the post of Principal of a
recognized Intermediate College as per the
qualification prescribed in Appendix-A of
Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

2. Mr. Khan who happens to be
the petitioner in connected matter being
Writ - A No. 21404 of 2022 has on the
other hand prayed for a writ of mandamus
11 All. Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
857
directing the Committee of Management as
well as District Inspector of Schools to
make payment of salary to him in the grade
of Principal of a recognized aided
Intermediate College as admissible in law
as a consequence to his appointment as
Officiating Principal of the Institution and
his taking charge of the office on
21.05.2022. The signatures of Mr. Khan
came to be attested by District Inspector of
Schools on 17.06.2022.

3. The facts that emerged from
the pleadings of two connected matters can
be placed in a narrow compass like this
that the Institution that is aided minority
institution is managed by a validly elected
Committee of Management and the earlier
Principal Mr. Subhanullah Khan, who was
validly continuing in the Institution and
was to retire on 31.03.2022, proceeded on
long leave on 30.12.2020 and so the
Committee of Management proceeded to
appoint one Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan as
Officiating Principal of the Institution
giving her charge and consequently her
signatures
came
to
be
attested
on
16.03.2021. The challenge was made on the
ground that Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan did
not possess the requisite qualification for
the post of Principal of the Institution vide
Writ - A No. 8702 of 2022 by the present
petitioner. However, while the petition
remained pending, Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan
resigned on 06.05.2022.

4. It is also brought to the notice
of this Court by Sri Sankalp Narain,
learned counsel for the petitioner in
connected matter that the senior most
teacher of the Institution namely Mr.
Qamar Uddin had also challenged the
appointment of Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan as
Officiating Principal of the Institution and
the said petition was dismissed as found to
be meritless by a detailed order dated
16.07.2021 passed in Writ - A No. 6467 of
2021. It transpires that after Smt. Farhat
Mirza Khan resigned on 06.05.2022 the
Committee of Management proceeded to
resolve on 20.05.2022 to appoint the
respondent no. 5 namely Shoeb Ahmad
Khan as Officiating Principal of the
Institution and so consequently he was
appointed and given joining and his
signatures
came
to
be
attested
on
17.06.2022 and it is this order which is
under challenge in present writ petition
filed by Mr. Imtiyaz Ahamad.

5. It has been argued by Sri R.K.
Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner that as per Appendix - A
of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 a
teacher
who
is
not
having
B.Ed.
qualification to his credit, can be granted
exemption from the degree if he completes
10 years of service as an Assistant Teacher
in the event he has passed out the Post
Graduate degree in 1st / 2nd Division,
however, in the event a candidate has
passed out in 3rd division then the requisite
experience would be of 15 years of service.
It is therefore, submitted that respondent
no. 5 who was appointed as a Lecturer on
02.07.2012 could have completed 10 years
of teaching experience only on 01.07.2022
in order to seek exemption from B. Ed.
Degree and therefore, resolution of the
Committee to appoint him on 20.05.2022
was de hors the qualification prescribed for
and so neither the respondent no. 5 could
have been appointed, nor his signatures
were to be attested as Officiating Principal
of a recognized aided Institution.

6. As a sequel to the above, the
argument advanced is that the vacancy
having occurred on 01.04.2022 a candidate
even to officiate on the position of
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Principal
ought
to
have
requisite
qualification as on that date.

7. Sri Sankalp Narain, learned
Advocate who is appearing for the
petitioner namely Mr. Shoeb Ahmad Khan,
the 5th respondent in the connected matter
submits that since the he has already
submitted his joining and officiating
Principal as such unless and until the
appointment is set aside, he is entitled to
function as Officiating Principal of the
Institution and so he may be permitted to
continue as Officiating Principal and also
consequently be paid salary.

8. Having heard learned counsel
for the respective parties and their
arguments raised across the bar and
having examined the relevant provisions as
contained in Appendix - A of Intermediate
Education Act, 1921, I am of the view that
this matter requires examination in the first
instance at the state of District Inspector of
Schools who happens to have attested the
signatures of the 5th respondent.

9. Both the learned Advocate
agree that the matter can be directed to be
examined and then decision by the District
Inspector
of
Schools
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to both the parties
and the appointment and continuation of
5th respondent as Officiating Principal of
the Institution should abide by the final
decision to be taken by the District
Inspector of Schools and so also the
question of payment of salary.

10. Learned Standing Counsel
also does not have any objection in the
event matter is remitted to the District
Inspector of Schools for decision afresh
strictly in accordance with law in a time
bound period.

11. In view of the above, I dispose
of both these petitions with a direction to
the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur
to examine the matter qua legality of the
appointment
of
5th
respondent
as
Officiating Principal of the Institution after
giving full opportunity of hearing to both
the contesting parties as well as to the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution. The decision shall be taken by
the District Inspector of School, Ghazipur
within a maximum period of 30 days from
the date of presentation of certified copy of
this order.

12. Needless to add that the order
to be passed by the District Inspector of
Schools, Ghazipur shall be reasoned and
speaking one. The continuation of the
petitioner as Officiating Principal of the
Institution and the payment of salary
against the post in question as admissible
in law would be governed by the decision
to be taken by the District Inspector of
School, Ghazipur as directed herein above.

13.
With
the
aforesaid
observations and directions, both the
aforesaid petitions are hereby disposed
of."

7. Post remand, now the District
Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, third
respondent has proceeded to pass the order
dated 6.6.2023 according approval and
benefits to the fifth respondent as an
Officiating Principal.

8. Questioning the said order, the writ
petitioner has filed present writ petition
with the direction to the respondents to
permit the writ petitioner to work as Ad
hoc/Officiating Principal of the institution
in
question.
The
writ
petition
was
entertained by this Court on 16.8.2023 and
11 All. Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
859
thereafter dates were fixed on 28.3.2023
requiring the parties to exchange affidavits
and ultimately on 14.9.2023 the following
order was passed:-

It has been reported that the
lawyers are abstaining from work today.

This
Court
on
16.08.2023
proceeded to pass the following order.-

"A neat question arises in the
present proceedings as to what would be
the date of occurrence of the vacancy
which
is
to
be
co-related
to
the
qualification which is to be possessed by
the
respective
Lecturer
for
granting
officiation promotion as Principal. Further
in para 6 of the writ petition, it has also
been averred that the fifth respondent could
not have been accorded officiation as
Principal in view of the forbidden clauses
referable to the relationship norms. The
issue which is also engaging attention with
regard to the qualification of the fifth
respondent.

On the request of the parties, put
up this on 23.08.2023 as fresh on which
date the parties shall advance their
arguments."

Thereafter
on
23.08.2023
following order was passed.

"This
court
on
16.08.2023
proceeded to pass the following order:

"A neat question arises in the
present proceedings as to what would be
the date of occurrence of the vacancy
which
is
to
be
co-related
to
the
qualification which is to be possessed by
the
respective
Lecturer
for
granting
officiation promotion as Principal. Further
in para 6 of the writ petition, it has also
been averred that the fifth respondent could
not have been accorded officiation as
Principal in view of the forbidden clauses
referable to the relationship norms. The
issue which is also engaging attention with
regard to the qualification of the fifth
respondent.

On the request of the parties, put
up this on 23.08.2023 as fresh on which
date the parties shall advance their
arguments."
Today,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondents have made a
statement that they shall be filing counter
affidavit. The affidavits, be served upon the
learned counsel for the petitioner by
05.09.2023. Rejoinder affidavit may be
filed by 12.09.2023.

Put up this case on 14.09.2023,
as fresh.

It is expected that the respondents
shall file their responses so as to enable
this Court to give his final verdict."

Learned Standing Counsel who is
appearing for the respondents has made a
statement at bar that he has written a letter
on 26.08.2023 for the purposes of filing of
the response. Learned Standing Counsel
seeks further time to file its response.

The matter is passed over for the
day.

Put up this matter in the list of
fresh cases on 05.10.20203 by which date
affidavits be exchanged between the
parties."

9. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the first and second respondent sworn
by District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur,
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
third respondent dated 13.10.2023. Further
a response has also been filed by the fourth
and fifth respondents sworn by the fifth
respondent on 15.9.2023. To the counter
affidavit of the respondents no. 4 and 5 a
rejoinder affidavit has been filed. However
the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submits that he does not propose
to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents no. 1 and
2. Thus, with the consent of the parties, the
writ petition is being decided at the fresh
stage.

10. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel
has sought to argue that the order dated
6.6.2023 passed by the District Inspector of
Schools, Ghazipur, third respondent cannot
be sustained for a single movement
particularly in view of the fact that though
the fourth respondent in a minority
institution and it is a prerogative of the
Committee of Management to permit any
of the Lecturers to officiate as a Principal
of the institution in question however the
said right is not a unfettered right as it is
subject to the qualifications and the
eligibility possessed by an incumbent who
seeks officiation. According to him the
statutes are clear on the said aspect as 16FF
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1921
itself provides for the procedure and the
modalities
according
to
which
appointments are to be made on the post in
question and Chapter II, Regulation-1
provides for the minimum qualification for
appointment as a Head of the institution
and Teachers in any recognised institution
whether by direct recruitment or otherwise
as per Appendix-A.

11. Submission is that the fifth
respondent, Sri Shoab Ahmad Khan does
not possess the relevant eligibility required
for officiating as a Principal of the
institution in question as besides the
essential qualifications, he does not possess
the 10 years of teaching experience in an
Intermediate Class of any recognised
institution.

12. While inviting attention towards
Appendix-A serial no.1 (Item No.2) it is
being sought to be contended that for being
appointed on the post of Principal/ Head of
the Institution for a first or second class
post graduate degree holder, the incumbent
should possess teaching experience of 10
years in Intermediate Classes of any of the
recognised institution or 15 years of a
teaching experience in the case of third
Class Post Graduate Degree.

13. According to Sri Ojha since the
fifth respondent, Sri Shoab Ahmad Khan
had joined the post of Lecturer in
Economics on 2.7.2012 therefore, on the
date of the occurrence of vacancy on
1.4.2022 consequent to the retirement of
Sri Subhanullah Khan on 31.3.2022, the
fifth respondent did not possess 10 years
experience
which
was
mandatory
condition.

14. It is the further submission of Sri
Ojha that on even on the date of the
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management to accord officiation of the
fifth respondent, Sri Shoab Ahmad
Khan on 20.5.2022, he did not possess
the necessary experience thus by no
stretch of imagination he could have
been accorded officiation of the post in
question.

15. In order to buttress the said
submission, Sri Ojha, learned Senior
Counsel has relied upon the judgement in
the case of Committee of Management,
National Inter College and another vs.
11 All. Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
861
State of U.P. and others reported in 2020
(4) ESC 1312.

16. Additionally, it has been argued
that the fifth respondent, Sri Shoab Ahmad
Khan is the son in law of the manager of
the institution and also brother in law of the
Vice President of the Committee of
Management. Relevant averments have
been made in paragraph no.16 (H) of the
writ petition. While inviting attention
towards paragraph no.5 and 6 of the writ
petition it is being sought to be argued that
as per para 4 of the Approved Scheme of
Administration there happens to be a bar
that no teacher shall be appointed whether
in temporary or clear vacancy in an
institution who is related to the member
of the Committee of Management and for
the purposes of the Regulation the
relationship includes the son in law and
brother in law.

17. Countering the said submission
Sri Sankalp Narayan, has argued that the
writ petition preferred at the behest of the
writ petitioner is not maintainable and the
writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief
particularly in view of the fact that here in
the present case admittedly the institution is
a minority institution thus in view of the
law laid down in the case of Mohd. Ayub
Khan vs. State reported in 2008 (10)
ADJ 477, the Committee of Management
of a minority institution is free to appoint a
Principal of its choice irrespective of
seniority. He further submits that though
the writ petitioner may be right to contend
that on the date of occurrence of vacancy is
1.4.2022, the fifth respondent was not
possessed with 10 years of experience but
at the time of the filing of the writ petition
the fifth respondent is qualified and eligible
and the institution being a minority
institution, a conscious decision has been
taken by the Committee of Management to
accord officiation to the fifth respondent.

18. It is argued that the there is no
such provisions contained under the 1921,
Act and the Regulations applying in the
case of the minority institution that on the
date
of
occurrence
of
vacancy
an
incumbent is to possess eligibility and in
absence of any such provisions rightly the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution
in
question
has
accorded
officiation to the fifth respondent, Sri
Shoab Ahamd Khan. He seeks to rely upon
the decision in the case of Nisar Ahmad
vs. Registrar/Inspector of Arabi, Farsi,
Madarsas and others reported in 2006
(62) ALR 919.

19. Additionally it is being sought to
be argued that once a statutory right is
conferred upon a litigant and the said right
is being defeated or violated then only a
writ petition is maintainable and since the
said ingredients are virtually lacking in the
case of the writ petitioner thus, this Court
may not exercise jurisdiction in favour of
the writ petitioner. In this regard he seeks
to rely upon the decision in the case of
Ashok Kumar Malhotra and others vs.
State of U.P. and others 2018 (8) ADJ
511.

20. On the issue of the allegations
levelled by the writ petitioner that the fifth
respondent, Sri Shoab Ahamd Khan is
related to Manager of the institution in
question being son in law of the Manager
and brother in law of Vice President of the
Committee of Management is concerned,
while relying upon paragraph 6 and 12 of
the counter affidavit it is being sought to be
contended that the said embargo would
come in the way at the stage of initial
appointment and not at the stage when the
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claim of the fifth respondent is for
officiation on the post of Principal. He
further submits that the fifth respondent is
not related to the Manager. Therefore, it is
prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

21. Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
adopted the argument of Sri Sankalp
Narayan, however he submits that he has
nothing more to add except the fact that
once an institution is a minority institution
then it is the right and the choice of the
institution to appoint officiating/ad hoc
Principal and thus the order of the District
Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur is not liable
to be interfered with.

22. Before delving into the tenability
of the arguments of the rival parties it
would be apposite to notice the relevant
statutory provisions which are governing
the field.

23. To start with the relevant
provisions are quoted herein under:-

16-FF. Savings as to minority
institutions.-(1) Notwithstanding anything
in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E, and
Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for
the appointment of a Head of Institution or
a teacher of an institution established and
administered by a minority referred to in
Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution
shall consist of five members (including its
Chairman) nominated by the Committee of
Management :

Provided that one of the members
of the Selection Committee shall-

(a) in the case of appointment of
the Head of an institution, be an expert
selected by the Committee of Management
from a panel of experts prepared by the
Director;

(b) in the case of appointment of
a teacher, be the Head of the Institution
concerned.

(2) The procedure to be followed
by the Selection Committee referred to in
sub-section (1) shall be such as may be
prescribed. (3) No person selected under
this section shall be appointed, unless-

(a) in the case of the Head of
Institution the proposal of appointment has
been approved by the Regional Deputy
Director of Education; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such
proposal has been approved by the
Inspector.

(4) The Regional Deputy Director
of Education or the Inspector, as the Case
may be, shall not withhold approval for the
selection made under this section where the
person selected possesses the minimum
qualification prescribed and is otherwise
eligible.

(5) Where the Regional Deputy
Director of Education or the Inspector, as
the case may be, does not approve of
a candidate
selected
under
this
section
the
Committee
of
Management may,within three weeks
from the date of receipt of such
disapproval, make a representation
to the Director in the case of the
Head of Institution, and to the
Regional
Deputy
Director
of
Education in the case of teacher.

(6) Every order passed by the
Director or the Regional Deputy Director
11 All. Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
863
of Education on a representation under
sub-section (5) shall be final.

Chapter II

APPOINTMENT OF HEADS OF
INSTITUTIONS AND TEACHERS

[Sections 16-E, 16 - F and 16 -
FF]

1. The minimum qualifications for
appointment as Head of Institution and
Teachers in any recognised Institution,
whether by direct recruitment or otherwise,
shall be as given in Appendix A.

2. (1) The post of the Head of
Institution shall except as provided in
clause (2) be filed by direct recruitment
after reference to the Selection Committee
constituted under sub-section (1) of Section
16-F or, as the case may be, under subsection (1) of Section 16-FF :

Provided that in the case of any
institution not being an institution referred
to In Section 16-FF a temporary vacancy
caused by the grant of leave to an
incumbent for a period not exceeding six
months
or
by
death,
retirement
or
suspension of an incumbent occurring
during an educational session in the post of
the Head of Institution shall be filled by the
promotion of the senior most qualified
teacher, if any, in the highest grade in the
institution.

[(2) (a) Where an institution is
raised from a High School to an
Intermediate College, the post of Principal
of such college shall be filled by promotion
of the Headmaster of such High School if
he was duly appointed as Headmaster in
substantive capacity in accordance with
law for the time being in force and
possesses a good record of service and the
minimum qualifications prescribed in that
behalf or has been granted exemption from
such qualifications by the Board.

(b)
The
Committee
of
Management of such institution shall
submit the proposal for promotion of the
Headmaster concerned to the Regional
Deputy Director of Education for his
concurrence.

(c) The proposal referred to in
sub-clause (b) shall be accompanied by a
copy of the resolution of the Committee of
Management approving such Headmaster
for promotion, his service Book and
Character Roll and shall contain the
following particulars in relation to him,
namely-

(i) date of birth,

(ii) examinations passed by him
stating the subjects, divisions and year of
passing such examinations.

(d) The Regional Deputy Director
of
Education
shall
communicate
his
decision on such proposal within two weeks
from the date of receipt thereof, failing
which the Regional Deputy Director shall
be deemed to have given his concurrence to
such proposal.

(e) The decision of the Regional
Deputy Director of Education under subclause (d) shall be communicated to the
Committee of Management as well as the
Headmaster concerned.

(f) Any person aggrieved from the
decision of the Regional Deputy Director of
Education, including the Committee of
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Management may within 10 days from the
date of communication of the order under
subclause (e) make a representation
against it to the Director whose decision in
the matter shall be final.

(g) A Headmaster of a High
School who is not found fit for promotion
as Principal of the upgraded Intermediate
College or a Headmaster of a Junior High
School who on its being raised as a High
School, is not selected by the Selection
Committee for the post of the Headmaster
of upgraded High School, shall be retained
as an assistant teacher on the highest post
for which he is qualified, provided that this
pay-scale shall not be reduced.

Explanation-Nothing this subclause shall apply to a person who was not
permanent or was not duly appointed in
accordance with law on the date on which
the institution was raised to the level of a
High School or an Intermediate College, as
the case may be.

(3) Where the temporary vacancy
in the post of head of institution is, for a
period not exceeding thirty days, the
senior-most teacher in the highest grade
may be allowed to work as acting head of
institution, but he shall not be entitled to
pay in a scale higher than the scale of pay
in which he is drawing salary as such
teacher.

(4) In
all cases
in
which
promotions are made under this regulation
a copy of the resolution of the Committee of
Management together with particulars in
the pro forma prescribed in Appendix 'B'
shall be immediately forwarded by the
Manager to the Inspector as well as the
Regional Deputy Director of Education.

10. The procedure for filing up
the vacancy of the head of institution and
teaches by direct recruitment in any
recognised institution shall be as follows:

(a)..............

(b)..............

(c)..............

(d)...........

(e) Every candidate called for
interview will have to pay the interview fee
at rates given below:

(i) For the post of head of
institution;

Rs.

General Candidates

20

Scheduled Caste/Tribe Candidate

5

(ii) For the post of teacher :

General Candidates

13

Scheduled Caste/Tribe Candidate

3

The
interview
fee
shall
be
payable by crossed postal order or bank
draft or through treasury challan by
depositing the amount in the State Bank of
India under the head indicated by the
Inspector. In no case, the interview fee
shall be accepted in cash. All postal order,
bank drafts and treasury challans shall be
sent by the Manager to the Inspector
immediately after the selection.
11 All. Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
865

(f) A statement (in six copies)
showing the names, qualifications and
other particulars in respect of every
candidate called for the interview shall be
got
prepared
by
the
Committee
of
Management in the form given in Appendix
'C' and the same shall be placed before
each member of the Selection Committee at
the time of the interview. All the
applications including those of candidates
not called for the interview, the register
maintained by the institution referred to in
Clause (d), office copies of all letters sent
to the members of the Selection Committee
and of all interview cards including the
post office ceipts of sending the same by
registered post and acknowledgments, if
any, shall also be placed before the
Selection Committee by the Management
through the manager of the institution.

11. (1) It shall be the duty of the
experts attending selection of a head of
institution or- teacher to scrutinise all
papers
concerning
selection
and
in
particular to examine that the candidates
called for interview have been rightly so
called as per provisions of the Act and the
Regulation and that no candidate has been
deprived of the opportunity of interview
which rightly should have gone to him.
They should furnish a certificate to this
effect in the proceedings of the selection as
proposed in the statement in Appendix 'C'.
In case they feel that a candidate has been
deprived of the legitimate opportunity of
interview as a result of any error or
omission they shall inform the Inspector
with full details of the case. If the Inspector
is satisfied that the proceedings of the
interview has been vitiated thereby he shall
declare the proceedings of the interview
null and void and shall pass orders for
holding of selection again in such cases.
The orders of the Inspectors in this regard
shall be final and binding on all concerned.

(2) All applications, papers and
registers relating to selection shall be
preserved by the Management till such
period as may be prescribed by the
Director and shall be furnished to the
Inspector,Regional Deputy Director of
Education or the Director as and when the
same may be summoned.

12.
The
Manager
of
the
institution shall ensure that all necessary
action to be taken under the Act and the
regulations prior to the holding of selection
including nomination of the Chairman or
the member of the Selection Committee by
the Committee of Management shall be
taken
well
in
time
and
that
all
arrangements have been made for the
meeting of the Selection Committee and
seating of candidates called for interview
on the date fixed for the interview.

16. Every expert attending a
meeting of the Section Committee and
every
person
engaged
for
awarding
quality-point-marks shall be entitled to be
paid remuneration at such rates as may be
sanctioned by the State Government from
time to time. In addition, the experts shall
be paid travelling allowance at such rates
as may be sanctioned by the State
Government.

17. The procedure for filling up
the vacancy of the head of institution and
teachers by direct recruitment in any
recognised institution referred to in Section
16-FF, shall be as follows:

(a) After the management has
determined the number of vacancies to be
filled up by direct recruitment, the posts
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall be advertised by the manager of the
institution in at least one Hindi and one
English
newspaper
having
adequate
circulation in the State giving particulars
as
to
the
nature
(1.e.,
whether
temporary/permanent)
and
number
of
vacancies,
descriptions
of
post
(i.e.,
Principal or Headmaster, Lecturer or L.T.,
C.T.
or
J.T.C./B.T.C.
grade
teacher
including the subject or subjects in which
the lecturer or teacher is required), scale
or pay and other allowances, experience
required minimum qualification and age
prescribed, if any, for the post and
prescribing a date which should not
ordinarily be less than two weeks from the
date of advertisement) by which the
applications shall be received by the
Manager. A copy of the advertisement shall
be simultaneously sent to the Inspector
concerned.

Notes (1) All vacancies in the
posts of teachers and the head of institution
existing at the time of advertisement shall
be advertised.

(2) No new post shall be
advertised
unless
sanction
of
the
appropriate authority for the creation
thereof
has
been
received
by
the
management.

(b) All applications shall be made
in the form prescribed by the management
and shall contain all necessary particulars
about qualifications, teaching experience
and other activities and be accompanied by
certified copies of all the necessary
certificates
and
testimonials.
The
management may charge cost of the
application form not exceeding the amount
referred to in Clause (2) of Regulation 10.

(c) An application by a person
employed in an institution and applying for
a post elsewhere or in the same institution
shall not be withheld by his employer but
shall be forwarded to the authority
concerned immediately.

(d) All applications received from
the candidates shall be serially numbered
and entered in a register and particulars of
the candidates noted under appropriate
columns. The candidates to be called for
interview shall be seven for each post (the
number of applicants, permitting). The
Manager shall intimate by registered post
all the members of the Selection Committee
as well as all such can didates as are called
for interview, the date, time and place of
selection at least ten days before it is held.
The Selection Committee will hold the
selection accordingly If on account of any
unavoidable reason, the expert se lected by
the Committee of Management under
Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1)
of Section 16-FF is unable to attend the
selection on the date fixed the meeting of
the
Selection
Committee
shall
be
postponed.

(e) The provisions of Clauses (e)
and (f) of Regulation and those of
Regulations 11, 12 and 16 shall mutatis
mutandis apply to selections made under
this regula tion.

(f) A panel of experts consisting
of fifteen or more persons selected from
category (a ) referred to in Regulation 14
shall be drawn by the Director for each
region and be sent to the Regional Deputy
Director of Education concerned, The
Regional Deputy Director of Education
shall out of the said panel communicate the
names of three experts in a sealed cover to
the management through its Manager as
soon as he receives any request for supply
of names of experts from him. The regional
11 All. Imtiyaz Ahamad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
867
panel of experts shall, however, remain
valid until it is replaced by a new one.

'[(g) किसी पद िे किए समस्त अभ्यकथियों िा
साक्षात्िार िर किए जाने िे पश्चात् चयन सकमकत िा सभापकत किये
गये चयन िी िायिवाकियों पर दो प्रकतयों में एि किप्पणी तैयार
िरायेगा कजसमें चुने गये अभ्यथी िा नाम तथा प्रतीक्षा सूची िे दो
अन्य अभ्यकथियों िे नाम उकलिकित किये जायेंगे, इस प्रिार तैयार
िी गई किप्पणी पर चयन सकमकत िे सभापकत तथा अन्य सदस्य
िस्ताक्षर िरेंगे और अपना अपना पूणि नाम, पद नाम और पता तथा
कदनाांि उकलिकित िरेंगे, सभापकत इस किप्पणी िी एि प्रकत तथा
कवकनयम 10 िे िण्ड (च) में कनकदिष्ट कववरण िी एि प्रकत धारा
16-चच िे अधीन यथा अपेकक्षत अनुमोदन िे किये, यथाकस्थकत,
सांभागीय उप-किक्षा कनदेिि या कनरीक्षि िो तुरन्त अग्रसाररत
िरेगा, सम्बकन्धत अकभिेिों िे प्राप्त िोने िे कदनाांि िे एि माि िे
भीतर यथाकस्थकत सम्भागीय उप किक्षा कनदेिि या कनरीक्षि, उन पर
अपना कनणिय दे देंगे और ऐसा न िरने पर अनुमोदन प्रदान िर कदया
गया समझा जायेगा ]

18. (1) Within fifteen days of the
receipt of the recommendation of the
Selection Committee constituted under subsection (1) or (2) of Section 16-F, and in
case of an institution referred to in
Section 16-FF, the approval of the
authority
specified
therein,
the
Manager shall, on authorisation under
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management
issued
an
order
of
appointment by Registered Post to the
candidate in the form given in Appendix
'B' requiring the candidate to join duty
within ten days of the receipt of such
order, failing which the appointment of
the
candidate
will
be
liable
to
cancellation.

(2) In case of promotions and (ad
hoc appointments also a formal order of
promotion or appointment in the form as
near as possible to the form referred to in
Clause (1) shall be issued to the person
concerned under the signature of the
Manager.

(3) A copy of every order referred
to in Clauses (1) and (2) shall be sent to the
Inspector and in case of appointment of the
head of institution, a copy thereof shall
also be sent to the Regional Deputy
Director of Education.

APPENDIX-A

Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Head Master and
Teachers in Private Recognised Higher
Secondary Schools

S.No Name of the post
& Educational
Training
Experience
Age
Desirable
qualification

1
2
3
4

1

[Head of
the
institution
(1) Trained M.A.
or
M.Sc.
or
M.Com.
or
M.Sc.