# The Committee of Management, Nanak Chand Adarsh Inter College, Chandausi, Moradabad and another v. The District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 257
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-02
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 881 of 1999
- **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-committee-of-management-nanak-chand-adarsh-inter-college-chandausi-40081
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri K.A. Ansari
Sri M.D. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Secondary
Services Commission
Rules 1983- Rule 7 (i)- Life of the
selection list- one year from the date of
notification- top merit candidate joined
and worked as principal for six months-
proceeded on leave- not turned up-
whether the next in seniority list can
claim for appointment within one year
from the date of termination of earlier
principal ? held- no- in view of provisions
of Rule 8- the life of the list was only one
year from the date of publication of the
list.

Held- Para 10

Therefore in our view the life of the
panel came to an end as soon as Satya
Pal Singh had joined the service and
continued without break for about 6
months or at best till the time fixed in
Rule 8 of the Rules. The period fixed in
Rule 8 of the Rules. The period fixed in
Rule 8, in our view has already expired
and, therefore, in view of our discussions
made hereinabove, we are unable to
accept the contention of the private
respondent that the life of the panel
could
survive
up
to
the
date
of
termination of the service of Satya Pal
Singh, as he was on leave up to that
date.

(b) U.P. Secondary Services Commission
Rules 1983- Rule 8 (5)- whether the
provision of Rule 8 (5) are mandatory ?
held- No.

Held- Para 12

So far as the present case is concerned,
we are of the view that on a close
scrutiny of sub rule 5 of Rule 8 of the
Rules, the three eventualities had not, at
al, occurred because in the present case
Satya Pal Singh joined the post of
Principal of the institution and worked
more than six months and thereafter left
the college initially taking leave and
finally his services were terminated by a
resolution. Therefore, in the present
case, in view of the aforesaid admitted
fact, sub rule 5 of Rule 8 of the Rules
cannot apply and the writ petitioner-
private respondent could not pray for
sending his name for appointment as
Principal of the Institution as he stood
next in order of merit in the panel after
Satya Pal Singh. In our view , Rule 8 (5)
of the Rules cannot be said to be
mandatory provision.
Case law referred:
1996(9) SCC 309
1969 (1) UPLBEC 271

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2All] The C/M, N.C.A. Inter College and another V. The D.I.O.S., Moradabad and others
257
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 881 of 1999

The Committee of Management, Nanak
Chand Adarsh Inter College, Chandausi,
Moradabad and another
...Appellants
Versus
The
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri P.S. Baghel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.A. Ansari
Sri M.D. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Secondary
Services Commission
Rules 1983- Rule 7 (i)- Life of the
selection list- one year from the date of
notification- top merit candidate joined
and worked as principal for six months-
proceeded on leave- not turned up-
whether the next in seniority list can
claim for appointment within one year
from the date of termination of earlier
principal ? held- no- in view of provisions
of Rule 8- the life of the list was only one
year from the date of publication of the
list.

Held- Para 10

Therefore in our view the life of the
panel came to an end as soon as Satya
Pal Singh had joined the service and
continued without break for about 6
months or at best till the time fixed in
Rule 8 of the Rules. The period fixed in
Rule 8 of the Rules. The period fixed in
Rule 8, in our view has already expired
and, therefore, in view of our discussions
made hereinabove, we are unable to
accept the contention of the private
respondent that the life of the panel
could
survive
up
to
the
date
of
termination of the service of Satya Pal
Singh, as he was on leave up to that
date.

(b) U.P. Secondary Services Commission
Rules 1983- Rule 8 (5)- whether the
provision of Rule 8 (5) are mandatory ?
held- No.

Held- Para 12

So far as the present case is concerned,
we are of the view that on a close
scrutiny of sub rule 5 of Rule 8 of the
Rules, the three eventualities had not, at
al, occurred because in the present case
Satya Pal Singh joined the post of
Principal of the institution and worked
more than six months and thereafter left
the college initially taking leave and
finally his services were terminated by a
resolution. Therefore, in the present
case, in view of the aforesaid admitted
fact, sub rule 5 of Rule 8 of the Rules
cannot apply and the writ petitioner-
private respondent could not pray for
sending his name for appointment as
Principal of the Institution as he stood
next in order of merit in the panel after
Satya Pal Singh. In our view , Rule 8 (5)
of the Rules cannot be said to be
mandatory provision.
Case law referred:
1996(9) SCC 309
1969 (1) UPLBEC 271

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Chatterjee, C.J.)

1. This Special Appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated
30.7.1999 passed a learned Judge of this
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
33807 of 1994.

2. Briefly stated the facts of this
special appeal are that Nanak Chand
Adarsh
Inter
College,
Chandausi,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
258
Moradabad (hereinafter referred as to the
institution) is a recognized institution
where education is imparted up to the
level of Intermediate. The institution
receives grant-in- aid from the State
Government. Thus, the provisions of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P.
Secondary
Education
(services
and
selection board) Act, 1982 and U.P. High
Schools
and
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of teachers and other
employees)
Act,
1971
would
be
applicable to this institution. On attaining
the age of superannuation by the Principal
of this institution, a substantive vacancy
in the post of principal arose which was
duly intimated to the U.P. Secondary
Education
Services
Commission
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
Commission).
The
Commission
advertised the said post. After holding
selection, the commission recommended
the name of one Satya Pal Singh, who is
respondent no. 2 in this appeal at serial
no. 1 and name of Rajendra Pal Gupta,
writ petitioner- respondent no. 3 (in this
appeal), at serial no. 2. The selected
candidate Satya Pal Singh joined his duty
as Principal of the institution on 7th
December,
1988
and
continued
to
function as such till 30th June, 1989. From
1st July, 1989 up to 23rd of January, 1994,
Satya Pal Singh did not join the institution
and on that day by a resolution, the
committee of management, terminated the
services of Satya Pal Singh and papers
relating to his termination were forwarded
to the District Inspector of Schools on 14th
February, 1994. After the termination of
the services of Satya Pal Singh, the writ
application was filed by Rajendra Pal
Gupta, who is respondent no. 3 in this
appeal for a direction upon the appellants
to issue appointment order in his favour
allowing him to join as Principal of the
institution and for other incidental reliefs.

3. This writ application was
disposed of by the learned Judge of this
Court by holding that since the vacancy of
Principal arose within a period of one
year, the second person in the panel,
namely Rajendra Pal Gupta, would be
entitled to be appointed by the appellant-
Committee of Management.

4. Feeling aggrieved by this order,
the present special appeal has been
preferred at the instance of Committee of
Management Nanak Chand Adarsh Inter
College, Chandausi, Moradabad and one
Puran
Chand
Upadhyay,
officiating
Principal of the institution.

5. Before us, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that in view of Rule 7 (2) of the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Commission Rules, 1983 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules) life of the panel
prepared under Rule 7 (1) of the Rules
shall remain alive for one year from the
date of its notification by the commission
and, therefore, in view of the fact that the
life of the panel had already exhausted,
question of appointing the writ petitioner-
respondent no. 3, Rajendra Pal Gupta,
from the said panel, life whereof had
already stood expired, cannot arise, at all.
In support of this contention the learned
counsel for the appellants had drawn our
attention to a decision of the Supreme
Court in State of U.P. and another vs.
Harish Chandra and others (1996 (9)
SCC 309).

6. The submission so made by the
learned counsel for the appellants was
disputed by the learned counsel appearing
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2All] The C/M, N.C.A. Inter College and another V. The D.I.O.S., Moradabad and others
259
for the respondent no. 3. According to the
learned counsel for the respondent no. 3,
the life of the panel did not exhaust in
view of the fact that the respondent no. 3
could be appointed within one year from
the date of termination of the services of
Satya Pal Singh. Accordingly the learned
counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted
that the appeal must be dismissed.

This is the only question, which is to
be decided by us in this appeal.

7. Before taking up the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties, we
may refer to Rule 7 of the Rules, which
runs as follows:

"7. Preparation of panel- (1) The
Commission shall prepare an institution
wise panel of those found most suitable
for appointment and arrange them in
order of merit inter alia mentioning-

(i) the name of the institution and where
it is situate;
(ii) the subject in which vacancy existed
and selection made
(iii) names of selected persons in order of
merit and with due regard to their
preference
for
appointment
in
a
particular institution.

(2) The panel, prepared under sub rule
(1) shall hold good for one year from the
date of its notification by the Commission
(emphasis supplied).

8. In this connection reference of
Rule 8 of the said Rules may also be
made which is extracted herein below :

"8. Notification of selected candidate -
(1) The Commission shall forward the
panel,
referred
to
in
Rule
7,
in
quadruplicate, to the Deputy Director and
shall also notify the same on its notice
board and publish it in such other manner
as it may consider proper -

(2) Within 15 days of the receipt of
the panel by him, the Deputy Director
shall notify it on the notice board and
send two copies thereof to the Inspector.

(3) Within 15 days of the receipt of
the panel by him, the Inspector shall-

(i) notify it on the notice board.

(ii) Intimate
the
name
of
selected
candidates, standing first in order of
merit, and where there are more than one
vacancies, as many names in order of
merit as there are vacancies, to the
Manager of the concerned institution with
directions that no authorization under
resolution of the Management, an order
of appointment, in the proforma given in
Appendix B be issued to the candidate by
registered post within one month of the
receipt of intimation, requiring him to
join duty within 10 days of the receipt of
the order or within such extended time, as
may
be
allowed
to
him
by
the
Management, and also intimating him
that on his failure to join within the
specified time, his appointment will be
liable to be cancelled.

(iii) Send an intimation to the candidate,
referred to in clause (ii) with directions to
report to the Manager within 10 days of
the receipt of the order of appointment by
him from the Manager or within such
extended time as may be allowed to him,
by the Management

(4) The manager shall comply with the
directions given under sub rule 3 and
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
260
report compliance to the Commission
through the Inspector.

(5) when the candidate referred to in sub
rule (3) fails to join the post within the
time allowed in the letter of appointment
or within such extended time as the
management may allow in this behalf or
where such candidate is not available for
appointment, the Inspector may, on the
request of the management, send fresh
name or names standing next in order of
merit on the panel, under intimation to the
Deputy Director and the Commission and
the provisions of sub rule 3 and 4 shall
mutates mutandis apply."

9. From a plain of sub-rule (2) of
rule 7 of the Rules it is clear to us that the
panel prepared under sub-rule (1) of Rule
7 of the Rules shall hold good for one
year from the date of its notification by
the Commission. In this case, as noted
herein earlier, learned counsel for the
private respondent submitted before us
that the life of the panel could not exhaust
as the private respondent was entitled to
be appointed form the same panel within
one year from the date of termination of
services of Satya Pal Singh. We are
unable to accept this contention of the
learned
counsel
for
the
private
respondent.

10. From a plain reading of rule 8(1)
to Rule 8(4) of the said Rules which deals
with notification of selected candidates,
we are of the view that in view of the
admitted fact that from the same panel
Satya Pal Singh, who was at serial
number 1, was in fact appointed and
worked with the college for about 6
months and thereafter went on leave till
the year 1994, the question of remaining
alive of the panel could not arise. As
noted herein earlier, Rule 8 of the Rules
clearly postulates as to what would be the
date of notification by the Commission.
For this reason, we have carefully
examined Rule 8 of the Rules to find out
the period of one year from the date of
notification by the Commission. In our
view , by no stretch of imagination, it can
be said that the panel could be said to
remain alive up to the date of termination
of
services
of
Satya
Pal
Singh.
Admittedly, Satya Pal Singh joined the
college on 7th December, 1988 and,
thereafter remained on leave till the year
1994 when his services were terminated.
It can only be said that at best the life of
the panel could survive up to the time
prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules. In any
view of the matter, the question of panel
to remain alive, in the facts of this case,
cannot arise at all as we find that from the
same panel, Satya Pal Singh, who was
figuring at the top of the panel, was
appointed and he joined the service in the
college and continued about 6 months and
thereafter went on leave till his services
was
terminated
in
the
year
1994.
Therefore in our view the life of the panel
came to an end as soon as Satya Pal
Singh
had
joined
the
service and
continued without break for about 6
months or at best till the time fixed in
Rule 8 of the Rules. The period fixed in
Rule 8 of the Rules. The period fixed in
Rule 8, in our view has already expired
and, therefore, in view of our discussions
made hereinabove, we are unable to
accept the contention of the private
respondent that the life of the panel could
survive up to the date of termination of
the service of Satya Pal Singh, as he was
on leave up to that date.

11. There is another aspect of this
matter. Sub rule 5 of Rule 8 of the Rules
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2All] The C/M, N.C.A. Inter College and another V. The D.I.O.S., Moradabad and others
261
clearly lays down that when a candidate
"fails to join the post" within the time
allowed in the letter of appointment or
within
such extended
time
as the
management may allow in this behalf or
where such candidate is not available for
appointment, "the Inspector may" on the
request of the management, send fresh
name or names standing next in order
of merit on the panel. Under intimation
to
the
Deputy
Director
and
the
Commission, and the provisions of sub
rule 3 and 4 shall mutatis mutandis apply.
(Emphasis supplied).

12. If we carefully examine sub rule
5 of Rule 8 of the Rules as mentioned
above, it would be clear that the question
of sending the name of the candidate
standing next in order of merit on the
panel
would
arise
only
when
the
candidate referred to in sub rule 3 of Rule
8 of the Rules fails to join the post within
the time allowed in the letter of
appointment or within such extended time
as the management allows in this behalf
or where such candidate is not available
for appointment. Therefore, from a plain
reading of this provision, it is clear that
when a candidate fails to join the post
within time allowed in the letter of
appointment or within such extended time
as the management allowed in this behalf
or such candidate is not available for the
appointment, only then the question of
sending the name of next candidate in the
panel would arise. So far as the present
case is concerned, we are of the view that
on a close scrutiny of sub rule 5 of Rule 8
of the Rules, the three eventualities had
not, at all occurred because in the present
case Satya Pal Singh joined the post of
Principal of the institution and worked
more than six months and thereafter left
the college initially taking leave and
finally his services were terminated by a
resolution. Therefore, in the present case,
in view of the aforesaid admitted fact, sub
rule 5 of Rule 8 of the Rules cannot apply
and the writ petitioner- private respondent
could not pray for sending his name for
appointment as Principal of the Institution
as he stood next in order of merit in the
panel after Satya Pal Singh. In our view,
Rule 8 (5) of the Rules cannot be said to
be mandatory provision. We find that sub
rule 5 of Rule 8 of the Rules clearly says
that the Inspector on the request of the
management may send fresh name or
names standing next in order of merit on
the panel. Therefore, it is clear from this
provision that at the discretion of the
Inspector, it is open to him to send fresh
name or names standing next in order of
merit on the panel for appointment only
on the request of the management. If this
position is accepted the question of
appointment as of right to the private
respondent could not at all arise as the
Inspector did not send his name on the
ground that he was standing next in order
of merit on the panel nor there was any
request from the management of the
institution for sending the name of next
candidate standing in order of merit in the
panel.

13. Before we part with this
judgment, we may deal with a decision
cited by the learned counsel for the
private respondent rendered in Nagar
Palika Inter College, Jaunur vs. Dr.
Havildar Singh and others. (1969) 1
UPLBEC
271.
We
have
carefully
examined the decision cited at the Bar as
well as the relevant provisions, namely,
Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Rules as quoted
herein earlier. In our view, the aforesaid
decision cited by the learned counsel for
the respondents, in this behalf, cannot be
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
262
said to have any application to the facts
and circumstances of this case, as in that
decision, the candidate did not at all join
the post and, therefore, it was open for the
next man to come in the field of eligibility
in view of sub rule 5 of Rule 8 of the
rules. As we have discussed already in the
present case, on the other hand, Satya Pal
Singh, admittedly joined the institution as
Principal and worked for about 6 months
in the said institution. Therefore, the
decision cited on behalf of the writ
petitioner- respondent no. 3 is not, at all,
applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the instant case.

No other point was raised by the
learned counsel for the parties.

14. In view of our discussions made
above, it is not necessary for us to deal
with the decision of the Supreme Court
relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondent. However, the decision of the
Supreme Court as referred to above, in
our view, is also of no help to the
appellant.

15. For the reasons aforesaid, this
special appeal deserves to be allowed, the
order of the learned Judge, under appeal,
is liable to be set aside and we hold that
the private respondent is not entitled to be
appointed as Principal of the institution
from the said panel.

16. Accordingly the special is
allowed. The impugned order, under
appeal, is set aside and the writ petition
stands dismissed. However, there will be
no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 664 of 2002

State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Versus
Smt. Rosalia Minj Sohanta and another

 ...Petitioner

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ran Vijay Sigh
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Ojha

U.P.
Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Recruitment and conditions of service of
teacher and other conditions) Rules
1975- Rule 19 (i) Requisites qualification
for Assistant Teacher in Primary School-
BTC- provided in 1995 -Respondents
was appointed 1973 having diploma
from
Pune
University-
G.O.
dated
21.10.94- provides to give salary as
trained teacher who have completed 10
years as untrained teachers- whether
such teacher was entitled to treated as
trained teacher ? held- yes- when the
appointed made- Rule 1975 was not
enforced-
completed
10
years
long
service- entitled for every consequential
benefits like Regular teachers.

Held- Para 7

When
the
respondent
no.
1
was
appointed i.e. on 17.7.1973, the 1975
Rules was not in force. Thus, the
qualification prescribed by the Board for
appointment on the post of assistant
teachers in a recognised school was not
in force at the time when the respondent
no.
1
was
appointed.
The
learned
standing counsel has not placed any