Hemlata vs State of U.P. and Others

S.N. Shukla, J.—1. Heard Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas Vikram Singh as well as Mr. Yash Bharadwaj, learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Mr. Rajnish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Kapil Dev, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

The petitioner has assailed the selection of respondent No. 4 i.e. Dr. Renu Mahendra on the post of Principal in State Homeopathic Medical Colleges, Uttar Pradesh1. Vide advertisement No. 1/2013-14 dated 24.08.2013, two posts of Principal in Medical College, Uttar Pradesh were advertised. Out of which one was reserved for female candidate. The petitioner being female had applied against the post advertised for the female candidate. Through the advertisement, the minimum age of the candidate was prescribed as 35 years whereas the maximum age was prescribed as 50 years. It was also provided that in case of exceptionally qualified candidate, the Governor may relax the prescribed age limit in consultation with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission2. It has been submitted that the respondent No. 4 was 58 years old at the time of advertisement as is mentioned in the combined seniority list, wherein her date of birth is recorded as 15.05.1956. Thus, it has been submitted that on the date of advertisement, she had become disqualified being overage to apply for the post of Principal. It has further been submitted that no such relaxation as was provided in the advertisement was accorded by the Hon''ble Governor to the respondent No. 4. Moreover her name was also not enlisted in the list of candidates, who were called for interview. The eligibility conditions have to be in conformity to the Uttar Pradesh Homeopathic Medical Colleges Teachers (Service Conditions and Appointment) Rules, 1990, which were not considered at all.

Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that earlier the respondent No. 4 had filed a writ petition being writ petition No. 194 (S/B) of 2006 for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the selection of Principal of the Medical College, Uttar Pradesh, which was decided by this Court on 14.09.2010. The operative part of the order is extracted below:

"In view of above, we allow the writ petition. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to ensure that in terms of the circular dated 26.2.1999, one seat may be filled up by female candidate out of seven National Homoeopathic Medical Colleges and the petitioner''s case shall also be considered against such vacancy."

The aforesaid order was challenged by the State through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 03.01.2012 on the grounds of delay and on merits. The Principal Secretary of the Department sent a requisition to the Commission to fill up one post out of three posts amongst the female candidates as also to consider the matter of respondent No. 4. In the meanwhile since the respondent No. 4 had filed a contempt petition being contempt petition No. 1752 of 2011, the State Government directed the Commission to act upon in accordance with the order dated 14.09.2010 passed in writ petition No. 194 of 2006. In this reference, the respondent No. 4 was accorded provisional entry in the recruitment process. It has been submitted that even in such an eventuality, the eligibility of the respondent No. 4 had to be considered. Ultimately the respondent No. 4 was selected. Such an act of the Commission as well as State Government has been said to be colorable exercise of power. It has further been submitted that the respondent No. 4 had not applied for the said post, which was advertised in 2014. The petitioner has claimed to be a qualified candidate for selection on the post of Principal. It has been submitted that except the petitioner, there was no other female candidate to be considered for selection. It has further been submitted that three vacancies for the post of Principal were advertised in 2005 and two were advertised in 2007, which were filled up and as such no post of Principal remained vacant in reference to the vacancies advertised in 2005 and 2007, therefore, the stand of the respondents that the respondent No. 4 was selected against the vacancy relating to the year 2005 or 2007 is absolutely incorrect. The post of Principal is a post of selection by way of direct recruitment, therefore, the eligibility of the candidates has to be adjudged on the 1st of July of the recruitment year i.e. when the vacancy was advertised. It has been submitted that on 01.03.2012, the State Government sent a requisition to fill up two posts of Principal. Out of which one was reserved for female candidate, which was advertised by the Commission on 24.08.2013. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has cited some decisions, which are referred to as under:

In APSRTC & others v. G. Sriniwas Reddy & others , (2006) 3 SCC 674, the Supreme Court has examined significance and meaning of a direction given by the court to "consider" a case. The Supreme Court held that when a court directs an authority to ''consider'', it requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision thereon in accordance with law. Paragraph Nos. 17 to 20 of the judgment are extracted below:

"17. Where the High Court finds the decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to the manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to ''consider'' the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in the light of its findings or observations of the court. But where the High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs the authority to ''consider'' the matter, the authority will have to consider the matter in accordance with law, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, its power not being circumscribed by any observations or findings of the court.

We may also note that sometimes the High Courts dispose of matter merely with a direction to the authority to ''consider'' the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available. Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court, to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to ''consider'' the matter afresh. Be that as it may.

There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of ''pliable'' authorities have misused the direction ''to consider'' issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to ''consider'' and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to ''consider'', the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to ''consider'' the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order ''to consider'' as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to ''consider'', may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of court''s direction to ''consider'' the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily wagers seeking regularization/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large scale misuse of the orders ''to consider''.

Therefore, while disposing of writ petitions with a direction to ''consider'', there is a need for the High Court to make the direction clear and specific. The order should clearly indicate whether the High Court is recording any finding about the entitlement of the petitioner to the relief or whether the petition is being disposed of without examining the claim on merits. The court should also normally fix a time-frame for consideration and decision. If no time-frame is fixed and if the authority does not decide the matter, the direction of the court becomes virtually infructuous as the aggrieved petitioner will have to come again to court with a fresh writ petition or file an application for fixing time for deciding the matter."

In Dr. Viraj Srivastava v. State of U.P. & others3, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has referred a case of Sanjay Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others 2007 (6) ADJ 272 (DB) decided by the Coordinate Bench. Paragraph No. 41 of the judgment is extracted below:

"41. Further a person if fulfils requisite educational and other qualifications does not possess a fundamental or legal right to be considered for appointment against any post or vacancy as soon as it is available irrespective of whether the employer has decided to fill in the vacancy or not. The right of consideration does not emanate or flow from existence of the vacancy but commences only when the employer decides to fill in the vacancy and the process of recruitment commences when the notification or advertisement of the vacancy is issued. So long as the vacancy is not made available for recruitment, no person can claim that he has a right of consideration since the vacancy exists and therefore, he must be considered. We have not been confronted with any statutory provision or authority in support of this contention that the petitioners have a right of consideration on mere existence of vacancy. On the contrary, we are of considered view that the right of consideration would come in picture only when the vacancy is put for recruitment, i.e., when the advertisement is published. That being so, the right of consideration commences when the recruitment process starts. The incumbent would obviously have right of consideration in accordance with the provisions as they are applicable when the advertisement is made and in accordance with conditions provided in the advertisement read with relevant rules. It is also obvious that if there is any inconsistency between the advertisement and Rules, the statutory rules shall prevail. In Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra), the Apex Court has clearly held that recruitment to the service could only be made in accordance with the Rules and not otherwise."

Per contra, Mr. Kapil Dev, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds mentioned as under:

"An unsuccessful candidate has no right to challenge the selection in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in G.N. Nayak v. Goa University & others , (2002) 2 SCC 712. Paragraph No. 22 of the judgment is extracted below:

"22. According to the respondent No. 5, the amendment of the qualifications for the post of Professor of Marine Science was illegal. It was contended that under Statute 8, it is the Executive Council which has to prescribe the qualifications after considering the recommendations of the Academic Council. According to the respondent No. 5, the qualifications which were prescribed in the 1995 advertisement and hand-out issued to the applicants in connection therewith had not been prescribed by the Executive Council nor recommended by the Academic Council. Whether this is so or not, this is not a grievance which could have been raised by the respondent No. 5. He knew that there was a change in the eligibility criteria for the post yet he applied for the post and appeared at the interview without protest. He cannot be allowed to now contend that the eligibility criteria were wrongly framed."

In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar & others , (2010) 12 SCC 576, the Supreme Court held as under:

"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner''s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal.V. State of J&K , (1995)3 SCC-486, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P. , (2007)11 SCC-522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal , (2008)4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam , (2009)3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines , (2009)5 SCC 515."

In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand & others , (2011) 1 SCC 150, the Supreme Court held as under:

"24. When the list of successful candidates in the written examination was published in such notification itself, it was also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for interview, the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction."

The petitioner is not eligible as per requirement of the Rules, as, for the post of Principal, the requirement is a degree or a diploma from a recognized institution or any qualification given in the IIIrd Schedule of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and ten years ''teaching experience'' with five years ''administrative experience'' from a Homeopathy Medical College or Hospital, which she did not possess. Her documents are forged for which proceedings are pending. The petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court because the documents annexed in support of her experience is dubious and doubtful, which cannot be taken into account, in view of the fact that the same was not issued by the competent authority.

On merit, he submitted that in the year 2005, an advertisement was issued to fill up the post of Principal in Medical College, Uttar Pradesh by the Commission but since no post was reserved for a female candidate, in terms of Circular dated 26.02.1999, the answering respondent had challenged the selection process before this Court in which ultimately this Court issued direction to the respondents to ensure that in terms of Circular dated 26.02.1999 one seat may be filled up by female candidate out of seven Medical College, Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner shall also be considered against the said vacancy. This order was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition. It has been submitted that one post of Principal, which was kept reserved for a female candidate was pertaining to the year 2005-06. The State Government requested to the Commission to fill up one post by a female candidate and while considering the candidature of female candidate, the candidature of the answering respondent may also be considered. Pursuant to the advertisement issued on 19.09.2013, the answering respondent applied for the post of Principal (Female). She was issued interview letter and she was interviewed on 30.11.2015 and was ultimately selected against the post of Principal (Female).

It has further been submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for the post of Principal as her experience certificate dated 05.03.1998 issued by the Principal of the Mangala Kamla Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Srinagar, Siwan, Bihar4 was found forged. The Principal of the Medical College, Bihar has certified that the petitioner had worked as Demonstrator from 01.12.1994 to 04.03.1998 in the Department of Repertory of the Institute.

Insofar as the petitioner''s experience certificate dated 16.09.2013 in respect of her working on the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 21.11.2006 to 18.11.2010 and from 19.11.2010 on the post of Reader (Repertory) in the Rajkiya National Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Lucknow5 is concerned, the said certificate has been issued by the Principal of the Medical College, Lucknow and countersigned by the Director, Homeopathy, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, whereas it should have been issued by the State Government as it is the State Government, who is the competent authority to issue such an experience certificate, hence the aforesaid certificate cannot be taken into account for the purpose of counting her experience on the aforesaid post to examine her eligibility for the post of Principal.

He has further submitted that in regard to ascertain the genuineness of her teaching experience certificate, an inquiry was conducted by Dr. Jayaram Rai, Homeopathic Medical Officer posted in the Directorate of Homeopathy, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, who submitted inquiry report to the Director, Homeopathy, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, on 06.06.2007. In the inquiry report, he has clearly mentioned that the experience certificate of the petitioner and one another doctor, namely, Dr. Musheer Ahmad with respect to their teaching on the subject of Repertory and Surgery in Medical College, Bihar had been found to be fake, forged and fabricated. Her certificate was got verified from the Medical College, Bihar by the Inquiry Officer. The Principal of the Medical College, Bihar informed the Inquiry Officer that the Medical College, Bihar was established in the year 1977 and a temporary affiliation was granted in the year 1980 by the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and thereafter a recognition was granted on 12.05.1998 by the State of Bihar and further on 20.06.2002, a recognition was granted by the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, New Delhi from the academic session 2002-03, onwards. On 08.09.2002, the University had granted permanent affiliation to the College, therefore, any teaching experience certificate issued prior to 2002 was not authentic and genuine. The Principal of the College also provided a list of teaching staff on different faculties since 1991 till 05.05.2004 in which the petitioner had been shown to have worked as Demonstrator in the Department of Repertory, from 01.12.1994 to 04.03.1998 while in the list of teaching staff, the petitioner''s name did not find place, which establishes that the teaching experience certificate dated 05.03.1998 submitted by the petitioner was fake, forged, fabricated and fictitious document.

It has also been submitted that one Shri Jai Prakash Pathak, Police Inspector, Vigilance Establishment, Bihar, Patna wrote a letter to the Director, Homeopathy, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow on 10.06.2014 informing that since an inquiry on the alleged issuance of the fake, forged and fabricated teaching experience certificates by different Homeopathy Medical Colleges of the State of Bihar to different incumbents had been conducted by Dr. Jayaram Rai, Homeopathic Medical Officer, the outcome and latest status of the inquiry be intimated to his office for information to higher authority as desired by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna, Bihar. The answering respondent had also got verified the said certificate personally from the Principal of the Medical College, Bihar. In response, the Principal of the Medical College, Bihar had intimated that the said document is fabricated.

He further cited a decision of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India & others , (2008) 12 SCC 481 in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:

"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play ''hide and seek'' or to ''pick and choose'' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts"."

In view of the aforesaid submissions, it has been submitted that since the petitioner has not come with clean hands and her claim to be a candidate for the post of Principal, Medical College, Uttar Pradesh is based on forged documents, the writ petition, at the very outset, deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

The respondent No. 2-Commission has submitted that an advertisement No. 01/2005-06 was issued by the Commission for selection on three posts of Principal of the Medical College, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No. 4 had applied pursuant to the said advertisement but she was not selected in the result declared on 19.12.2005. Being aggrieved, she filed a writ petition before this Court being writ petition No. 194 (S/B) of 2006 in which this Court had passed order on 14.09.2010 referred to above. Since the selection process pursuant to the said advertisement had been completed much earlier to the order passed by this court, no vacancy was vacant at the time of the order of the Court passed on 14.09.2010. The order passed by the court was affirmed in the Special Leave Petition. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 filed a contempt petition before this Court in reference to which the State Government issued a letter dated 21.02.2012 for consideration of respondent No. 4 against the single vacancy reserved horizontally for female candidate pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court. Thereafter the Government sent a requisition dated 01.03.2012 for two posts of Principal of the Medical College, Uttar Pradesh in which one vacancy was horizontally reserved for female candidate in compliance of the order passed by this Court. In furtherance thereof, the Commission issued an advertisement on 24.08.2013. By passage of time, the respondent No. 4 had become over age so she could not apply on-line due to age bar, however, she sent an off-line application and the Commission considered her candidature in compliance of the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court. It has been submitted that the respondent No. 4 was within age and eligible at the time of filing of the writ petition No. 194 (S/B) of 2006 and as such the Commission called her provisionally for interview on the basis of her claim. The Commission initiated a selection process of advertisement No. 01/2013-14 and fixed the date of interview on 30.11.2015. Total seventy one candidates had applied on-line but only fifty seven candidates sent their records off-line. After scrutiny, eleven candidates were found eligible and called for interview in which nine candidates were male and two candidates were female. Total ten candidates appeared before the Commission for interview. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 both appeared and were interviewed by the Commission against single horizontally reserved vacancy for the female candidate in which respondent No. 4 was declared successful on the basis of merit. The petitioner could not get selected due to low merit in the interview.

Thus, the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have narrated the facts of the case, which are common.

In reply, Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no doubt a candidate having taken a chance to appear in interview having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection, but it is open for the candidates to challenge the glaring illegalities in the procedure, method of selection and exercise of power exercised against the Rules. On such a challenge the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts of this case. In support of his submission, he also cited a decision of the Supreme Court passed in Raj Kumar & others v. Shakti Raj & others , (1997) 9 SCC 527 (FB). Paragraph No. 16 of the judgment is extracted below:

"16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the post from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rule and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the post were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K , (1995) 3 SCC 486 and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the selection Board or the method of Selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law."

Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties first and foremost, we would proceed to consider the objection raised by the respondents against the maintainability of the writ petition as well as the petitioner''s locus to challenge the selection of respondent No. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate in the selection in question. Her certificate of teaching experience is under investigation by Vigilance Department in which final decision is yet to be taken by the State Government. Though it is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of educational certificate, she was selected by the Commission, where those documents were scrutinized, therefore, now this is no stage to examine the genuineness of those documents to verify her eligibility in the examination in question, yet we are of the view that the inquiry report as discussed above as well as certificate issued by the Principal of the Medical College, Bihar, which certify that the petitioner had not worked as Lecturer in the Medical College, Bihar, cannot be ignored. Since the petitioner has raised glaring question of eligibility of respondent No. 4 to be appointed as Principal of the Medical College, Uttar Pradesh, which is a necessary and important fact for determination of the issue, we do not feel it appropriate to throw out the writ petition on the basis of the objection raised by the respondents.

It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 4''s age was more than fifty years at the time of her recruitment on the post of the Principal in question. It is admitted fact that all the vacancies pertaining to the selection year 2005-06 had been fulfilled. Against the vacancy advertised in 2013, one post was reserved for female candidate but the respondent No. 4 did not submit any application on-line rather it appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 194 (S/B) of 2006 as also in contempt petition No. 1752 of 2011, the respondent No. 4''s application was accepted off-line and she was considered as an eligible candidate for appointment on the post of Principal in question. The respondents have made effort to connect the vacancy with the selection year 2005-06 but it is not in dispute that the vacancy in question related to selection year 2013 which was advertised pursuant to the requisition sent by the State Government on 01.03.2012 and by that time, the respondent No. 4 had crossed the maximum limit of age i.e. 50 years. Therefore, she was not eligible to be selected on the post of Principal in question, but it appears that her candidature was considered by the Commission only pursuant to the order passed by the writ Court as well as under the observation of learned Single Judge dealing with the contempt matter.

Whereas in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of APSRTC (supra), we are of the view that it was imperative for the Commission to scrutinize the eligibility of the respondent No. 4. There was no occasion for the Commission to bye-pass the eligibility criteria only for the reason that the writ Court had issued direction to consider her candidature against the vacancy notified for female candidate. Admittedly, the Commission had not considered the candidature of the respondent No. 4 against the vacancy advertised in 2005-06 rather it considered against the vacancy advertised in 2013, whereas by that time she had crossed the maximum age limit i.e. fifty years, therefore, she was not eligible for selection/appointment on the post of Principal.

In the result, we quash the appointment of the respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal of the Medical College, Uttar Pradesh made pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/2013-14 dated 24.08.2013. At the same very time, we issue direction to the State Government to take decision on the inquiry report with regard to the petitioner''s teaching experience and, if it is found forged, to take necessary action in accordance with rules.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.

1the Medical College, Uttar Pradesh

2the Commission

3Writ-A No. 60971 of 2009

4Medical College, Bihar

5Medical College, Lucknow