Smt. Dipti Chatterji vs State of U.P. and Others

J.C. Gupta, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 5 has also filed counter-affidavit which supports the case of the Petitioner.

By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 13.11.1981 passed by Respondent No. 1 cancelling the Petitioner''s appointment on the post of Principal in S. N. Sen Balika Vidyalaya Inter College, Kanpur.

It may be relevant to mention a few facts. The Institution in question is undisputedly governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'') and the Regulations framed thereunder. The post of Principal was lying vacant in the Institution. In the year 1977 selection proceedings were initiated for filling the said vacancy. Vacancy was advertised and in response to the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the post of Principal. The Petitioner was called for interview and she appeared before the Selection Committee on 28.5.78. The Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which interviewed all the candidates who appeared before it and on the basis of total quality point marks and the marks awarded in the interview, the Committee unanimously selected the Petitioner for the post of Principal of the Institution by placing her at number one in order of priority. In pursuance of the recommendation of Selection Committee, appointment letter dated 6.6.1978 was issued to the Petitioner and she joined as Principal of the Institution on 16.6.1978. The initial appointment was on probation for a period of one year. On successful completion of the said period, the Petitioner was confirmed on the post of Principal by the order dated 16.6.1979 [vide Annexure-5).

After when the Petitioner had been confirmed on the post of Principal, a show-cause notice dated 24.11.1980 was issued by Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner wherein two objections were raised with regard to the selection of the Petitioner. Copy of the said show-cause notice is Annexure-6. Respondent No. 1 required the Petitioner to show-cause why her selection be not cancelled. The objections were two-folds:

(a) That the Petitioner did not possess the requisite experience and so was not eligible to be appointed as Principal, and

(b) That out of 15 applicants, 7 were not called by the Selection Committee and their application forms were rejected on untenable ground viz. their applications were not forwarded by R.I.G.S. or the head of the Institutions.

The Petitioner filed a reply stating therein that she did possess the educational qualification as well as had experience required for appointment on the post of Principal. The reply to other objection was that all the applications were scrutinized by Regional Inspector of Girls School and only those applications were rejected which were not in conformity with the provisions of Section 16 (e) and Regulation 10 (b) inasmuch as they were not forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education.

Respondent No. 1 considered the reply of the Petitioner and dropped the objection raised in respect of the qualification and experience of the Petitioner to hold the post of Principal. However, by the impugned order, the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal has been quashed solely on the ground that the applications of seven candidates were wrongly rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition has been filed.

Respondent No. 1 in their counter-affidavit have supported the impugned order and the stand taken is that the selection of the Petitioner has been cancelled since it was not fair because of wrong rejection of applications of some other candidates, who had better quality point marks.

By an interim order of this Court, the operation of the impugned order was stayed and it is not disputed that the Petitioner has been working as Principal of the said Institution till now.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal has been cancelled solely on the ground of some irregularity alleged to have been committed during the selection process, i.e., that applications of some of the candidates were wrongly rejected and they were deprived from the interview which was held before the Selection Committee. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-11 which contains the instructions which were to be followed while submitting application forms. Instruction-1 was to the effect that if any candidate failed to follow any of the instructions, his application form could be rejected. Instruction No. 7 given in the form laid down that every candidate serving elsewhere could apply only with the permission of his or her appointing authority and with a care that the application duly forwarded should reach before the last date prescribed. The candidature of seven applicants were rejected on the ground that their application forms were not in conformity with the aforesaid instructions. It is pertinent to note here that none of those candidates challenged the selection process before any Court of law. No attempt was made to get the selection cancelled even after the Petitioner was appointed and the show-cause notice was issued only after when the Petitioner had been confirmed on the post of Principal by the order dated 16.6.1979. It has already been pointed out above that so far as the other objection that the Petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Principal has been decided in favour of the Petitioner and the said objection has been dropped. The Petitioner admittedly has been working as Principal on the aforesaid post since the year 1978 and after a gap of more than 19 years, it would be most unjust and inequitable to cancel the Petitioner''s appointment on the post of Principal at the fag end of her career, just on the ground of some alleged irregularities, though in fact it could not be said that the Selection Committee was unjustified in rejecting application forms of those candidates who have not followed the instructions strictly.

For the above reasons, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.11.1981 passed by Respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition is quashed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs is made.