Case: RAMESH SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &amp; ANR

of Assistant Teachers, was conducted de hors the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Rules. 14. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the continued suspension of the appellant was not justified, and that his client had made the appointments pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court, and also instructions from higher authorities. 14.1. Reliance was placed on a letter dated 10.04.2003 addressed by the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. to all the Divisional Assistant Directors of Education (Basic) U.P, wherein it was directed that orders passed by the High Court in connection with appointment of teachers be complied by the District Basic Education Officers. 14.2. It was further submitted that vide letter dated 18.4.2003, the appellant had requested the Director Basic Education, U.P. to issue directives for appointment of candidates to the post of Assistant Teachers in schools, who held qualifications of B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. 14.3. By a further letter dated 21.04.2003, the appellant informed the Secretary, Basic Education, Govt. of U.P. that there were posts of Teachers lying vacant in District Gorakhpur, and there was no provision for appointment of candidates holding qualifications of B.Ed./L.T./ B.PEd./C.P.Ed. to the post of Assistant Teachers. 14.4. The appellant subsequently issued a notification dated 25.04.2003 stating that a decision was taken to issue appointment orders to candidates with B.Ed./L.T. pursuant to discussions with the Chief Minister, and the Minister for Basic Education, Secretary, Basic Education, Govt. of U.P. held on 23.04.2003. It is also mentioned that he was given directions that if the appointments were not made immediately, departmental proceedings would be initiated against him. 14.5. Accordingly, the appellant made appointments to 521 posts of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools during the period May to June 2003. 14.6. It was further submitted that the appellant sought the advice of the Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. The Chief Standing Counsel vide letter dated 01.05.2003 stated that the Government Order dated 10.04.2003 was general in nature. The appellant was advised to take a decision with the consent of the Government since such cases may affect the State in similar cases. 14.7. The appellant addressed another letter dated 06.05.2003 to the Secretary, Basic Education Council seeking instructions on whether the appointment of candidates holding higher qualifications of B.Ed./L.T./B.PEd./C.P.Ed. could be made in accordance with the High Court orders/directives. 14.8. The Secretary Basic Education vide Order dated 28.05.2003 directed all Divisional Assistant Director (Basic Education) to make appointments of candidates to the post of Teachers only in those cases in which final/interim orders had been passed by High Court by 02.06.2003. 14.9. The appellant placed reliance on an earlier judgment of the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 21(SB)/1993. The High Court took note of an earlier judgement in Firoz Alam Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1986 UP LBC 674 wherein it was directed that if sufficient number of B.T.C. trained candidates were not available for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Basic Schools, the candidates who qualified for appointment as stated in the advertisement could be appointed. The High Court in that case had referred to the judgement of this Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Ghani and Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur (2000) 2 SCC 606 , wherein it was held as under: 21. A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SCC Examination could not also be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application. [emphasis supplied] 15. We have perused the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, which lays down the procedure for appointment of Assistant Teachers in basic schools in U.P. Sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 2 defines the competent authority as under: (b) Appointing Authority in relation to teachers referred to in Rule 3 means the District Basic Education Officer Rule 8 prescribes the academic qualifications for the post of Assistant Teachers as: 8. Academic qualifications. - (1) The Essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be shown below against each : Post Academic Qualifications … chart Rule 16 provides for constitution of the Selection Committee for making appointments to any post under these Rules : 16. Constitution of Selection Committee – For selection of candidates for appointment to any post under these Rules, there shall be constituted a Selection Committee comprising – chart Rule 19(3) provides that no appointment shall be made except upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee. 19. Appointment. – … (3) No appointment shall be made except with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, and in the case of direct recruitment except on production of residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar. [emphasis supplied] 16. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules reveals that the appellant as the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee as contemplated by Rules 16 and 19(3) as set out hereinabove. It is the case of the Respondent-State that the appellant made the appointments without complying with the 1981 Rules. Serious allegations of corruption have been raised against the appellant by the state, which would require determination in a full-fledged enquiry by the disciplinary authority. It is pertinent to note that all these appointments were declared to be void ab initio by the State, as mentioned in the appellants reply dated 04.12.2012 to the second show cause notice. The plea of the appellant that the appointments were made in compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court, and under the directions of senior functionaries, would require to be considered in the enquiry.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules reveals that the appellant as the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee as contemplated by Rules 16 and 19(3) as set out hereinaboveIt is the case of the Respondent-State that the appellant made the appointments without complying with the 1981 Rules. Serious allegations of corruption have been raised against the appellant by the state, which would require determination in a full-fledged enquiry by the disciplinary authority. It is pertinent to note that all these appointments were declared to be void ab initio by the State, as mentioned in the appellants reply dated 04.12.2012 to the second show cause noticeThe plea of the appellant that the appointments were made in compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court, and under the directions of senior functionaries, would require to be considered in the enquiry.