1. Akhtar Hussain has filed this civil writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing select list dated 10.12.2009 published by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad so far as it relates to selection to the post of Principal, Janta Inter College, Nanpara, District Bahriach. The petition further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold fresh selection and allow the petitioner to compete for the post of Principal of the Institution in question and further restraining the respondents from making appointment to the post of Principal of the Institution.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad (respondent no.4) does not dispute the facts and, therefore, counter affidavit has not been filed.
3. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was serving as a Lecturer on regular basis in Janta Inter College, Nanpara, District Bahriach and was eligible for selection and appointment of Principal in the year 2009 being the second senior most teacher in the college/ respondent no.5.
4. For the post of Principal of the college, an advertisement was issued by respondent no.4 on 4.9.2008 (Annexure-2). The institution where the petitioner was serving viz. respondent no.5 was informed about the interview to be held on 30.11.2009 vide communication dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure-3) and received in the Institution on 31.10.2009.
5. The petitioner applied for leave on 13/14.10.2009 to proceed for Haj from 20.10.2009 till 5.12.2009. Under the circumstances, the petitioner returned back on 7.12.2009.
6. On receipt of communication dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure-3), officiating Principal wrote to District Inspector of School, Bahraich on 10.11.2009 that the petitioner, one of the applicants was on leave, therefore, the interview be postponed. The District Inspector of School, consequently, informed the Selection Board vide communication dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure-6). Be that as it may, the selection process was conducted as scheduled viz. on 13.11.2009 and respondent no.6 has already been selected and appointed.
7. In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would have made a better candidate, if allowed to compete. The petitioner was out of the country when communication in regard to interview was received in the College and, therefore, cannot be held at fault. In such circumstances, the selection list be quashed and mandamus be issued directing conduct of denovo selection process.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 has argued that no communication was sent to the Selection Board by petitioner before proceeding for Haj. Advertisement for the post was issued on 4.9.2008 and selection process was going on which was in the notice of all concerned. In such circumstances, plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. On the second count, it has been argued that the selection process was in regard to State Level Selection Process held at Allahabad. There is no provision under the rules to defer the selection process. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
9. I have considered the rival contentions.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was aware of the advertised post. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner did not appear for interview during the selection process and, therefore, there was no question of his being considered for selection and appointment as Principal. It is further not in dispute that the selection process was finalized on 14.12.2009 by way of publishing select list conveying to District Inspector of School that respondent no.6 has been selected.
11. Petitioner was on leave for his personal religious purpose which cannot be attributed to his line of duty. In such circumstances, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to turn back the clock. It is not the case of the petitioner that he could not join selection process by way of appearing for interview because he was sent out of station in performance of his duties on account of exigency of service. The reason for absence of the petitioner was purely personal and private, not related to his official duties. The selection process has been completed resulting in selection and appointment of respondent no.6 as the Principal.
12. In view of the above, no right of the petitioner has been violated. The petitioner has not been able to show any right to ask for re-opening the selection process to allow the petitioner to compete for the post.
13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2012 GK Sinha