1: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri R.K.S. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2: By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner-Committee of Management has approached to this Court for quashing of the select panel dated 27.1.2021 insofar as it relates to the respondent No.5 with the further direction that the respondents may be directed not to compel the petitioner-Committee of Management for joining of the respondent No.5 on the post of Lecturer in English in Shri Gopal Inter College Pandari, District Amethi.
3: Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post on which the recommendation has been made by the Board comes under 50% promotion quota, as has been fixed under Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules. He submits that by mistake, the Committee of Management has sent the requisition to the District Inspector of Schools for its transmission to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board for making regular selection on the post of Lecturer. On coming to know the mistake committed, an application was moved to the District Inspector of Schools, who upon verifying the correctness, requested to the Selection Board not to send the candidate selected against the institution of the petitioner.
4: On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submit that the question in regard to the controversy to fill up the vacancy that whether it comes under 50% promotion quota and in regard to the appointment of a candidate belonging to Dying in Harness category came for consideration before this Court and the matter was referred to the Full Bench in the case of Satish Kumar which was considered and this Court decided that the controversy in this regard shall be taken into consideration prior to issuance of advertisement and not beyond that.
5: They submit that the claim setup in the writ petition is only to stop the selected candidate not to join in the institution. They further submit that only to help a teacher who is working in the institution for future prospect for consideration of his/ her claim for the grant of promotion, such activities are being done by the Committee of Management.
6: I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7: To resolve the controversy, the provision contained under Rule 10 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 is being quoted below :-
"10. Source of recruitment. - Teachers will be recruited in different categories through following sources -
(a) Principal of an Intermediate College or Headmaster of a High School -
(i) By direct recruitment -
(b) Teachers of lecturers grade -
(i) 50 per cent by direct recruitment;
(ii) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst substantively appointed teachers of the trained graduate grade.
(c) Teachers of Trained Graduate category by direct recruitment -
Provided that such intermediate colleges and high schools where attached primary teachers are receiving salary under provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971, 75 per cent of the posts will be filled by direct recruitment and the rest of the 25 per cent of the posts will be filled through promotion of those trained graduate teachers of attached primary section who have completed satisfactory services of five years:
Provided further that where there is no eligible candidate available for recruitment through promotion in any recruitment year, the posts may be filled through direct recruitment:
Provided also that while calculating the percentage of different posts under the same recruitment, if a fraction occurs, the fraction of direct recruitment will be excluded and the fraction of posts to be filled through promotion will be increased by one to create one post.
(d) Teachers of attached primary section cent per cent by direct recruitment."
8: On perusal of Rule 10, it is evident that first of all, it is the duty of the Committee of Management to determine that whether the vacancy belongs to 50% promotion quota or 50% direct recruitment. Thereafter, Rule 11 prescribes to send requisition to the competent authority if vacancy comes under direct quota for making selection by way of direct recruitment and in case vacancy comes under 50% promotion quota then under Rule 14, all eligible teachers working in the lower grade in the institution shall be recommended to the regional level selection committee constituted under Section 12 of the Act No.5 of 1982 Rules for consideration of their claim for the grant of promotion. Here in the present case, the Committee of Management who was working at the relevant point of time has requisitioned the vacancy for making selection by way of direct recruitment to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad, meaning thereby, at the relevant point of time, there was no claim setup by any of the teachers working in lower grade in the institution for the grant of promotion under 50% promotion quota. In case upon coming of vacancy after retirement, resignation or death, any teacher working in the institution is eligible, he/ she must have claimed appointment under 50% promotion quota.
9: Now, after the recommendation, the Committee of Management has come forward to quash the panel of the selection board, whereby the respondent No.5 has been recommended for the appointment against the institution of the petitioner.
10: The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Kumar Katiyar vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 UPLBEC 971, after consideration of all the aspects of the matter, has decided the issue in this regard. In view of the above, the grievance setup in this petition by the petitioner-Committee of Management cannot be granted. The selection of the respondent No.5 on behalf of the Committee of Management cannot be held to be made against the post reserved under 50% promotion quota. It is on the basis of the requisition sent by the Committee of Management itself to make appointment by way of direct recruitment, therefore, the recommendation of respondent No.5 in the institution of the petitioner cannot be held to be against the post of promotion quota.
11: Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
12: The District Inspector of Schools, Amethi is directed to make all endeavours to ensure appointment of the respondent No.5 in the institution of the petitioner on availability of panel from the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board forthwith.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Gautam