Allahabad HC Sets Aside Principal’s Appointment In Intermediate Colleges & High Schools Over Inordinate Delay
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the appointments of Principals in the recognized Intermediate Colleges and the High Schools of the State.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that the action of the Board in making the recruitment after nine years is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
“…all the appointments made by the Board in pursuance to the Advertisement No.03 of 2013 are set aside as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”, the Court held.
The Court noted that the entire process of selection is bad as the pool from which the selection are to be made by the Board has got shrunk only on account of inordinate delay in completing the process of appointment.
The Court directed the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board to take steps for recruitment by issuing fresh advertisements with all expeditions strictly in accordance with law.
The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions filed raising various grounds to the appointments made for filling up the posts of Principals in the recognized Intermediate Colleges and the High Schools recognized under the provisions of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The petitioners challenged the recruitment advertisement on various grounds including the ground of inordinate delay in making appointments after issuance of advertisement.
Counsel Sharad Pathak appeared for the petitioners whereas Counsel R.K. Singh Suryvanshi appeared on behalf of the Board
The Court observed that admittedly the advertisement was issued in the year 2013, however the Board did not take any steps which they were required to do and continued to wait for about 9 years for holding the examination.
“The result of the delay caused by the Board without there being any justifiable reason was that the direct recruits for making the selections as prescribed under Rule 12(1) got shrunk because of either the person losing interest or otherwise becoming ineligible and the pool under Rule 12(6) comprising of two senior most teachers also either got shrunk or totally evaporated as the two senior most teachers who were eligible at the time when the Advertisement No.03 of 2013 was issued, either superannuated or had lost interest somehow.”, the Court noted.
The Court also held that “The selections so made have clearly deprived the eligible candidates (two senior most teachers) of their rights under Rule 12(6) of the 1998 Rules and also the candidates who acquired qualifications after 2014 as they are deprived of being considered only on account of delay by the Board.”
“The Board, I have no hesitation in holding, has failed on all the said fronts and thus on all the grounds as noted above, I have no hesitation in holding that the action of the Board in making the recruitment after nine years is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”, the Court held while allowing the petition.
Cause Title- Committee of Management Intermediate College Natauli & Another v. State Of U.P & 2 Others with connected matters