Special Appeal No. 27 of 2010
Dr. Yashendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of U.P. And another
*****
Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J
Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 11.12.2009
passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67627
of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High
Court Rules.
Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board
issued an advertisement no. 01 of 2008 inviting applications for
recruitment to the post of Principal. Writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter
referred to as ‘petitioner’) offered his candidature inter alia stating that he
was appointed in the year 1987 by the Manager of Raja Rukmand Inter
College, Hardoi, which is a recognized Intermediate Institution and
having teaching experience of more than 10 years, he is eligible to be
considered for appointment as Principal and inaction on part of the Board
to call him for interview is illegal. The aforesaid prayer did not find
favour with the learned Single Judge on his finding that petitioner was
never appointed against a sanctioned post in substantive capacity and
therefore, he is not eligible to be considered for appointment and
accordingly, dismissed the writ application.
Mr. Irshad Ali, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
petitioner was appointed as a part time teacher in terms of Section 7- AA
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in the year 1987 and having
worked for more than 10 years, he is eligible for consideration for
appointment as Principal. He submits that no distinction can be made
between a part time teacher and a teacher appointed on substantive basis
when the eligibility criteria provides for teaching experience as lecturer
for 10 years.
We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Ali. The
petitioner, according to his own showing, was a part time lecturer and
therefore, when the requirement in the advertisement is experience of 10
years as a lecturer, he cannot be held eligible for consideration for
appointment.
We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the
learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for
interference in this appeal.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed
accordingly.
Date: 13.01.2010 RK/ (Pankaj Mithal,J) (C.K. Prasad, CJ)