Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4279 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to have been called for
interview treating him as senior teacher inasmuch as though his name in the
seniority list was at serial No. 5 but since two other teachers were not
qualified for the post of Principal, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been
called for interview under Rule 11(2)(b) of U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “1998
Sri Yadav, however, submits that in view of the law laid down by a Division
Bench of this Court considering pari materia provision contained in U.P.
Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 in Nand Kishore
Prasad Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad
and others, 1990(1) UPLBEC 539 since the petitioner admittedly is not one
amongst the two senior most teachers, he has no right to call for interview.
In my view the submission of Sri Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent
has substance and the petitioner’s counsel could not show any reason pursuing
this Court to take a different view. Since admittedly the petitioner is not
amongst the two senior most teachers either on the date of vacancy or on the
date when the requisition sent to Commission by the management and,
therefore, under Rule 11(2)(b) of 1998 Rules the name of petitioner has
rightly not been sent to the Commission. The writ petition is thoroughly