JUDGMENT A.P. Singh 1. PRESENT writ petition has been filed by Sri Murlidhar Misra senior most Lecturer of Shaheed Madhuban Karama Inter College Khoribari, district Deoria (hereinafter called, 'petitioner' and the 'College' as the 'Institution'). 2. PETITIONER's prayer is that panel prepared by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission for making appointment on the post of Principal of the College under section 16 of V. P. Act no. 5 of 1982 on 28-6-1991 (annexure 7 to (he writ petition) be quashed and directions be issued for holding fresh selection in accordance with law for making appointment on that post until then to also restrain respondents including, Ram Brikshya Maurya, another lecturer of the College whose name occurs at serial no. 1 of the panel and has been impleaded as respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, from interfering with petitioner's functioning as ad-hoc or officiating Principal of the College, Sri Maurya shall hereafter be called as respondent no". 4. In support of the prayers made by the petitioner, in the writ petition, it has been alleged by the petitioner that the select panel dated 28-6-91, hereafter called the impugned panel' deserves to be quashed by this Court for the reasons that respondent no. 4 who has been selected and placed in the panel at serial no. 1 could not legally be selected for the reasons (a) that he lacked and did not, possess the requisite teachers training certificate which under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereafter called the Act) is a condition precedent for appointment as head of institution which is duly recognised and governed by the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and (b) that the requisite service records of the institution relating to administrative and other abilities and experience of the petitioner had not been received by (he Commission on the date of the selection resulting in the improper and inadequate award of marks on those counts to the petitioner in the breach, of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and also of the statutory rules and guidelines framed thereunder. On these two grounds, according to the petitioner, the entire selection leading to the preparation of the impugned panel must be held to be vitiated which must again result into the quashing of the impugned panel. 3. On these two grounds, according to the petitioner, the entire selection leading to the preparation of the impugned panel must be held to be vitiated which must again result into the quashing of the impugned panel. 3. FACTS of the case in brief may be necessary to be stated for resolving the controversy involved in the case. 4. RAMAKANT Misra, permanent Principal of the Institution retired on 30 6-1988 whereupon vacancy arose on the post of Principal in the institution. The management on that post under section 9 of 1982 to the Commission through the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, hereinafter called 'Inspector of Schools'. On Commission's failure to make appointment for filling up the vacancy, appointment on ad-hoc basis under section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was made by promoting one Sri Chandrabhan Shukla on whose retirement on 30-6-89 petitioner was promoted to fill up the vacancy also on ad-hoc basis who, thereafter continued to hold the post accordingly. The Commission advertised the post vide advertisement no. 1 of 1989-90. It held selection on 24-4-1991 In the selection candidates including petitioner, respondent no. 4, and Sri Paras Nath Singh, lecturer of Murli Manohar Town Inter College, Ballia, appeared Names of petitioner and respondent no. 4 were sent before the Commission as candidates for the post under Rule 4 (1) (ii) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules 1983, hereafter-called the Rules Under the said Rules the management is required to send the names of two senior most teachers of the institution in the highest grade where the vacancy which has fallen is on the post of the head of the institution. The management is also required to send the service record, including character rolls and such other record or particulars to the Commission which it may require. Petitioner's case, as not iced above, is that the management did not send the service record of the petitioner resulting in his non- selection on the post of the Principal of the College. In the panel which was prepared by the Commission under Rule 7 of the Rules petitioner's name did not final place in it, respondent no. 2 was placed at serial no. 1 whereas Paras Nath Singh was placed at serial no. 2 in code no. 4 which relates to the institution. In the panel which was prepared by the Commission under Rule 7 of the Rules petitioner's name did not final place in it, respondent no. 2 was placed at serial no. 1 whereas Paras Nath Singh was placed at serial no. 2 in code no. 4 which relates to the institution. Petitioner's case that his service record was not sent to the Commission is based on the letters of the Inspector of Schools dated 15-3-89 and 19-4-89 respectively filed as annexures 2' and 3' to the writ petition Petitioner has also filed letter of the Inspector of Schools dated 3-5-91 which was received in the office of the Commission on 6-5-91, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition, where from he has tried to establish that on 24-4- 1991 when the Commission held the interview for the selection on the post of Principal of the institution the service record of the petitioner was not before the Commission for perusal as the same was received in the office of the Commission on a date subsequent to the date of the selection, which according to the petitioner, resulted in illegal selection of respondent no 4 inasmuch as the requisite marks which were to be awarded to the petitioner for his administrative experience, teaching experience and for other considerations based on service record could not be awarded to him causing his non-selection. The allegations of petitioner made in this respect in paras 12, 13 and 17 of the writ petition have been denied by the Commission on whose behalf it has been stated that all the relevant papers, regarding the service record, character roll and other documents as required were available before the Commission at the time of the selection which were received by the Commission vide Inspector of School's letter dated 30 3-91 and Commission awarded marks to the petitioner as well as to respondent no. 4 on the basis of those records. Inspector of Schools through whom these records are sent to the Commission by the Manager of the Institution has in his counter affidavit maintained complete silence and no reply, either accepting or denying these allegations, has been given by him. 4 on the basis of those records. Inspector of Schools through whom these records are sent to the Commission by the Manager of the Institution has in his counter affidavit maintained complete silence and no reply, either accepting or denying these allegations, has been given by him. The Manager of the institution Sri P. N. Rai, who has also filed his counter affidavit, has denied that these records were not received in the office of the .Commission; however, in reply to para 17 of the writ petition he has admitted 'that the service record was not available in the Commission on the date and time of the interview where he happened to be personally present., He with the help of the dealing clerk of the Commission made every effort to trace it out but the record could not be found out as it had been misplaced in the Commission office where for the Inspector of Schools was requested by the Commission to send duplicate thereof which obviously was received after the interview and selection for appointment on the post of Principal off the Institution was over. Respondent no. 2 who is an interested party has, however, reiterated the stand taken on behalf of the Commission and has denied the allegations made in this respect by the petitioner. 5. IN the Commission's reply both in the main counter affidavit and in the supplementary counter affidavit it has not been stated as to on what date the papers relating to the service record of petitioner and respondent no. 4 were received by the Commission, it has only been stated that these papers were received by the Commission vide Inspector of Schools letter dated 30-3-1990. It has further been stated tin paras 9 and 10 of the Commission's counter affidavit that there is no provision for awarding marks separately to the senior teachers (whose names are sent under Rule 5 (1) (ii) of the Rules) for administrative experience or for other educational qualifications and marks to them are awarded only for their teaching experience ; for first ten years of very good teaching service 10 marks are awarded whereas for the next, ten years of similar teaching service 20 marks are awarded: Thus total of 30 marks are awarded for 20 years of very good teaching service. However, in the same breath in the later part of para 10 it has been stated by the Commission that marks for administrative ability are awarded to the senior teachers at the time of the interview as administrative ability is one of the consideration for selection for appointment on the post of principal. The stand of the Commission in it's counter affidavit in this regard appears to be self contradictory. On the one hand, it has been stated that no separate marks are awarded to senior teachers for their administrative abilities and they are given marks only for their teaching experience however realising that the truth was to Hie contrary the stand at the second breath has been changed and it has been stated that marks for administrative ability is given to such teachers during the course of their interview ; the suggestion there from' to my mind appears to be that even if the service records of senior teachers, which under the Rules are required to be available before the Commission, is not available at the time of the interview of the senior teachers for selection for the purpose of making appointment on the post of head of the institution of the concerned institution, the same will make no difference in the ultimate selection proceedings as the Commission still can award marks to them for administrative ability by personally interviewing the teachers concerned. If that is the stand I am afraid it cannot be accepted. Marks which are to be awarded for teaching experience as well as for administrative experience to senior teachers at the time of the selection for appointment on the post of Principal have to be in consonance and on the basis of the service record of the teachers concerned. IN its absence the Commission will not at all be in a position to ascertain as to how many marks should, be awarded to a candidate for teaching experience and how many marks should be given to him for his administrative ability as the award of the marks will depend on the quality of the teaching service and administration which can be ascertained only from the service record and the character roll of the teacher concerned. Even if requisite information regarding length of teaching service and administrative experience comes to the knowledge of the persons holding the interview, either from enquiry from the concerned teacher in the process of the interview or by other means that alone will not be sufficient to enable the Commission to award the requisite marks on those counts inasmuch as marks on both these counts are to be given not only keeping in view the length of service as teacher but it has also to be awarded on the basis of the quality of the service as the Rules provide that marks have to be awarded for very good teaching service and obviously for very good administrative work, whether the teaching service was good, very good, excellent of average or below average can only be known from the perusal of the service record and sot otherwise. Similar will be the position regarding the administrative experience. Thus, in my opinion, the Commission will not at all be in a position to lawfully award marks on these two counts to the senior teachers only on the basis of the viva Voce interview of the teacher concerned unless it is also possessed of their service record from which alone it will be in a position to ascertain about the correctness of the claim of the teacher concerned which will also enable the Commission to award correct marks to that teacher. Therefore, if the service record of the petitioner was not available to the Commission at the time of his interview, which was held on 28-6-91, award of marks to the petitioner on these two counts will automatically be vitiated. 6. A perusal of the version of the petitioner in the writ petition as well as of the Commission and of the Inspector of Schools and the Manager of the Institution, all of whom have been referred to above, do certainly indicate that the service record of the petitioner no doubt was sent by the Manager of the Institution to the Commission through the Inspector of Schools was certainly not available before the Commission on the date and time of the interview. Petitioner's version in this respect finds full corroboration from the version given by the Manager of the Institution which at its turn also gets corroboration from the letter of the Inspector of Schools dated 3-5-91 which was received in the Commission on 4-5-91 where from it is proved that the service record of the petitioner was received in the Commission on 6-5-91 which obviously was after the interview for selection on the post was over. Silence of the Inspector of Schools in this respect also gives credence to the version of the petitioner to the effect that his service records which under the Rules is repaired to be available before the Commission at the time of the interview under Rule 7 of the Rules, was not available and the marks were awarded to him on random basis rendering the selection proceedings wholly illegal. For finding out the manner in which the marks were awarded by the Commission to the petitioner and to respondent no 4. and to ascertain as to whether the marks to the petitioner and respondent no' 4 were awarded strictly in accordance with law, I summoned the requisite papers from the Commission relating to the petitioner and respondent no. 4. A perusal of the interview sheet on which the marks were awarded showed that the Commission had awarded marks both -to petitioner and to respondent no. 4 separately for their educational qualification and thereafter for other considerations including teaching experience. From the interview sheet it was not clear as to whether marks were awarded to the petitioner for his administrative ability. Although petitioner's length of service was more than that of respondent no. 4 still he was awarded lesser marks than the marks scored by respondent no. 4 regarding his teaching and other experiences. Petitioner had administrative experience of working as ad-hoc Principal of the College whereas no such experience had been attained by respondent no. 4; still how more marks were awarded to respondent. no. 4 as compared to the interview marks of the petitioner was not clear from the interview sheet obviously in the absence of separate award of marks to different heads. 4; still how more marks were awarded to respondent. no. 4 as compared to the interview marks of the petitioner was not clear from the interview sheet obviously in the absence of separate award of marks to different heads. The Secretary of the Commission who was personally present before me, told that it is the practice of the Commission to award aggregate marks firstly for educational qualification and thereafter for other considerations including teaching experience, administrative ability, personality test and other aspects. Whether there has been past practice in this respect and whether this practice is healthy is not necessary to be commented upon but when there is allegation in the writ petition that the Commission did not have the records of service including character roll, as such, it was not in a position to award requisite marks to the petitioner for his teaching; experience and administrative ability, in such a situation it becomes necessary to examine as to whether the allegation of the petitioner in this respect is correct or not. Except for the bare denial from the side of the Commission there is nothing to suggest that the service record and other connected papers of (the petitioner were available before the Commission at the date and time of the interview, over all circumstances, noticed above, however do suggest that the service record and other relevant documents, which under Rules are required to be available to the Commission at the time of interview, were actually not available before the Commission for making lawful selection for appointment on the post of the head of the Institution by awarding marks in accordance with Rules and the guidelines of the Commission, when the guidelines which were produced before me require consideration of various aspects of a candidate's capabilities at the time of his interview it becomes,, to my mind, all the more necessary for the Commission to award separate marks for each of the count which is required to be judged for his appointment on the post of the head of the institution. Award of aggregate marks on all these counts will leave a room for the unsuccessful candidate to make allegation that he was denied marks on a particular count as it will not be possible for the reviewing authority, including this Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to judge the correctness, of the allegation if made by the unsuccessful candidate in this regard. Award of separate marks on each of the heads (counts) would also rule out favouritism and nepotism by the Commission in the selection of the candidate as the award of marks will be self explanatory of the ability of the concerned candidate as judged by the selecting body. I am not satisfied with the stand of the Commission that petitioner and respondent no. 4 were awarded marks strictly in accordance with the Rales both on the counts of their administrative ability and teaching experience. To my mind, the circumstances including the allegations made in the writ petition and the facts stated in reply thereto in the counter affidavit, referred to above' and perusal of the interview sheet do make out a case in favour of the petitioner from which it does appear that award to marks by the Commission in the interview to the petitioner was not in accordance with Rules, which obviously vitiates the selection proceedings. 7. THE second contention made on behalf of the petitioner was that respondent no. 4 did not possess the requisite qualification, as such, his selection for appointment on the post of Principal was illegal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no. 4 did not possess the Teaching Training Certificate which was a prerequisite qualification which a person must hold for appointment on the post of head of the institution. THE contention of the learned counsel, however, on perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations appears to be devoid of substance. Subsection (3) of Section 16-E of the Act prohibits appointment of a person as head of the institution or as teacher in an institution unless he possesses minimum qualification prescribed by the Regulations. THE proviso to sub-section (3), however, empowers the Board of High School and Intermediate Education the; power to grant exemption in relation to his educational qualification having regard to his education experience and other attainments. THE proviso to sub-section (3), however, empowers the Board of High School and Intermediate Education the; power to grant exemption in relation to his educational qualification having regard to his education experience and other attainments. Regulation I of Chapter 11 of the Regulations provides that minimum qualification for appointment as head of the institution and teachers in any recognised institution either by direct recruitment or otherwise shall be as given in Appendix A. Appendix A to the Regulations lay down the qualifications which are necessary for making appointment on the post of the head of the institution as well as on other posts of teachers and assistant teachers. Item no. I of Appendix a provides for the minimum educational qualifications for appointment on the post of the institution. Before 8th December, 1976 the qualifications provided were as follows:- 1. Principal of a Higher Secondary (1) Trained MA or M.Sc. or School or Intermediate College M. Com. or M.Sc. (Agri.), (2) B.A. or B.Sc. or B. Com, with M.Ed., or B. Ed. Sc. (Lucknow). with an experience of teaching for at least four years in training institution recognised by the Department or in Higher classes of a recognised Higher Secondary School, or in both combined or having at least four years experience as a trained Graduate Head Master of a Junior High School recognised by the Department, provided also that hes/he is not below 30 years in age. Note:-Exemption may be granted from training qualification to Asstt. Masters holding at least a second class Master's degree and possessing 10 years distinguished experience of teaching Intermediate classes in a recognised Institution." THE Appendix was, however, subsequently amended on 9th December, 1976 and the amended qualifications reads as follows : "(I) Head of Institution : (1) Trained MA. or M.Sc. or M. Com or M.Sc. Masters holding at least a second class Master's degree and possessing 10 years distinguished experience of teaching Intermediate classes in a recognised Institution." THE Appendix was, however, subsequently amended on 9th December, 1976 and the amended qualifications reads as follows : "(I) Head of Institution : (1) Trained MA. or M.Sc. or M. Com or M.Sc. (Agri) or any post, graduate or other Degree equivalent thereto awarded by a body referred to in first paragraph above with an experience of teaching for at least 4 years in a training institution recognised by the Department or in a University or institution or a Degree College affiliated to such University or institution referred to in 1st paragraph above OR in classes IX to XII of an Institution recognised by the Board OR affiliated to the Boards of other states OR of similar institution whose examinations are recognised by the Board OR of having at least 4 years experience as a trained graduate Head Master of a Junior High School recognised by the Department provided also that he/she is not below 30 years in age. Or (2) Second Glass Master's Degree with 10 years experience with distinction of teaching Intermediate classes in a recognised institution. Or (3) Trained Post-graduate Diploma holder in Science provided he passed this Diploma course in the First or Second Division and has put in meritorious service of 15 or 20 years respectively after passing such Diploma Course in a recognised institution." 8. THUS after 1976 amendment, the alternate qualifications were provided As per clause (2) a person could be appointed as head of the institution even if he was not possessed of the Teachers Training Certificate but was possessed of IInd class Post Graduate Degree from a recognised institution or some other Degree equivalent thereto with 10 years teaching experience with distinction of teaching intermediate classes in a recognised educational institution. Clause (3) gives a third alternative to the effect that a person could be appointed on the posit of head of the institution even if he was not possessed of either Teachers Training Certificate or a Post-Graduate Degree but was possessed of Post Graduate Diploma in Science in first or Second division from a recognised institution and after passing the Post- Graduate Diploma in first or second division he had 15 years meritorious service in case of first division and 20 years of meritorious service in case of second division. From the insertion) of clauses (2) and (3) a candidate could be appointed on the post of head of the institution even if he did not possess trained post-graduate Degree as was originally required before 9-12-1976. On 24-3-1979 another amendment was made in Appendix A. Clause (2) of Item no. I was again substituted and the substituted clause reads as follows : "(2) First or Second class Master's Degree with 10 years experience or third class Master's Degree with 15 years experience of teaching Intermediate Classes in a recognised Institution." Thus from the amendment of Appendix A of the Regulations made in 1979, it is apparent that respondent no. 4 who was possessed of post- Graduate Degree in third division with 20 years of teaching experience was fully qualified for appointment on the post of the head of the institution. It, therefore, cannot at all be said that respondent no. 4 was not qualified for appointment on the post of head of the Institution. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect is not substantiated by the facts and the provisions noticed above and is, therefore, rejected as totally misconceived. 9. HOWEVER, in view of my findings on point no 1 to the effect that the Commission had not made selection strictly in accordance with law and the selection proceedings were vitiated due to the non-availability of the service record of the petitioner, as such, the impugned panel prepared by the Commission for appointment on the Post of the head of the institution (of the College) which is under challenge in this writ petition, deserves to be quashed. 10. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The panel prepared by the Commission in the selection held by it on 26-8-91 insofar as it relates to the college is quashed. 10. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The panel prepared by the Commission in the selection held by it on 26-8-91 insofar as it relates to the college is quashed. Respondents, including respondent no. 4, are restrained from interfering with the working of the petitioner as ad-hoc principal of the College. The Commission, is, however, directed to hold fresh selection in accordance with law and in the selection, it is directed to award separate marks for each of the counts (heads) for which marks are to be awarded as per the guidelines issued for the purpose by it. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.