JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri M.A. Qadeer learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10th April, 2003 (Annexures 8 and 15 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioners No. 2 and 3, for appointment on the post of Principal/Senior Lecturer in Government Inter College/District Education and Training Centre. The petitioners have also sought a mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to appoint them on the post of Principal, Government Boys/Girls Intermediate Colleges in accordance with law. 3. At the outset learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that so far as petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned, their candidature has been cancelled by respondent No. 2 rightly and, therefore, he is not pressing this writ petition for them. He has confined his arguments in this writ petition only with respect to petitioner No. 3. 4. The facts in brief, necessary to understand the point in dispute, are that U.P. Public Service Commission (here-in-after referred to as the ‘Commission’) vide its advertisement No. A-1/E-1/1996-97 dated 18.5.1996 notified recruitment for Combined State/Subordinate Services Examination, 1996 which included a number of services as well as post of Principal/Senior Lecturer in Government Intermediate Colleges/District Education and Training Centre. The petitioners applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, qualified in preliminary examination as well as main written examination and finally called for interview. However having failed finally in selection when enquired, they came to know that they have secured more marks than the last candidate selected, but their candidature was rejected on the ground that they lack requisite experience, hence were ineligible. 5. The recruitment is governed by the U.P. Educational (General Education Cadre) Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “1992 Rules”) and Rule 8 thereof prescribes requisite qualifications. Which reads as under : Academic qualification.—A candidate for direct recruitment to the various posts in the service must possess the following qualifications : Post Qualifications 1. District Basic Education Officer 2. Assistant Inspector of Schools. 3. District Non-Formal Education Officer 4. Assistant Deputy Director of Education 5. Personal Assistant to Director of Education (Secondary and Basic). 6. Deputy Text-Books Officer. 7. District Basic Education Officer 2. Assistant Inspector of Schools. 3. District Non-Formal Education Officer 4. Assistant Deputy Director of Education 5. Personal Assistant to Director of Education (Secondary and Basic). 6. Deputy Text-Books Officer. 7. Deputy Secretary and Additional Deputy Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, at Headquarters and Regional Offices. 8. Assistant Deputy Director of Education (Correspondence Course) State Institute of Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. 9. Educational Expansion Officer. 10. Senior Research Professor, State Institute of Education, Allahabad. 11. Officer on Special Duty (Non-Formal Education) Essential A post graduate degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. Preferential L.T. Diploma of the Department of Education, Uttar Pradesh or B.T. or B.Ed. or an equivalent degree of a University. 12. Associate Regional lnspectress of Girls Schools. 13. Principals, Government Intermediate Colleges (For Boys or Girls). 14. Vice-Principal Government Basic Training College, Varanasi. 15. Research Professor, Government Basic Training College, Varanasi. 16. Vice-Principal, Professor, Government Central Pedagogical Institute, Allahabad. 17. Principal, Junior Basic Training Colleges. 18. Vice-Principals and Professor, Government Training College for Women, Allahabad. 19. Principals, Government Regional Training Colleges for Women. Essential : (i) A Post graduate degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. (ii) L.T. Diploma of the Department of Education, Uttar Pradesh, or B.T. or B.Ed. or an equivalent Degree of a University. (iii) At least three years’ experience as Head of a Higher Secondary or Normal School or in teaching Intermediate or Higher classes or as a lecturer in C.T. or L.T. Training College. (i) A Post-graduate degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. (iii) L.T. Diploma of the Department of Education, Uttar Pradesh, Or B.T. or B.Ed. or an equivalent degree of a University. 6. The petitioner No. 3 claimed to have worked as lecturer at Prithvi Pal Singh Intermediate College from July 1992 to June 1996 but the said experience was not treated to be a valid qualification by the Commission. 7. This issue was agitated in a writ petition before this Court and ultimately came to be considered by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 961-962 of 1999, Mohd. 7. This issue was agitated in a writ petition before this Court and ultimately came to be considered by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 961-962 of 1999, Mohd. Altaf and others v. Public Service Commission and another, decided on 20.2.2002 wherein the Apex Court held that in view of the Regulations framed by the State Government, the three years experience in higher classes would be from Classes IX to XII and experience of teaching of those classes is admissible for the purpose of Headmaster of Intermediate Colleges. Consequently, it directed the Commission to examine the cases of all the candidates in the light of the various documents submitted by them and take appropriate decision regarding their eligibility. There appeared to be some confusion and the matter again attracted the attention of the Apex Court in Contempt Petition No. 372 of 2002 (Shamim Khanam v. K.B. Pandey and others, decided on 28.11.2002 when the position was clarified with respect to the candidates who may be considered eligible as under : “1. All candidates who were called for interview and whose names are on the merit list shall be appointed in order of merit if they— (a) possess requisite educational qualification; and (b) have 3 years teaching experience working as a full time teachers and paid regularly monthly salary not less than Rs. 1400/-. 2. Part time teachers would, be excluded from consideration. However, it is made clear that there cannot be a class of exclusion of teachers who are working in self-financed institutions. Any exclusion of a candidate on the basis that he or she is a part time teacher must be made only in individual cases after proper verification. 3. Prima facie the certificate provided by the candidate which is duly certified by the designated authority shall be taken as final unless there are reasons for not doing so. However, before rejecting such certificate, a reasoned order in writing shall be passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the candidate concerned. 4. Appointment however would be made against available posts either in general category or reserved category as the case may be subject to verification of reserved category candidates. 5. Candidates who have already been appointed on the basis of the merit list prepared in 1996-1997, will not be disturbed or displaced.” 8. The Commission thereafter rejected the candidature of the petitioner, hence, this writ petition. 9. 5. Candidates who have already been appointed on the basis of the merit list prepared in 1996-1997, will not be disturbed or displaced.” 8. The Commission thereafter rejected the candidature of the petitioner, hence, this writ petition. 9. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner No. 3 had worked on the post of lecturer in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and this was duly mentioned in the original application also, therefore, the Commission has erred in law in rejecting his candidature on the ground that he was appointed on the post without any salary and at the time of interview also he did not disclose anything about salary. He also sought to place reliance on a letter dated 3rd August, 2002 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh to the Joint Director of Education, IV Region, Allahabad verifying that the petitioner’s attendance has been shown in the aforesaid college from 1.7.1992 to June 1996 and as per salary register he has been paid wages by the management from its own sources. It is submitted that the Commission ought to have considered the aforesaid certificate issued by the District Inspector of Schools. 10. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit annexing a photostat copy of the original application submitted by the petitioner No. 3 before the Commission wherein he has mentioned about his experience as stated above. However, it is pointed out that the aforesaid information was sent for verification to the college concerned and on 13th March, 1997 in the application form at para 6, the institution made verification with the following endorsement : “ABHYARTHI VIGAT TEEN VARSHON SE IS VIDYALAYA MEIN NAGRIK SHASTRA PRAVAKTA PAD PAR AVAITANIK TATHA A-ASTHAI ROOP SE KARYARAT HAI.” 11. The said verification is countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd August, 1997 and the Joint Director of Education has also countersigned the same on 27th August, 1997 with the following remarks : “VIDHIK CHAYAN NAHIN HAI. VETAN RAJKOSH SE NAHIN MILTA HAI.” 12. Sri Qadeer submitted that the petitioner No. 3 did not show any evidence that he was paid salary of Rs. 1400/- or above either by appending any document alongwith the application form or by producing the same at the time of interview. VETAN RAJKOSH SE NAHIN MILTA HAI.” 12. Sri Qadeer submitted that the petitioner No. 3 did not show any evidence that he was paid salary of Rs. 1400/- or above either by appending any document alongwith the application form or by producing the same at the time of interview. On the contrary his claim, when sent for verification to the college concerned, the same was verified with the remark that his appointment was without any pay. Since in view of the direction of the Apex Court the material, as was made available to the Commission, till the date of interview, was to be considered, in view of the aforesaid facts it was evident that the petitioner No. 3 was not qualified hence his candidature has rightly been cancelled. 13. In the rejoinder affidavit, in paragraph 4, it is asserted that petitioner No. 3 was drawing a salary of Rs. 1500/- per month and, therefore, was eligible for the post. 14. The dispute in this writ petition is confined only to the fact whether the candidature of petitioner No. 3 has rightly been cancelled and whether his experience from July 1992 to June 1996 in the aforesaid college can be treated to be a valid qualification making him eligible for appointment. The petitioner has not brought anything on record to show except the averment that in the original application form submitted to the Commission he has mentioned that he was working in the scale of Rs.1400-2650. However, he has also filed a verification report (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools dated 28th August, 2002 said to have been submitted before the Commission wherein the pay scale is mentioned as Rs.1400-2650. A copy of the salary bill filed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition shows salary paid to the petitioner as Rs. 1500/- per month. Admittedly the advertisement was published by the Commission in the year 1996 and after holding preliminary examination and main written test, the interview was held in the year 1997. The petitioner No. 3 was required to place the relevant materials before the Commission till the date of interview showing that he possessed requisite experience and qualification. 1500/- per month. Admittedly the advertisement was published by the Commission in the year 1996 and after holding preliminary examination and main written test, the interview was held in the year 1997. The petitioner No. 3 was required to place the relevant materials before the Commission till the date of interview showing that he possessed requisite experience and qualification. Annexures 12 and 13 to the writ petition which have been sought to be relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner are dated 3rd August, 2002 and 28th August, 2002 which obviously could not have been considered by the Commission as they were obtained by the petitioner much after the date of interview. Before the Commission, admittedly, the only document was the petitioner’s own original application form wherein he has claimed to have worked as lecturer from July 1992 to June 1996 and pay scale is mentioned as 1600-2660. There also at item No. 6, he had mentioned pay scale as 1400-2660, while in the chart at item No. 12, the scale is given as 1600-2660. The aforesaid application form neither mentions specifically that the petitioner was in service in the aforesaid pay scale or the actual amount which he was paid during the period he worked. On the contrary the Commission got the petitioner’s application form verified from the concerned college and the Principal by its endorsement dated 13th March, 1997, though, verified his work but without pay. The said endorsement of the Principal is countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd August, 1997 and also by the Joint Director of Education. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner though worked as lecturer at Prithvi Pal Singh Intermediate College but his engagement was without pay. The Apex Court has clearly held that only those candidates could be considered to possess requisite qualification who have three years teaching experience working as full time teacher and paid regularly monthly salary not less than Rs. 1400/-. The documents, placed by the petitioner No. 3, filed as Annexures 12, 13 and 14 to the writ petition, would not help him having been obtained after several years. Moreover, in the form he has shown his pay scale as Rs. 1600-2660 and 1400-2660 but in the aforesaid document (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) he has claimed to have been paid only Rs. Moreover, in the form he has shown his pay scale as Rs. 1600-2660 and 1400-2660 but in the aforesaid document (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) he has claimed to have been paid only Rs. 1500/- which could not have been a salary in the aforesaid pay scale. We therefore, do not find any error apparent, committed by the Commission, in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner No. 3 on the ground that he did not possess requisite qualification. 15. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ————