Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3078 (ALL)

MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-09-09

ARUN TANDON

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Vacancy on the post of Principal of Rajarshi Purushottam Das Tandon Inter College, Mahwa, Naini, District Allahabad was caused on 30th June, 1998. The vacancy was requisitioned to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’). The Board advertised the vacancy vide Advertisement No. 1 of 1999-2000. Against the advertisement of the vacancy, the present petitioner Madan Mohan Singh, who was working as officiating Principal in the institution, filed Writ Petition No. 8100 of 2000. The writ petition was dismissed in the year 2001. He filed Special Appeal No. 249 of 2001 before the Division Bench of this Court. In the appeal an order of status quo was granted. While the order of status quo was in operation, petitioner admittedly served with a letter of the Board stating therein that since he was one of the two senior most teacher of the institution, he may appear before the Board on the date fixed for interview with reference to Rule 11(2)(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998. The petitioner is stated to have received the letter after the date of interview. It is not disputed that the process of interview was completed on the date fixed. However, the result of the said selection was not declared. Probably because of pending decision of large number of writ petitions, which were filed before this Court challenging the advertisement itself and the process of selection initiated. A Division Bench of this Court by means of judgment and order dated 16th October, 2003 allowed the special appeal filed by the petitioner along with other connected matters, leading case being Special Appeal No. 159 of 2001. 3. The judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court was subjected to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others, 2008(3) ESC 409 reversed the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court and upheld the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 4. With the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Board notified the select panel qua the institution in question on 24.12.2008. 4. With the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Board notified the select panel qua the institution in question on 24.12.2008. It is against this notification of the select panel and the letter of District Inspector of Schools directing the appointment of selected candidate that this writ petition has been filed. The basic ground of challenge is that petitioner being amongst the two senior most teachers of the institution was not able to participate in the selection because of delay in receipt of the call letter and therefore the entire selection proceedings were hit by Rule 11(2)(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998. Reference has also been made to the letter of the Board dated 30.3.2009 whereunder certain other teachers of other institutions have been afforded opportunity to participate in the process of selection with reference to the same advertisement. Lastly it is pointed out that the vacancy was again advertised in the year 2008 and therefore the earlier selection has lost its efficacy. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, I am of the considered opinion that once the petitioner had challenged the process of selection and during the pendency of the special appeal filed by him, he was served with an interview letter calling upon him to participate in the interview, it was always open to the petitioner to seek amendment in his special appeal and to bring to the knowledge of the Court that the interview which has taken place was in teeth of the provisions of Rule 11(2)(b) and therefore on this additional ground the Court may direct the Board to cancel the selection, in the alternative to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection. Petitioner has not chosen to do so. He now wants to challenge all the proceedings held again on new plea of violation of Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules after nearly eight years of the proceedings so held and that too after the first round of litigation initiated by the petitioner having been brought to an end under order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He now wants to challenge all the proceedings held again on new plea of violation of Rule 11(2)(b) of the Rules after nearly eight years of the proceedings so held and that too after the first round of litigation initiated by the petitioner having been brought to an end under order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has approached this Court again challenging the notification of the select panel only on the ground that although a letter was issued to the petitioner to participate in the interview but he could not do so because the letter was received beyond the date fixed for interview. 6. In the opinion of the Court all such issues should have been raised in the first writ petition itself and in case writ petition was dismissed, at the stage of special appeal which was pending. It is too late in the day to permit the petitioner to challenge the selection held in the year 2001 on the ground that he could not participate in the process of selection because the letter of interview was received by him after expiry of date. No attempt was made to seek a direction upon the Board to permit him to participate in the selection during all this period between 2001 to 2008 and in any view of the matter such issue should have been agitated and impressed upon both in the special appeal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. The selected candidates cannot be permitted to face litigation after litigation on fresh ground every time. If the petitioner himself has not taken appropriate steps for permission to participate in the selection through intervention of the Court (if the call letter was received by him after the expiry of the date of interview), this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not come to the rescue of such a lethargic petitioner. 8. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the notification of the select panel on the ground raised. 9. So far as the advertisement of vacancy in the year 2008 is concerned, this Court may record that since the proceedings in respect of earlier selection were pending before this Court and thereafter Hon’ble Supreme Court, any action taken during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings would abide by principle of lis pendence. 9. So far as the advertisement of vacancy in the year 2008 is concerned, this Court may record that since the proceedings in respect of earlier selection were pending before this Court and thereafter Hon’ble Supreme Court, any action taken during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings would abide by principle of lis pendence. Once the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is delivered in favour of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, the subsequent advertisement looses all its significance. 10. Writ petition is dismissed. 11. The authorities are directed to take appropriate action for appointment of the selected candidates in accordance with law. ————