JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Committee of Management, Vedic Putri Pathshala Inter College, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar has filed this petition for quashing of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar dated 1.11.2011 as also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to not to interfere with the selections held for the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Section attached to the said Intermediate College. 2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: After detailed correspondence initiated as early as in the year 2004 and subsequent to filing of Writ Petition No. 42629 of 2009, and Contempt Petition No. 1589 of 2010, the Secretary of the Secondary Education Department, State of U.P. permitted the petitioner institution to fill only one of the vacancies existing in the primary section of the institution. Since permission was granted to fill in only one vacancy within the reserved category, second Writ Petition No. 10449 of 2010 was filed by the Committee of Management, which was decided on 12.3.2010. For non-compliance of the order dated 12.3.2010, second Contempt Petition No. 2498 of 2010 was filed. 3. The State, being aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court dated 12.3.2010, filed Special Appeal No. 132 of 2011. The Secretary ultimately issued an order requiring the Director, Secondary Education to grant permission to the petitioner institution to fill in all the four vacancies of Assistant Teachers. Permission was granted by the authorities and advertisement was published in newspaper Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran and another local newspaper of Muzaffarnagar. 4. The vacancies could not be filled for various reasons in terms of the earlier advertisement and therefore fresh advertisement was published in daily newspaper Amar Ujala on 21.10.2011. As many as 244 applications are stated to have been received in response to the advertisement. Date for interview was fixed and communicated to the candidates by letters sent through speed post. At this stage of the proceedings, the District Magistrate, who has nothing to do with a recognized Intermediate College, intervened and by means of the letter of the Additional District Magistrate the District Inspector of Schools was required to produce the entire records of the selections before the District Magistrate and further to inquire into the complaints received. The District Inspector of Schools in response thereto directed that further proceedings of selections shall remain stayed. The District Inspector of Schools in response thereto directed that further proceedings of selections shall remain stayed. As a consequence thereto the interview fixed for 1.11.2011 could not take place. At this stage the petitioners have approached this Court by means of this petition. 5. While entertaining the present writ petition, this Court required the District Inspector of Schools to inform the reasons as to why process of selection has been interfered with and what has been the outcome of the enquiry. 6. An affidavit has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools. It is stated that since complaints were received in the office of the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate in turn required that the complaints be enquired, the District Inspector of Schools had no other option but to postpone the interview/selections. It has further been stated in the affidavit that letters were sent to the alleged complainants to appear and to substantiate their allegations. The letters sent by post returned with the remark that no such person resides at the address disclosed. It is then stated that since nobody has come forward to substantiate the complaints, permission has now been granted to re-initiate the process of selection with a condition that the candidates to be appointed must have passed the teachers eligibility test (TET). 7. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed and it is stated that the process of selection was initiated in the year 2011 and therefore the rules as were applicable on the date of advertisement alone have to be applied. It is further stated that for uncalled for reasons and on fictitious complaints the District Magistrate and the District Inspector of Schools have interfere in the process of selection, resulting in uncalled for litigation being generated and uncalled for harassment of the petitioner. Therefore, he should be suitably compensated for the same. 8. Standing Counsel in counter-affidavit submits that it was on the complaints that the District Magistrate had interfered and had required for an enquiry being conducted. The action of the District Magistrate and the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, cannot be said to arbitrary. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 10. The action of the District Magistrate and the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, cannot be said to arbitrary. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 10. From the records it is apparently clear that it took two writ petitions, two contempt petitions and correspondence running over seven years for the Committee of Management to be granted permission to initiate the process of selection for appointment against sanctioned post of primary teachers lying vacant in the institution. 11. This Court at the very outset may record that such approach of the education authorities hampers the education of the institutions, which are receiving grant-in-aid and therefore cannot be approved of. Prompt action on application made for permission to fill in the existing vacancies against sanctioned post must be taken in accordance with law and there should be no occasion for any Committee of Management to approach this Court complaining that the State authorities are not responding to the request made. 12. From the facts as brought on record, it is now clear that the complaints, which have been made basis by the district administration to interfere with the process of selection, are all fictitious. No such complainant resides at the address disclosed in the complaint. The complaints have, therefore, to be held to be motivated. The least accepted from the district administration and the District Inspector of Schools at least was to hold a preliminary enquiry, before initiating any action, on such complaints, resulting in interference in the mids of the process of selection. The authorities are not required to act mechanically, namely as soon as the complaints received to interfere with the process of selection which has already been initiated. Such action of the authorities results in waste of money, public time and uncalled litigation and harassment of the management as well as applicants concerned. 13. It is admitted to the State authorities that the complaints have been found to be fictitious and no person have come forward to substantiate the same. 14. This Court is of the opinion that the District Magistrate or his subordinate officers have no role to play under the Intermediate Education Act in the process of selection to be held. If any complaint is received by them, they can at best transmit the complaints to the District Inspector of Schools for suitable action. 14. This Court is of the opinion that the District Magistrate or his subordinate officers have no role to play under the Intermediate Education Act in the process of selection to be held. If any complaint is received by them, they can at best transmit the complaints to the District Inspector of Schools for suitable action. They cannot insist upon the District Inspector of Schools to produce the records before the District Magistrate. No orders can be passed by the District Magistrate causing interference in the process of selection. 15. This Court holds that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1st November, 2011 is patently illegal and without any justification, being based on fictitious complaints. The order has resulted in the process of selection being postponed and the Committee of Management being required to publish fresh advertisement notifying the date of interview or forwarding the letters to the applicants by speed post intimating the new date. 16. This Court may clarify that the essential qualifications to be possessed by the prospective applicant, for being considered for the post concerned, have necessarily to be determined in accordance with the statutory rules as were applicable on the date mentioned in advertisement and if no date is mentioned then the last date for making of the application. The process of selection starts with the advertisement and ends with the issuance of appointment letter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that any amendment made in the rules laying down the qualification during the mids of the selection process will not be applicable. Reference- Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapana and others, 2005(2) ESC 247. 17. The issue, as to whether the candidates who have their credit T.E.T. Certificate alone are eligible or not, is left to be adjudicated by the District Inspector of Schools after the selection process is completed and before approval is granted in light of what has been observed above. 18. In the totality of the circumstances as noticed above, the order dated 1.11.2011 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to special cost, for the uncalled for harassment, which is quantified at Rs. 20,000/-. The cost may be paid by respondent No. 1, with liberty to recover the same from the District Inspector of Schools, within one month from today. 19. Writ petition is allowed. ——————