2008 (5) TMI 610 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether for appointment to the post of Principal the qualifying experience as stipulated in the said Note would apply or the one prescribed in the Appendix-A to Regulation I of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Act? Held that - Appeal allowed. It cannot be held that fixing of 6th August 1993 as the cutoff date for regularization is arbitrary or whimsical warranting interference by the Court. Moreover the State is not obliged to regularize all ad-hoc appointments merely on the strength of their continuance on the post for a long period particularly when their original appointments were not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged in the relevant rules.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cut-off date for regularizing ad-hoc Principals/teachers.
2. Conformity of candidate eligibility criteria with statutory regulations.
3. Region-wise consideration and declaration of results.
4. Reasonableness of sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 regarding educational qualifications and service record.
5. Arbitrariness of the selection process and allocation of marks.
6. Reservation for backward classes and scheduled castes/tribes in the selection process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cut-off Date for Regularizing Ad-hoc Principals/Teachers:
The appellants challenged the cut-off date of 6th August 1993, fixed by the 1998 amendment for regularizing ad-hoc Principals/teachers, as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the fixing of the cut-off date was not arbitrary or whimsical. It was aligned with the State Government's decision to make regular selections and steps initiated in that behalf. The State is not obliged to regularize all ad-hoc appointments merely based on their long continuance on the post, especially when the original appointments were not made following the due process of selection as envisaged in the relevant rules.

2. Conformity of Candidate Eligibility Criteria with Statutory Regulations:
The Division Bench held that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by prescribing 4 years of teaching experience as a Lecturer for the post of Principal, contrary to the statutory requirement of academic qualifications stipulated in Appendix A of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Intermediate Act. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the 'Note' appended to sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of the 1998 Rules modifies the conditions of qualifying experience mentioned in Appendix A. Therefore, the advertisements were in conformity with the 'Note,' and the selection procedure could not be faulted on that score.

3. Region-wise Consideration and Declaration of Results:
The respondents contended that region-wise selection and declaration of results for the post of Principals violated the procedure prescribed in Section 10 of the Principal Act and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court found no statutory provision forbidding region-wise selection and stated that no restriction was imposed on candidates regarding their choice of regions. It was not demonstrated that region-wise selection placed any candidate at a disadvantage or that merit was compromised.

4. Reasonableness of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 Regarding Educational Qualifications and Service Record:
The respondents argued that sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 was unreasonable and discriminatory as it gave undue importance to educational qualifications and no importance to the service record. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of sub-rule (5), noting that the 'Note' to sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of the 1998 Rules clearly stipulated the relevant experience for the post of Principal, thus modifying the conditions of qualifying experience mentioned in Appendix A of the Regulations under the Intermediate Act.

5. Arbitrariness of the Selection Process and Allocation of Marks:
The respondents challenged the manner of allocation of marks and the selection process as arbitrary. The Supreme Court found that the Board followed the Hindi version of Appendix D, which had no ambiguity, and the discrepancy in the English version was rectified. Therefore, the selection process was not vitiated by any arbitrariness.

6. Reservation for Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes/Tribes in the Selection Process:
The respondents contended that the Principal Act did not provide for any reservation for the post of Head of the Institution for backward class or scheduled caste/tribe candidates, contrary to the 1994 Act. The Supreme Court held that the post of Principal being a single post cadre could not be subjected to reservation as it would amount to 100 percent reservation, which is not permissible. Section 10 of the Principal Act expressly excludes the post of Principal from the purview of the 1994 Act. Therefore, the advertisements were not vitiated for want of provision for reservation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench to the extent it reversed the decision of the Single Judge, and restored the decision of the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The selection process and the advertisements were upheld as valid and in conformity with the relevant statutory provisions.