W.P.NO v. CHHATTISGARH PUBLIC

By way of these writ pctitions filed undcr Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are either unsucccssfal caadidates or have not been called in interview arranged for selection to fhe posts of Deputy Director, School Education; Principal (DIET^ and Professor (Shiksha Maha Vidyalay Sainvai^ have chaUengcd fhe legality and vaUdily of selectipn of successful candidates to the said posts.

The brief facts are that the ChItattisgaA PubUc Service Coininission issucd au advertiseiaent No.05/2003/ Chayan/ dated 04.7.2003 published in Euiployment News 'Rojgar Niyojana' dated

09.7.2003 iawiting appUcattons for direct recruitmcnt to the aforesaid 3 categories of posts. There were six posts advertfsed for Depuly Director, two posts for Principal (DIET) and two posts for Professor (Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Samvar^. Out of sfac posts of Deputy Director, 3 posts were shown to be in general categoiy aad one post was reserved for schcduled caste, one for scheduled tnbe aud one was reserved for OBC categoiy. Ainoi^ the 3 posts of general categoiy, oae post was shown to bc reservcd for wom.cn category. In Principal (DIET), one postwas kept ia general categoiy aad one was kept in schfidiLled tribe category. Likc wisc in Professor (SMksha Mahavidyalaya Sanavarg) one post was kcpt m gencral categoiy and one was kept rescrved ia scbeduled tribe categoiy. For eUgibiUty, taaay other condttions pertaming to fhe educational quaUfications and experience wcre also published alongwifh the criteria of age Umlts etc. Apart fix>m fhe abovc, fhe Commission also pubUshed auefhod of selection/recnutiaent vidc Column 11 of fhc aforesaid advertisement and it was tnentionied (hierem fhat if the nuniber of appBcation forms reccived by fhc Commissfa>n would be relativety tess and ia fhe opmipn of CoBnxnission a written cxainination would not be necessary, fhai thc posts may be fiUed in oafy on the basis of iaterview coiiducted by thc Comxnission. However, if fhc ntuubcr of appllcatinn fonas woirid be more fhaa fhe ratfo of fhe posts advertiscd and it wOuM not be practicable for the Commission to interview each of fhe candklates then fhe Cominission vaay saxsaafe Sca fhe written cxamination to reduce fhe auniber of candidates to be caBed for intemcw m the ratio of 1:

Thcreafter, a Cortigcndtun/Addendiun dated 17.5.2004 was 3. published ia "Rojgar Nyojan" dated 19.5.2004 indicatmg that oa the basis of Mcmo No.F-1-204/2003/20, dated 27.4.2004 of fhe concemcd department one unrescrved post of Depuly Director, was wtfhdrawa/reduced aiid it was pubUshed fhat now fhe selection wouM taken place for 5 posts of Depuly Directors aaaking particular statement that two posts shall be reservcd for gaaeral category, one for S.C., onc for S.T., and <nie for O.B.Ci.

After recdving fhe application fonns, Qie Publie Semcc Comnussion vide its mcetixig dated 08.10.2004 decided to hoU fhe iatemews oaty to setect fhe candMates for recomiBcndatfon. According to fhe retura of fhe PubMc Servicc Commission, the decision to hold intca-view oiity, was taken after finding fhat number of appUcatfons are less fhan 500. AU the eMgible candidates were sent iatervicw cards and fhe iaterviews were held bv fhe Commissioa fi»m 03.01,2005 to 68.01.2005. After /^jft^v.' coinplctton ofthe proccss ofiaterview, the rcsults were declared on

17.1.2005 and the recomiaeadations according to the said results were scnt to fhe State Govemment It is at this stage, iinsuccessful candidates, who oflfered for the various posts, have chaUea^d fh.e result aad setection of the PubUc Seryice Cominission dated 17.1.2005 io. various writ petitions.

The petitioner of W.P.No.433/2005 namety Deepak Dubcy was a candidate for fhe post of Deputy Director as weU as Principal (DIET). One post of Dcputy Dtrector in fhe general category, which was wifhdrawii, was fiUed up by fhe Qovemm.cnt wifhout taMag recourse of fhe PubUc Service Commission and one Dr. Hare Ram Shanna (respondeut no.3 ia this petition), who was working on fhe post of Distdct Educatmn OfBcer, was appointed to fhc Post The petitioner chaUertges hls appoiatinent on fhe ground that his ducct recruitment to fhe post of Deputy Director after withdrawing one post durii^ the process of selection is unfair and is furthcr agamst the provisions of Rule 6 of the ISJP^C.O) Bductttlon Seroiee (School BraneSi) RecruStment & PronwVton itutes 1982 (hcremafter referrcd to as "the Rules 198:y}. His contentmn is that fhe process adopted ia case ofrespoadent no.3 is unknown to law, bypassiag the provistons of Rulc 6.

Thje petidoners in W.P.No^l2/2005 axe fhc 7 unsuccessful candidates who had appcared in fhe mtemew for respective posts. They are mainty chaUengtng fhe mefhod of sclecticni adopted by the PubUc Scmce Coinmission by taking iaterview onty. Thcir contention is that as per Column No.ll of the AdverUsemeat, in the facts and citcumstaaces of fhis case, fhe PubUc Servicc Coinmission was undcr obUgation to conduct a written test and fhereafter an mtcrview asd fhea to count fhe marks obtemed by a ^._. -.—..—•—•-—— o candidate in bofh. They also contam that thc less meritorious candidates have bcen selected. They have cbaBeagcd fhe sclection of Sint-R.Bambra (icspondent no.3 hereit^ on the grouiid that she was not having reqiusite adnuiustratwe experience. They have atoo chaBcnged the sclection of Sadhana Agrawal (respondcat no.4) showii^ that she was also not having Tequisite experience and also chaUeaged fhe Selcction of Hemant Upadhyaya (respondent no.5 herein) aUeging fhat he too was lagging in qualificatton of expericncc. Selcction of Gand Rana Chandrakar (respondent No.6) has been chaBcr^ed on fhe ground that his caste certisBcate of fhe State of Chhattisgarh was not produced. The selection of respondeat ao.7 Ghanshyaia Netani has been clialleaiged aBeging that he does not possess the basic experience as xcquired.

W.P.No.599/2005 has been fited by 4 unsucccssful caadidates who had also pardcipated in the intenriew. Thjey have also chaBenged fhe sdectioa of Dr. Hareram Sharma (respoiident no.3 hercia) on accountofviolation of Rute 6 offhe aforesaid Rutes of 1982. They have furfher chaBenged the selection of Sm.t R.Bambra (respondent ao.4) on (he same grounds as have been taken in W.P.No.433/2005. Apart fiom fhis, fhcy have ateo

chaUenged the setectton of Shri G.R. Chandxakar (respoiident no.5) who has been setected in O.'B.C. eategoiy for fhe post <rf fhe Dcpuly Director aUeguig it to be conteary to fhe Rutes sta accMding to the petittonera, the respoiident no.5 does not fulfiU fhe el^Sbility criteria of admuustrative e3q)ericace as required under the rutes aud the advertisetaenfc •^ '. \ •'» . \i

W.P.No.524/2005 has bccn ffled by onc Shn Ram Niwas Singh who was a candidate for fhe post of Dcputy Director, in gpneral categoiy. Hc appeared in the intemew and ultiinately, when the results were dcclared, his naine was shown to be at second position in the general list, but hc was to be in supplemcntary Ust at scrial no.l for fhe reason that out of six posts adverttsed, his selection was inadc onty against five posts as onc post was wrongty withdranvn by fhe Govenuncnt aad was fiUed in by direcffy absorbiag Dr. Hareram. Sharma. The contentk>n of ffae petltioner is that if three posts would have bcen fhere iu fhe gencral categoty thcn even after leaviug one post for women reservation, two posts wouM have been fherc for the male general candidates and fhe petitioner being at Serial No.2 in the inerit Vst would have been sclccted. In fact, selection ofrespondent no.5 has been chaUe^ed beit^ violativc of rute 6 of the aforesaid Rules of 1982 and it te. contended that if the selection of respondcnt no.5 is set aside, fhe petitioner wiU autoinaticaBy stand sekcted being at serial ao.2 in. the select list of gcneral male categoiy. This petitfoner has not chaUenged fhe process of selection etc.

W.P.No.718/2005 has been filed by one Smt Sumta Sao, who was a woman candidate for the post of Depuly Director and has appeared ia fhe iaterview. Whilc chaBengu^ fhe selection of SinfcR. Bambra (respondent no.2 herem) on ground of lack of administeatwc experience, this petitioner has also taken an additional grouxid that she being more quaUfled thau Smt R. Bstsdbrst, was not selected by the PubUc Service Commission and her name finds place at Serial No.l in thc wait Mst ia gencral woinen categoiy. She prays for quashing ofthe entire selection.

W.P.No.598/20(B and W.P.No. 287/2005 have been fited by fhe pctittoners who had partkapated in ibe mtervicw for the selection. to thc post of frincipal (DIET). They Iiave cbaBcnged fhe sekction of Sadhaaa Agrawal who has been dcclared sclected and Iiave also chaUen^jed the sdection of Heinant Upadhyaya and F'rabodh Adlukari whose names havc been placed at Serial No. 1 and 2 in the suppteinentaiy list (wait Ust) prepared jfor fhe post of Priucipal (DIET) in gencral category. Thcy have taken the ground fhat these persons do not fiilfiU the requisite quaUficatfon of cxpencnce reqiiired for tliis posfc

W.P.No.4192/2005 has been fited by one Nirmal Kumar Agrawal who appcared in uiterview for fhe post of the Deputy Director. Hc has chaUenged fhe setectfaui of Smt. R. Bambra aad Hemaat Upadhyaya (respoiidents no.4 aad 5 herein) on the ground that fhe sclecticm had to take place aceonling to fhc Act No.5 of 1984 namcly The Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva Ayog (Prakrtya Ka Vinyaman) Adlumyam 1984. Thc snbmission is pnwisions of thc aforesaid Act have not been complied and correct pincedurc for aBocation of marks were not adopted and if the conect pxocedTue woidd have bccn adopted, the petitioncr would have beca setected insteal ofrespondcnts no.4 & S.

W.P.No.21/2005 has been fited by, oiie Smt Ohhaya Tnvari who has challenged fhe validily of comTniinkatfon dated

07.12.2004 mfonning her fhat her appUcation fbr fhe post of Deputy Director, Education, has been rejected on ftic ground ttiat shc does not fulfill fhe criteria of experieace pubBshcd in fhe -=^-^'. adverdscment uader the Ruka. In fact, ahe has ehaltenged the rqectioa of her appUcatkai finin on various grounds. &| i 10

The PubUc Service Coaunission has filed its rctum in W.P. No. 433 of 2005 and has denied fhe conteations raised by the petitioner and this vciy retum has been requested to be considered as fhe retum in att fhe cases. The State Govemnieat has also filed its retura in W.P.No.599/2005 and has alinost supported the contentions of the PubKc Scrvice Comnussion. Tfae private respondents filed their repfy in some of fheir rcspective cases, but fhe staad taken by thein justifying thcir selection, is oae and the saine ia all thc raatters.

I have heard leacned counsel for the respcctivc parties at length aad have also perused the records ofaUthe writ petitions.

Firstty, I am taking up W.P.No.4192/2003 for consideratioii. As stated abovc, fhe petitioner ia ttus writ petition challengiag fbe sekction, was a candidate for the post of Depuly Director. He has chaBenged fhe selection of Hemant Upadhyaya aad Sm.t, R. Bambra (respondents No.4 SB 5 hereia) on the grouiid that the PubMc Scrvice Comnussion has not foUowcd fbe piovisions of The Mndhga Prddcsh Z^»fc Ste»a Agag (Prfikrlya. Ka VtnlyanwH) Adhta^am 1984 (Act No.S of 1984). Referrmg to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of Scction 4 ofthe Act leamed counsel subinits that section 4 prescribes for pnx»ditrein thc inatter ofrecrultment to a service or post by sclection. He further subinits that the aforesaid sub-clause postulates that iffhe selection is by iatemew only, due credit for the past academic career of a Gaadidate shflU be given. Leanaed counsel submits that if fhe marks woiild have been aUocated m fhe maaner indrcated in the Act, 1984, certamly the petitioner would have bccn sekcted ia place ofrespondents no.4 & 5, because the petitioner retains a better educatioiial qualification 11 for Which he would have bcen aBocated better maxks than fhe private respondents.

In W.P.No.21/2005, the subnussKHi rf teamed counsel fi>r the pctitioner is that the petitioaer was fulty cligible &r caUing in intemew to fhc post of Etepuly Dircctor. He submlts that the public scmce coanmission committed an errw by tejecdag fhe applicatfon fona of thc petitioner on fhe ground of not havit^ requisite expcrience. On the other liand teamed couusel for fhe PubUc Service CoxnmlssiDn rebuts aad submits fhat the rcjection of the appUcatioa form was proper. He ai^ues that the form of the petitioiier was rejected on fhc ground that she had not funushed requisite certificates of experience as was required by the coiunussioa. He refere to fhe experinice clausc of advertiseiuent wde Coliuun No.2 (Annexure P-2) and further refers to coliunn No.9 and subaiits that since the petittoner had not annexed the eertificates pertaming to her experiiraicc whieh was one of fhe essential conditfons for eligibility and appointment, lier appUcation form was rightly rejected by fhe Conmrisaoii. consideied -Qie arguments advanced by both the counsels.

In other writ petitions bearing No.599/2005, 433/2005, 598/2005, 524/2005, 312/2005, 287/2005 and 718/2005, grounds takcn are inore or tess siarilar ia nature and at thc ar^unients learaed counsel for fhc respective petitioners pressed and raised fhe foBowuig comiaon points oaly ; (1) Whefhcr the Govemment was competent to wifhdraw one postafter advertiscment and the appoiatment of 15 'i/T' Dr. Hare Ram Sharma agalast such post was proper and in accordaace with law and ia case his appoiatmcnt is set aside, Shri Rain Niwas Singh (petitioner in W.P.No.524/2005) wiB get advant^e and will be treated as selected ? (2) Whether ffae selection of Snit. R. Bambra ^aiast the reserved woinan post in gencral categoiy goes against fhe women reservation rulcs of fhe Govemiaeat and the satne was uajustified ? (3) Whethcr the post of Vice Prfncipal is aa administeative post and the experience fhereof can be treated as fhe admuustrative expericncc sis per the cnteria of the advertiscinent ? (4) Whether the selection of Heiuaut Upadhyaya was against the rules as it violates the provisions of fhc ays prescribed undcr fhe rules ? (5) Whefher the inethod of selection adopted by fhc PubUc Service Commission was improper and fflegal aad thc tess ineritorious candidates have been selected ia iatemew ? (6) WIicther fhc selection of SadTina Agrawal, Ghau Shyaai Netam on thc post of Priacq)al (DIET), were iUegal as fhey were not having requisite expencncc? (7) Whefher thc selection of Shri Gend Raia Chandrakar was improper? and whether the refusal of candidaturc of Deepak Dubey petitioner in W.P. No. 433/2005 for the post of Princq)al (DIET) was unjustified? (8) Whether thc selection of Heinant Upadhyaya and Prabodh Adhikari whosc names have been placed at Serial No. 1 & 2 ia fhe supptementaiy Ust (waiting list) of Princyal (DIET) ia general categoiy was illegal as they were not having requisite qualificatk>as for this post? POINT No.l

The first question to be considered iindcr fhis point is about the wifhdracwal of onc post by the Govemment iu fhe categoiy of Depuly Directors. Adinittedty, iastance advertiseiaent dated 04.7.2003, six posts of Depuly Dircctors were advertiscd by fhe Public Sendce Coiunisriion and among these six posts, 3 posts were kept in gcneral categoiy. However, by an order 16 ^"\A /"^-, 'n ./' / ^ dated 27,4.2004, one unreserved postwas withdiawn/reduccd by the Govenuneat aad it was pubUshed by Corr^endum dated

17.5.2004 fhat now fhe selection would take place for 5 posts of Dy.Directors. This Corr^endum was publishcd ia Rojgar Aur Niyojan dated 19.5.2004. Admittedty, the iaterviews were conducted by the Cominission in between 3.01.2005 and

08.1.2005. fticrefore, it is clear that fhe number of posts for selection in the general categoiy of Deputy Directors were declarcd and made known to fhe pubUc by way of Corrigendum much prior to the date of coxumcnceinent of the interviews and it cannot be said that fhe candidates or fhe pctitioners were not aware of fhis factual posltion prior to fhcir interviews.

18.1 Thozigh the counsel for the petitioners aiyied that fhe Govenuubent was not coinpetent to reduce the niHnbcr of posts jBist adverdsenient, as fhe same pxejudiced the candidates but none of the counsels could point out any such lam which aiay prohibit fhe govermnent to reducc fhe number of posts ia particular categoiy that too inuch prior to the date of coiumencement of fhe exanunation. If we kiok iato fhe l*t advertiscment dated 4th Jufy 2003, there is ao. endorsement to this efifect ia fhis advertiseiaent itself that fhe number of posts shown in the advertiscment, are changeable. Whea the law in relation to a particular proccdzu-e to be adopted in a particular circumstaace is silent aad an action 1s taken by fhe Govenuneat in a geiieral manner then fhe same cannot bc condemned unlesa it is shown to be arbitrary or whimsical. The procedural faimess is the main requiremcnt in the adnmustrative action of fhe Goverainent.

The scenano would have been dififerent if fhe nunaber of poste woiild 17 ^ have been reduced either ater the date of exanunation or after the sekction process was over or at the tunc much closer to thc date of examination. Bvcn ofhenyisc also, tbe relevancy of number of posts in a coinpetitive cxaiiiiaation, so far as the candidates are concemed, is onty to thc efifect tfaat candidate prepares himself for appearing exauunation/intemew looking proportionate coaipetition ia tfae same. Ifthe nuxuber ofposts are less, the coinpetitfon becomes tough and ifthe number ofposts are m.oic, it becoiaes cotnpaiatively easier. Hcrc in the preseat case, looking to fhc date ofadvertisecuent and further looking to the date of iuterviews, these factors may not bc of much uaportancc as the gap between thcse two dates is near about 7 % months. A aotice about reductfon of one post prior to 7 Yz nioaths of the date of interview wozild cause no prejudice to the caadKlates, so far as thcir prcparation for fhe examinatiou is coiiceraed.

Moreover, none of the petitioners has earUer ohalteuged this action of fhe Govemm.ent t>y flliag any writ pctition pnor to fhe deckiration of the result. AU the petitiDners who were the candidates for the post of Deputy Director took a chance by appearing in tbe iaterview knowing fuUy weU that the muuber of posts have bcen reduced by the Govenunent on 27.4.2004 aad afiier taldng fhe ohauce when they became uusuccessful, fhen only, they are raisiag this poiat aad are chaUengmg the action of the state Govemmjent ia this regard. I am aot inclia.ed to accept fhe aiyunent advaaced in this reganl and I accordingty rejcct it by hoMing tbat on an cxigency, the Govemment was competent to reduce the number of posts provided thc same was required bonafidefy and thc proccd'ure adopted was fair and fhe action was not arbitraiy. Wtether aU 18 fhese factors were thcre ia tfae present casc wUl be examined later on.

18.2 Now conung to fhe sccond questiou of this part regaiding appoiatment of Dr. Hare Ram Shanaa, the s^pointment letter of Dr. Hare Ram Shanna has been fiiled as Annexure P-4 m W.P.No.524/%)05. This appointmcnt tetter was issued to him on

22.9.2003. It appears fiTOin the contents ofthe aforesaid tetter that Dr. Sharma, who was boWs% the substantive post of Assistant Professor and was on deputadon as District Education Officer, was appointed by absorption as the Dy. Director, Education under certain conditions. Though one post of Depuly Director was withdrawn fi-oni the piuvicw of Conuaission on 27.4.2004 but the appointment of Shri Sharma was made on 22.9.2003 ie., much prior to fhe date of wifhdrawal of tite said post. Tfac State has admitted vide Para 11 ofits retum fited iu W.P.No.599/20(» that the appointm.ent of Dr. Sharma was male agaiust that veiy post which was intentionalfy wifhdrawn fi-om thc purview of Coinmission vidc memo dated 27.4.2004, Thc situation for issuance ofappomtmcnt letter on 22.9.2003 and withdrawal offhe post fi»nufhe purview ofP.S.C. ater about 7 months on 27.4.2004 is unexplaiaed by the Stete. Ncifher in the returu nor in fhe ai^iunents, leamed counsel for the State could justify thc act of issuance of this ordcr of appoiatment by the Govcmm.ent even prior to the wifhdrawal aad awailabUity of the post in their hand. The Apex Court in fhe matter of Wnttonat Airfttute of Mentcd BeaWt & Neuro Selenees, -Vs- Dr.K.Kidyema. Jteaium. and otkers, AIR 1992 S.C. 1806 has laid down fhe principle that procedural faimess is thc Kiflin requireiuent in the admimstTative 19 ^.A.; •'^fk' (i/ fe' action. The "fau-ness" or "fair procediire?' in fhe admirusteative action ought to bc observed. Thc Apex Court ia the particular facts aud circumstanccs of fhat case, held fhat cven the selection coiitnuttee cannot be an exceptiou to ttus priaciple aad it must take a decision reasonabty without beiag guidcd by extraneous or irrelevaat cousidcration.

18.3 Durmg the course of aiguincnts, an office file of the Govcmment bearing No.F-1/2004/2003/20 was shown to this Court which shows that fhe appoiatment dated 22.9.2003 was issued to Dr. Shanna in anticipation of concurrenca of the PubKc semce Cominissiou, which was deferred by fhe PubUc Service Comimssiop vide its letter dated 14*1' of Nov. 2003, but even after being deferred once, auother request was inade by fhe GovemBient aad ultunately, fhe Govcnunent wlthdrew <wie post 6xaja the purview of Public Service Conunission on 27.4.2004. The record would fiirther show that it was an niteational withdiawal pardcularly for justifying tbe earUer appointment of Dr.H.R. Sharma. It is aU fhis, how the appointment of Dr. H.R. Sharma on 22.9.2003 was justified by the Goveminent. In the opmion of this Court, this does not confirm. the test of procedural fairuess in the aforesaid admuustrative action taken by fhc State about wifhdrawal of one post aad ftuther about the appointment of Shri Sharma and I hold accordiagty. Now I comc to fhe question of vaUdily of appomtment The contention of the Ckwermnent is that this appomtment was made by mefhod of absorption, The submissiou of Shri Maaindra shrivastava, Sr. Adwocate who appears in W.P.No.433/2005, is that fhe appointtaents to this post should have been done by either ofthe modes prescribed in rufc 6 20 ^. 'z. 'T-5/ 1 of fhe Rutes of 1982 referred to above. He submits that rule 6 prescnbes 3 inodes of appointment. One by direct recruitment, second by proniotion and the fhird by transfer, He further subniits fhat a perusal of these provisions aloag-with the provisians contained in schedulc III would show fhat fhe appointtaent of Dr. H.R. Sharma is not eovered under any of these categories, therefore, the same should bc struck down. Per contra, Shri Rajcndra Tiwari, Sr. Advocate appearfng on behalf of Dr. H.R. Shanna submits that the appointinent of Dr. Sharma was stricfly under sub-nile (iv) of nile 6. He further submits that he was direcffy appointed by adopting fhe mefhod of absorptiou under sub-rule (iv) and fhc appomtinent docs not suffer fiTom aay iUegalily.

18.4 Rules pertaming to fhc appom.tm.ent to fhese posts are fhe rutes of 1982, referred to above. These rules have been fraiaed in exercise of the powers coxrferred by thc proviso to Ardcle 309 of fhe Constitution of India. Rule 6 of the aforesaui rules deals with the inethod ofrecruitment Rule 6 is quoted as under: (6)Method of recrnltment,—(^ to fhe service, after the commencement of fhese rules, shaU be made by fhe folkiwing incthod, viz.- "RecTuitmenC' (e^ (b) (c) fhrough direct recruittacnt, by promotion ofxnembers ofthc M.P. Education Service fi-om a lowcr post/cadre as specified m IV to a h^her colunm (2) of Schedule post/caxire. By transfer of persons fi-om such cadre/ scrvice as may be spedfied in Column(5) of Schediite-II The number of persons recruited under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-rule^ shall not at any time exceed fhe percentage of fhe number of duty posts as shown in the schedule-II. 21 u^\ ""1'".--' (ii^ Subject to provisions of fhese rules, the aiethod or methods of recruitmcnt to be adopted for tbe purpose of fillmg any particular vacaacy or vacaacies ia fhe service as may be required to be fiUed duriag auy pardcular pcriod of recruitiuent, and fhc number of persons to be recruited by cach niethod, shatl be detenniaed on each occaswai by thc Govemment in consultation wifh thc coiniuissioa. (iv) Notwithstaaduig anythmg contained in sub-rule (i) if in the opinion of the Governinent fhe exigencies of fhe the Qo^rernment may with the aennce so reqtiire, approval of fhe Gcneral Adiiuiustratmn Departnient adopt such mefhods of recruitment to the service other thaa those specificd in the said sub-rules as it may, by order issued ia fhe behalf, prescribe.

18.5 A bare pcrusal of sub nde (u^ of Rule 6 would show fhat notwithslamling anything contained ia. sub-rule (i) regarding recrtutaient to (he said post, if such situation artees, Govenunent may wifh the approval of General Admfausteatton Dcpartment, adopt such mcfhods ofrecruitment other fhan above, as it niay, by order issucd in this behatf, prescribe. No doubt, these provisions give jiuisdiction and aufliority to fhc Ctovcminent to make appoiatment by ofher tTian the method specified uuder sub-rule(^, but for excrcising fhe powers imder this rulc, certam conditions are required to be fulfiUed. The first coadition is fhat the Goverxuncnt must form aa opixuon fhat fhere is such exigency of sarvice which requires exercismg junsdictfon uader tfais sub-rule. The second condition is the Govemment wiU have to obtain approval fi-om fhe G.A.D. for adoptmg such method of recrultment which it intends to adopt aad fhe Uurd is fhe inethod so adopted by the Govcminent naust bc prescribed by an order issued in this bchalf.

Unless fhese fhree conditions are fuIBBed, no other method of recruitment fhan fhe inefhod prescribed ia sub-rule (^ of Rute 6 22 c /y can. bc adopted by fhe Govermnaat. In the present case, the Govt. could not show any ex^ency of service on which any ofher niethod fhan the niefhod prescribed under sub rule (^ of Rule 6 was inunediatcty requircd to bc adopted. It could not show that iu &ct, prior to testiauce of appointment lettcr dated 22.9.2003, the Govt. had fomaed an opiruon that one post of the Depuly Director is mmiediately reqtiired to be filled in on fhe basis of exigencies of service and for fhis soine mcfhod ofher fhan fhe taethod pr^cribcd under sub-rule^ of rute 6 should be adopted. Even fhe Govenunent could not show that an approval of G.A.D. adoptit^ such mefhod, which has bcen adopted in casc of fhe present appointment, was obtaiaed. Leamed counsel for fhe respondent tried to justify by aiguing about thc approval of G.A.D. that there is no rulc fhat the approval naust be taken prior to the appoiutment, therefore, the Oovcmm.ent may take appnwal later on.

Ttus aryuncnt canuot be acccpted in Ught ofthe provlsions of sub-rute (iv) of Rule 6. Thte sub-rule ckarly indicates fhat fhe approval of fhe G.A.D had to be obtamed for the purpose of adopting a particular inethod of recruitment and not about the recruitment as is beuig aiyied on behalf of respondent. If the approval has been directed to be obtained about fhe method of recruitment to be adopted then certauaty it is an indication on the part of legislature that the approval of the GAD must be obteiacd prior to the recruitment or appointinent or selection of the candidate. In the present case, no such approval hsS beea shown to bc obtained by the Govemment, either prior to the appointDient or evcn after the appointment. The thud important factor is that before exercising the powers for recruitment under Sub-Rule (tv), 23 ')&:: /' .1. ^-< ^/- fhe niethod of recruitinent whk;h had to bc adopted by the Govermnent must be prescribed by soxae order issued by the Ckwerumeut in that bchalf.

In fhc present case, the Govenuaent could aot show any such order issucd under the provismns af sub- rule (w) of rule (6). It appears that casualty, after issiiance of appointment letter dated 22.09.2003, the Govenunent as wcU ss the private respondent are taking assistance of sub-ruk (iv) of rule 6 aad are trying to classify thc action of thc State under the provisions of fhis sub-rule (iv). However, neifher fhe letter of appointment dated 22.9.2003 nor fhe conqilete fik of absorption which has beea shown to this court indicate fhat the actk>n of the State was taken under thc provisions of sub-rale(iv) of Rule 6 by fiilfillmg all the above criteria which are necessaiy for exercising poweis imder the aforesaid Rule.

18.6 Learaed couns^l for the respoiident fhen contended fhat fhc appointmeut of respondent no.4, by way of absorption, was on fhe basis of Circular dated 06A Januaiy 1986. I have gone through fhe said Circular. This Circular, in fact, deals with the provisfains of deputation and it woukl not be supporting the case of fhe present respondent.

18.7 Iu the result, I hokl that though on an ex^ency, the Oovcnuncnt was contpetent to reduce fhe numbCT' of posts, but in the prescnt casc, the procedure adopted by fhe Govertunent for reducing one post Irom the pmvicw of the P.S.C. was not feiir and thc actk>n was arbitrary. Furfher, the declaration of appoiatmcat of Dr. H.R.Sharma aysdast the aforesaid post was not justtGed as fhe sainc was not iu accordaace wifh. the provisions of rule 6 of the aforesaul Rutes 1982 and I accordiagly set asidc the same. 24 /''.-'-; t •'> <_- Consequently fhe appointmeut order dated 22.9.2003 issued to Dr. H.R. Sharma is quashed.

18.8 Now coming to Ihe last ground under point no. 1 as to whether after settfng aside the appointtnent of Dr.H.R. Shanna, the petitioner in W.P.No.524/2005 Shri Ram Niwas Singh wfll get advant^c ? hi the facts and circuinstences ofthis case, even after quashing of the appointment of Dr. H.R. Sharma, this petitioner would not get advant^e. The reason being fhat the appointment of Dr.H.R. Shanna was made against a post which was withdrawn fix»m. fhe purview of fhe Cominission on 27.4.2004 fhat is much prior to fhe date of examination and ultimatefy the iaterviews for fhe post of Depuly Directois were conducted oaly for two posts ia general categoiy. That is to say that this particular post against which Dr. H.R. Shanna was appointed was not wifhin the puiview ofP.S.C. aad even ifhis appointment is set aside it is aot going to affcct the resulte of the interviews coiiducted by the P.S.C. Thcrefore, chaage of fhe position of the petitioner fix>m. serial no. 1 in the supplementary list (waiting Ust) of Depuiy Directors to Sl.No.2 iu the select Ust of thc said post in consequence of qiiashing of thc appointment order of Dr.H.R.Sharma cannot be inadc. Hencc, W.P.No.524/05 succeeds in part to the extent of quashiag ofthe order ofappointment ofDr.H.R. Sharma. POIHT No.2

Admittedty, Smt. R. Bambra toas becn shown to be selected on ffac post of Depuly Director a^sanst a. reserved post for wonien in fhe categoiy of general caadidates. Hcr selection has been chaltenged on fhe basis of such rescrvation. The submission is fhat accordmg to the Rules of 1997 referred to above, 30% 25 '^'y-i./ .'' ^Q,.. : !'' ^- reservation was pennissible and if one post out of two posts in general category shall bc reserved for woiaen, it goes to 50% aad the same is violatwe of thcse rules. If wc see the advertiseiaent dated 04.07.2003, it would appear fhat when the three posts were available in gcneral categoiy, thcn one post was reservcd for wonien. However, whcu the corrigendum was issued on 19.5.2004 and one post was withdrawn, it was partlcularly incntfoned in the corrigenduni fhat after wlfhdrawal of fhe said one post fix>in the gcneral category, now out oftotal 5 posts available, two posts shaU bc available for general categoiy, one for S.C., one for S.T., and one for O.B.C. In the corrigendum., though thc details of posts reserved ia various categories have been given, but it has never been. stated fhat out of fhcse two posts aivaBabte in general category, one post shall be rescrved for wotnen as it was veiy specificalty statcd ia fhc first advcrtisemeat dated 04.7.2CX)3.

19.1 Leamed Counsel for the private respondent subnuts that 30% of two wouJd come to 0.6, which is certamfy more than

0.5, therefore, the rulc ofroundiftg oflTbased on logic and comaioa sense shouM be appUed and it shouM be treated as 1 and in this sense, the Conunission does not faU ia crror if it has treated one post as rescrvcd for woinen appfyiag fhe prfaciptes of horizontal and vertical reservation as per the Rules of 1997. He refers to two decisions ofthe Apex Court rendered in the matter cS State ofU.P. and <au>Uter -ys- Peaoan Kunwr Tlwarl and sthws 120051 2 3CC 10 and Rgieah^Kwmar Qswta. «aufatfaers -ys- .State of V.P. and others, 200S AIR SCW 2731. In fhe first case, the Apex Court directed that the rule of rounding off bascd on logic and common sense is that if part is one half or xuore, its value shafl be increased to 1 and if part is less than half then its value shalt be 27 ^ ignored. While dealing wifh the matter whcre the niunber of candidates were 93, the Apex Court laid down ttds rule holding that a fi-action of 46.5 should have been rounded ofifto 47 aud not to 46 as was done ia that case. Thc apex Court furthcr held that siuce fhe total number ofvacaacies were 93 and ia consequence of aUocation of rescrvatmn and calculatkin done by the appeUants, the numbcr of reserved seats woiild be 47, leaving onty 46 available for general categoiy candidates, laeaaing tberetoy the reservation would exceed 50% which would be unconstitutional. In fhe opiufon of this Court, the ruje laid down by fhe Apex Court in tbe said case would not bc made applicablc to fhe present one. In fhe aforesaid casc, the number of candidates were much high and apptyiag fhe rute of rounding oflF in such a casc was not violative of any existiag rules ineant for thc purposes of praviding reservation. In fhe prescnt case, if wc aBow the rute of rotmding off to be appUed by treating 0.6 as 1 then certainly it shaU be violative of rutes of 1997 as the aforesaid rules clearly piuvidc for horizontal as weU as vertical reservation to the extent of 30% only, and fhis statutoiy requireinent caiuiot be substitutcd or fi-ustrated by apptying the rule of rouading off based on logic and cominon sense. It shall amount to violation of the stotutoiy rules. The judgment of thc Apex Court is distinguishabte on this poiat and the aiyunent advaaccd by couasel for the private respoudents cannot bc accepted.

19.2 In the second case dted by learacd counsel fbr the respondents the Apex Court held vide para 14 fhat Article 15(3) of fhe Constitutton enables the State Gtwenuaent to make special provisions for women and children notwifhstanding fhe prohibition 28 ^l^ containcd in Article 15(1). The Apex Court further held that pardciilarly viewed in fhe back ground of thc fact that a largc niuaber ofyour^ girls bclow fhe age of 10 years wcre taught ia the primaiy school and recogniziag fhat it would be preferable fhat such yoimg girls are taught by women, the reservation of 50% of the posts in favour of the feinale candidates was held to be justified. Tfae Apex Court coiifirmed the judgmeut of thc Division Bcnch of fhe High Court and held fhat the classiBcation madc was justified aad cannot bc styled as arbitraiy or liable to be fait by Artick 14. This was a verdict whcn fhe Govt. of Uttar Pradesh had taken a decision by an order that 50% of the candidates to be selected shall be fium science stream and 50% fix>tu the arts steeam aad furfher 50% would bc female caadidates and 50% would be male candidates. It was not a case of violation of any statutoiy rules framed by the Govenunent rafher it was a case ofa decision by fhe Govenuaent in a partfcular circumstances of fhe case to which fhe Apex Court said to be justified and the classificatton inade was not hit by Articte 14. In thc present case, the Govcrtuncnt itselfmade a rule for reservation ia horizoutal as weU as vertical manner to the cxtent of 30% and if an action of Gk>vemiaent or fhe authorities violates these rules, then the action cannot be held to be justified. The aforesaid judgment cited by the learaed counsel for the respondent is not helpful to him in the facts and diciunstances of the prcsent case particularly fhe cucuinstance when fhc rules in fhis rcgard are existing and fhe permissible Umits of horirontal aad verdcal reservation have been specificaBy prescribed in the rutes. 29 /.^L- ^^

19.3 In fhe result, fhe selection of Smt. R.Bambra showii^ it to be agaiast the reserved post for woxaen is not justifled, as no reservcd post for women ia general catcgory was avaflable with thc Commission and fhe two posts available wlfh fhe Cominission were to be treated as unreserved general post as per fheir own declaration vide corr^enduin dated 17.5.2004 aad also under the aforesaid rules. Hcr setecdon s^ainst such post is set aside. POIMT Ho.3

In maay of fhc petitions, this ground has been taken by the petitioners that the post of Vfce frincipal is not an adaunisteative post, fherefore, fhe persons who have been workiag as Vice Principals should aot be held to be el^ibte for selection to the post of Deputy Directors claiming 3 years requisite experience on admlnistrative side. Riile 8 of Rutes 82 provides for conditions of eligibiUty for direct recruitment. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 8 provides about educational qualifications. It provtdes that the candidates taust possess the educational quali&cations prescribed for the service as shown in Schedule III.

20.1 A perusal of Schedule III would show that for the post of Deputy Director, 10 years experience iu administration and teaching at fhe higher secondaiy levcl of which at-least 3 years xaust be on fhe adnunistrative side has bcen prescribed as the requisite experience in addition to fhe educational qualtflcation prescribed therein.

20.2 The returu of the Public Service Commissioa filed in W.P.No. 433/2005 would show thatwhen the comnalsaion, sought for clarification fix>ia fhe Govemmcnt about fhe adinlnistrative posts by sending a cominiuucatton dated 17.10.2003, the D.P.I. 30 /V? '!/y;': p/'-^' scnt his repty dated 19.11.2003 (Aimexure R-2(2) that fhe post of Vicc Prfncipal was not held to bc aa adauaistrative post It is also stated in the retum fhat during fhe scrutmy, it was further realized that seveial posts coxuiccted wifh education departm.cnt on which the persons wcre on deputation or otherwtec, have also clauned their entifleiacnt/el^ibilily to appear ia the sclection process then the Comnussion again sent the coiainunication dated

27.7.2004 (Annexure R-2(3) to fhc State Govemment seeking inforaaation specifiGolly wlth regard to several posts like Assistent Director (non-fonnal Education), Assistant Director (Adult Education), Disteict Project Oi^aaizer, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha MissJkxu, Pioject Of&cer (non-fonnal Education), House Master of Navodsya Vidyalaya, Vice Principal of fhc Highcr Sccondaiy School, Hostel Superinteudent etc. Thcreafter, the Mnustry of School Education Dcpartmen.t, Govt of Chliattisgarh mformed thc Conmussion by sending a comiaunication dated 09.8.2004 (Annexiire R/2(4)) to fbe efifect that fhe posts referred to iu Axuiexure R-2(3) are admmistrativc posts. Thereforc, fiaally fhe contention. of thc Statc Goveminent is that the post of Vice Principal is aa adinuustrative post.

20.3 Thc subudssion of leamcd counsel for the petitioners is fhat fhe post of Vice Priacipal is not a cadre post nor it can be thc admitustra.tlve post, fhereforc, experience as a Vice Principal would not be counted for cligibflity to the said post It is also submitted that once the Assistant Director of the Dlrectorate vide his memo dated 19.11.2003 had said that fhc post of Vice Principal woiild not be the admitustrative post fhen anofher ktter 31 /'\n^ //"><3k of thc Govcmment dated 09.8.2004 stating fhat it would be an. admuiMtTative post, was notjustified.

20.4 Ifwe sce fhe provisfons ofrules of 1982, fhe Scheduk itself indicates about an experience of teachiag ia the higher secondaay school level, out of which 3 years must be on the Thc words 'admialstrative sidc' or fhe administrative side. 'admmistaative experience' or 'admuustrative posts' have not been defiaed in fhe Rules. In BUicle's Lww IHicUonaiy (7th edttton ptige 44), fhe word 'the maavigemen't or "adnunlstration" has bcen defiucd as pefformance of the execuiive duft'es of a Govemment, institution or business". The word is a noun and fhe word admmistrative flDwiug out ofthis word is aa adjective. In Corpus Jiuris Secondum. (VoUy, utfrich is a Kestfttement of the Anwrican Ittw, developed hy AnwUl O. Gfinnou* <ind Cteorge J. BcMuff, (2mt rvytnt-1987) fhe words "Administration" and "Admmistra.tive'' have also been stated as under: ADMINISTRATIOH "As generatty understood, 'adtmnistration" means managemenl, direction, or supervision; ccnd in ffe broad general sense it is defined as the Ctd of adnwvstering; direction or oversight of cmy offioe, service, or employment, etc.; nuxnaging or conduct of an office the executive duties of an peifamwnce of institution, business or the like. employment; ' ADMINISTRATIVB *JVb predse ccnd wwanable defwvtion of the Its mecawng depends upan ward oan be given. ihe particular fcvsts cmd ctrcumstances, and a defirdtion given is sometimes no nuire than a desaiption. 32 .y 'Acbnwistovclive' direcfing or superinfending, is defined as meaning mmisteria?; of or pertaining 1o admhwstration, especially managemen<, as by mcmaging or conducting, exeaztion, appUoation, or cfmduct of person or ttungs; pertcdrwng to administration, particulcaiy, having the dtaracter of executive or rmnisterial acft'on; and, when partiajtlarly applied to offidtd duties carmected vrith gcwermnent, exeaitive, a mtmslerial duty; one in whtch rwthing fe left to discretion. Tke word has been held to meccn hcwmg to do with dcdly affcms ets tSstinguished jrom permanent mattera; and when apphfmg to ageruaes of govermnent that cambine tegisfaft've, executive, andjudidalfuncKans, it has beenscdd <o mean adnwnistering otetoBfe vftvich may be of a legislative chca-ader.' (Oiity selected statenicnts have been quoted fom pagc No.78 & 79)

20.5 Thcreforc, ia a general sense, a person who has been ass^ncd wifh a work of management or perfoi-mance of fhe executivc duties of aa iastitution shaU be held to be assigaed with the work of administratton and would bc des^iiat»l to hold aa administrati.ve post.

20.6 The Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Sanhita, which is a coUection of ruks for adnaimsteation of fhe Education Instttution rua. by fhe Ckwcrument ako defines two important words vide rule 2 (ten) and 2 (elcven). Rute 2 (ten) defines Sanstrtha JPTtimufch aad Rute 2(eleven) defines Sansatha. The defiiiittons ia Hindi are quoted as under: "^) "wwr yyo" ^ m^f, ^sy^r^i o^ rfnvw vmr w wiwfi* yv€ ?t, ^^f ^/^ 4 !iw ^ sfFff unnr ^ "vwr' ^ mc^f^ ?jmr wsi^f^sn Wey ^- ^ ^'f^TPT ^KT'^ ^t ^ V W9BT ffFW ^ ^i^ ^ ^jm^tv, WWft , g^ ffl&!{fi)^ VT d-^ci^ f/l&vfif ?(77 wvr ^) f^t fri^FT wifisi^ ymfi gqF ^JR?) 33 Hiwffl't> yf^KM ww^ v ft) f^ fi^ ?Hp!T ^ WT ^I^T^cft ^

20.7 A bare pcrusal of fhese two definitions would show that fhe Sanatha Prmnukh would bc fhe admitusteatiyc incharge of the institution and he may be caUed by aay namc whatsoever it may be. The word "Sansthrf' shows that it mcans a school or any ofher educational institution wluch is run by fhe dcpartment or which is recognized by it. That is to say (hat fhe Pnacipal or fhc Headinaster, as the case may be, shaU bc thc Sanstha Premaikh and shaU also be the adiaiutetrative Incharge of fhe Instttution. Therefore, on the nature and character of the work assigned to the Principal, it can easity be inferred by the abovc defiiiition that he is adinittedty held to be holdiag an admimstrative post ia his iastitution. The post of Vice-Principal has not been defined ia Shiksha Sa.nhfta. However, in the broader scnse when the occasion arises, he uses to work as fhe I'ruicipal or Sanstha Pramufcft and cxercises all fhe adiniaistrative powers of fhe F'riacipal which are uot prohibited by any statutoiy piovisions. For examplc, a Vice Priacipal may act in aU fields of adiainisteation for a better laan^einent of fhe institution in absence of fhe prindpal but he may not exercisc the fiiiancial or such ofher powers which have been especiaUy coufisrred to the Principal by virtue of certain statute or by virtue of essential dclegation. This iadBates that a Vice Principal is always iavolyed in adininteteatiMi and fhe nature and character of fh.c job which he undertakes iu absence of Prmcipal is almost one and fhe same which the Principal undertakes as a Scavstha Pramukh. 34 ,''' ''4^ .'. ,^t ^ /

20.8 Therc&re, I hold that fhe work of a Vice Pdncipal is a work which he perfonns iu fhe adnainistrative side and for this purpose onty, this post is hdd to be aa adininistrative post and fhe ai^uments advanced by learaed couasel for fhe petitioners that the post of Vice Princqial is not an admixustrative post caanot be accepted and fhe same is accordingfy rcjected. So &r as the ai^um.ents in relation to justification of issuaace of two kinds of comm.unications by the Assistaat Director and thereafter by the Goverumcnt is coDcemcd, the latter statcincnt by he Govenunent dated 09.8.2004 has to be given wicghtage because in the inter-se expressions/admlssions regarding admialstration, the verdict of the Govemment wouM. prcvatt over the verdict of an aufhority or the directorate working iiader fhe Govemnient.

20.9 So far as the ai^uments regardiag the post of Vice Pnncipal not being a cadre post is conceraed, the rulcs of 1991 naniety JB.P.fihAooI Shtksha, jHta Shttsha Eoam. Pmsfttfcshtin Scuistfatin (Rc^patrilf Seuw Bhartt Mycun, 1991 whfch have been filed as Aimexure P-15 in W.P.No. 433/2005 are refetable. Accordiag to Rule 5 and Rule 6 offhese rules, Schedule-1 has been annexed aad fhe posts incntioned ia the schedute have been declared as thc classified posts in which fhe post of vice principal fiiids placc. This rule may be for a particular kiad ofinstitution but it shows the cxistence of post of vice-principal in the school education departinent and there is no dispute fhat fhe persons are working as vice-principal in Hlgher Secondaiy Schools atso. This ai^ument has no force aad the same cannot be accepted.

20.10 Acconlingty, I hold that fhe peisons who had worked as Vice Prmcipal for the requisite period, as defined under 35 <..rK'\ ^;- Schediile III ofthe aforesaid Rules of 1982 shaU be decnicd to have becn worised on fhe adnunistrative side for the purposes of experience and requisite quaUfication fhereunder. POINT N0.4

The selcction of SIui Hemant Upadhyaya who bses been setected as Deputy Director in general categoiy has also been chaUcBged on fhe giound that he was inore fhan 38 years ofage as is reqiured iinder sub-rule(l)(c)(^ of Rtde 8 of fhe Rules of 1982. Lcamed counsel for fhc petittoncr relies on the copy of fhe rutes filed at P^e No.76 in W.P.No.433/2005. It appears fhat the unamended rules have becn ffled by the petitioaer. In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Ardcle 309 of the Constitution of India, the foBowiag amendinent in fhe rules of 1982 haye been. inadc : AMENDMENT In fhe said Rules a note may be inscrted as follows aflter clause (i) of sub-rule 8— Ttote.—The candidate who permaaent teM:her in School Education Department would be aUowed to deduct finin hfa age the total pcriod spent ia to fhe teaching ia Govermnent proviso that the resiiltaat age does not excced fhe upper age limit prescribed for thc posfc institution sutoject (Published in M.P. Rcypatra Part IV(Ga) dt 26.9.86 Pg. 192).

21.1 Ifwe sce fhe schcdute annexed to these rutes showing fhe iniaimuia aad naaxuautn siys limits for fhc post of Deputy director, it woiild appear fhat in Schcdule-III according to rule 8, fhe maximum aye liinit has also been prescribed as 40 years aad fhe same has been prescribed ia fhe advertiseinent also. Morc over, thc retum ofrespondcnt no.5 fited in W.P.No.433/ 2005 vide 36 ^^ ^' para 4 wo-uld show ttaat fhe date ofbirth ofthc said respondent is 30<h June 1964. Therefore, accordiag to these rules, he should not be niore fhan 40 years on 01,01.2004. It is apparent that he was not naore thaa 40 years ou 01.01.2004, hcnce, his sekction caonot be assatted on fhis ground. The aiyunents advanced by teamed counsel for the petttloner are nusconccivcd and the same cannot be accepted. POINT NO.S

It is aiyied that the inethod of setection adopted by the Public Service Commission was not proper as oaty mtemews wcre taken aad even ia interviews, less ineritorious candidates have been selected. Column No.ll of the adverdsement ]ays down about ftie nicthod to bc adopted in selection. It provides fhat if fhe number of appUcation forms icceived by fhe Coxnmlssion would be relatiyefy less aad in thc opmion of Comiuission a written cxamination would not be necessaiy fhcn thc posts may be fiUed in only on the basis of iaterview conducted by (he Conunission. Howevcr, if fhe number of the appUcation forms would bc more fhan fhe ratio of the post advertised aad It would not be practicable for fhe conunission to mtennew each of the candidates then the comDaission naay arrange for fhe written examination to reduce the number of candidates to be caUed for intemew in the ratio of 1; 3 and in such a case the marks obtalaed iu fhe written examination and in the iuterview woiild be taken into account and fhe selcctfon would be m.ade.

22.1 For examiniag fhe laerits of decision taken by P.S.C. to hold iaterviews only, we must look into the foUowuig decision of fhe Apex Coiut. White dealing with fhe inatter in case of UlaDheir -Vs- State of licrfeistftan and athers 11981} 4 SCC 1S9 fhe Supreme Court held that ordiaarity, recruitoDaent to pubUc services is regulated by rules inade under fhe proviso to Article 309 of fhe 38 ,i M' ' IV'/ Constitution aad it is not for fhe courts to redetermine the appropriate m.ethod of selection aad fhe reladve weight to be attached to the various tests, untess ex^gerated weight has been given with proven or obvious obMque motives. In fhis case, the Apex Court referring decisions reported in A. PtertafcoruoDcn Chctttar -vs- St<«te aif Tmnil Naetu. {1971) 1 SCC 38 and^teiLBasia Vs, KhctUA J tHfc Sehrcawntt. (19811 1 SCC 722 held that the written exaniination assesses the inan's iuteUect and fhe interview test fhe nian himself and "fhe twain shall mecf for a proper selectiou.

But fhere cannot be any rule of fhumb regardiag the precise weight to be attached respectavely to the writteu test and fhe iaterview. It must vary fiom service to semce accordiag to fhe reqtureinent of the service to which recruitment is made, the source-inaterial availabte for recruitment, the composition of the Interview Board and scveral like factors. In the case of adinissiou to a coUege, where fhe caudidates personaIUy is yet to develop and it te too earty to identify the personal qualiti.es for which greater importaace inay have to be attached ia later Ufe, greater weight has per force to be given to performaace in fhe wntten examniation, aad there the unportance to be attached to fhe interview-test must bc inuumal. Therefore, the ratio ofttie decisions in Pen'afcaruppan. aad ^ayHasiacases va this regard cannot be appUed in casc of serrices to which recruitaient has necessarity to be made firoiu persons of niature personalUy.

In such services interview test inay be the onty way, subjcct to basic and essential acadeBaic and piofessional requireaaent beii^ satisfied. However, i& maay services where sound selcction inust conibme acadenuc abitUy wifh personaUty 39 /"'<- promise, some weight has to be gwen, though not inuch too great we^ht, to fhe iaterview test The apcx Court further held In ttus case fhat naodc of awarding inarks in an interview test is an adininistaative fttaction with which courts normalty should not iaterferc. In thc absence ofany rule for awarding marks scparately under different heads, the apex court held fhat, the awaid of marks in a smgle lot would not vitiate fhe iaterview test.

22.2 This view was ^ain upheld by fhe Apcx Court ia fhe matter of Dr^eshcw Rain. Pat -Vs- U.P. Btaher Edueatton Serolces Comnrisston. Affahabad and others. 11986] 1 SCC 671 that if the inarks are not separatety aUocated under the separate heals in a setectfon post on academic attauunents, teaching expcricnce, adnunistaative experience aad suitabiUty, selection wouM not be held arbitrary iu fhe absencc of such sub- division.

32.3 Ifwe examine the present case in the light ofthe above decisions rendcred by fhe Apex court on various points of tinie, first of all, ftie tdevant factor would be the nature of post for which the selection was made. AU these posts namely Deputy Director, Priacipal (DIET) and the Professor (SMksha Maha Vidycday Sccmvccr^ are fhe posts meant fhe persons of xnature personalily as they have to perform the work of imparting cducation of high iinportance, and atso the work of adiumlstration and for this rcason oaSy, fhe Legislature in aU its wisdoia has not tfacse posts to be SSed in fi»mfhe fesh caadidates, but the expcrience and ofhcr qualities of long tenure have been set up as the reqiiisite quaU&cations and if in such cases of selection, the Conmussion Taas taken a decision for makmg selection on fhe basis 40 / //• ofinterviews only, then it cannot be said that the decisioa taken by fhe Commission was iUegal or arbitraiy. In fhe opixuon of ttiis court, since the recniitment has necessarity to be inade fl-oia persons of mature peisonality, the Coiiiinissioa was right adopting fhe way of intemew test instead of a written examination, particularty in the circumstance when thc number of appUcatiou forms werc relativety less. The action taken by the Commission is neither unjust nor improper nor it goes aysdsst any act or rules nor the same is against fhe coiiiUtions ofadverdseinent, referred to above.

22.4 So far as thc ground in relation to selection of less nieritorious candidates is concemed, I wo'uM like to refer to a dccision of the Apcx Coitrt rendered in the m.atter of The Chanceltor <uut tinatter - ys- Dr. WtwvmaitSa. Kar andothers (1994f 1 SCC 169, in which the Apex Court held fhat decisions of the acadeaaic authoritles shozild not ordinarily be interfered wifh by fhe Courts. Whcfher or not a eaudidate fulGls the rcquisite quaUficatioas is a matterwhich shouM be entirely left to thc decision of flie academic bodies said the concemed sekction Cominittces which invariabty consist of experts on fhe subject. Here also, none of fhe petitioners have chaBcnged fhe constitutk>n of selecdon committec, nor fhere is any aBegation in rclation to the expcrtise of the ineinbers. The Conunission has stated fhat thc Boards consfated of retited Addl. Director, Vice ChanceUor of Pt, Ravi Shankar University, Raipur, Retired Dean. and HOD, Retd. Depuly Secrctaiy, School Education, Ex-Vicc ChanceUor, Principat, BTI Principal and Ex-Additional Director, Highcr Education, Vice ChaaccUor, Guru Ohasidas University, Bilaspur, Rcctor aad 41 1 /' !ti', 'l-\ :./''^...-/ \ f"l Chairman, Regional Education and Research School of Ravi Shflnkar Universily and Ex-Vice ChanceUor, have taken fhe intaviews. More ovcr aU fhese poiats are beiag raised by fhe petitfoners after taking a chance ia taterview.

22.S In fhc facts and circiunstances, I do not find any inerit in fhe arguinents advaaced by leamed coiinsel for the pctitioncrs undcr this point and fhe same cannot be accepted. The process of sclection adopted by fhe PubUc Service Commission is he]d to be ia order. POIHT8 No.6 & 8

These poiuts relate to fhe select Ust for the post of Principal (DIET). The challeiige is naade vide W.P.No.598/2005 on the ground that Sadhaaa Agrawal, Ghaa Shyam Netani, Hemand Upadhyay and Probodh Adhikari, were uot haviag requisite expcrience for this post, fherefore, the selection is iinproper. There were two posts of Prmcipal (DIET^, one ia general category and one ia Schcduled Tribe categoiy. Sadhana Agrawal has been selected ia general categoiy aud Ghan Shyam Netam. has been selected in S.T. categoiy. Other two reiaainiag persoas were kept as Serial No.l & 2 in the supplementaiy list (waiting list). It is submltted fhat Sadhaua Agrawal was working as Prmcipal in High School and not ia higher secondary school, fherefore, she would not be held to be fulfilting criteria no.l-KA(3) of Clause No.2 of the advertisement. The repfy of Sadhana Agrawal vide Para 5 reflects about her educatioiial quali&cations and experience.

33.1 The Rcgulations of the Board of Secondary Educatioa, M.P. 1965 have also been fl-amcd aad approved by fhe Goveminent in exercases of powers coirferred under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the aforesaid Adhiuyam 1965 aad the words "H^;h Schoor and "H^her Secondaiy SchooF and ''PrincipaF havc becn defined In chapter I as Regulation 2(12), (13), and (15), which are quoted as under: (12) (13) (15) *H%h School" nacans an educatioaal institutions which is not a coUege preparmg caadidates for the H^h School Examination of the Board aad recognized by fhe Board for such purpose. "H^her Secondaiy Schoo]" means an educational iustitution prepadag candulate for a H^hcr Secoudaiy School Certificate Examiaation of thc Board aad recognized by the Board for such a purpose. ''PrincipaT nieans fhe Head of a CoUege or a Hf^aer secondaiy school or a Multipurpose Higher Secoadaiy School recognized by fhe Board. In M.P. Shiksha Sanhita, in additk>a to inaay ofher words, "Pvro Prathmik Shala", "PntWindfc Shata", "Puro Maahyamtk Sheda", and 'Vehhtar MaShyantUc ShcSA1' have steo been defined as under: "^K?) ^WWfit^ ?n^f' ^ (77?W ^ VKST ^t, ulSf tVWWn'.V/ ^VvTV ftm V^ f ^IW^ 3fl^ 2- 1/2^^^T^tsf^6 vf^^fV^fS, "ywfitv ?nNi" ^ (fKvrf ^ vwr ^t, ^?t vm^f vsrfiv fiifir ^ ^jjjcft ^ ^?) (^W)"^ WSti^ ?MJ" ^ ffJfVlf ^ CTW ^^, wft jmf^f^mvR ^^vwi?sk V^(K Hwft)* ^ff ^ff? ^ dfW ^ 7ff7 ffV/$SJ7'^fft ^; 44 x'. ;v /rW^ i (-vy ft^"vf^ti^ Wjf^ ?JM" ^ ff?p7<5r M TfWT ^ f ^ ^ ^Wft^ ?U?IT^RfT tW ^ ^V V? ^Wr^NT waf^r fiwfisM^ ^M ft^rt fimr ^ ^ ^ ^ " 5W ^ /^7' ^ tCT^ ^

23.2 Therefore, the Goverument in all its wisdoin has classified the cducational institutions of the State, impartiag education right fi-om. prepriruaiy to the beginiung of the University education under these five categories on fte basis of fheir character about imparting cducation upto fhe classes speciGcd calUng them as Prepruaary School (Purv Prathauk Shafa), Primaiy School (Prafhmik Shala), Middle School (Pmv Madhyamik Shal^ (Madhyamik Shala) and Higher Secondaiy School H^h School (Uchhattar Madhyamik Shala). The definltion of "h^h school" given in Regulations of Board of secondary Education would show fhat ia thosc institutions, fhe candldates are prepared for h^h school exaaunatiDn of fhe Board and this iustitution is recognized by the Board for such purposc onty whereas a higher secondaiy school is an educational iastitution, wtdch prepares for a h^hcr secondaiy certificate examination aad the said mstitution is recognized by the Board for such purposc. So far as fhe word ''Principar used in fhe Regulatfon is conceraed, it has ctearly been mentioncd ia the regulations fhat it would niean ttie head of the college or a Higher secoudaiy school or m.iiltipurposc H^her secondary school which is recogiuzed by fhe Board. AH this dtecussiou wouM. show that the uistttution High School and Higher Secondaiy School are the two dlfferent educational iustitutions classified according to fhe nature of their constitution with respect to thc teachiag of fhc candidates for preparation of 45 u "'• z-^ difiFerent categories of examinations and the principal or head master or head of fhe High School, though is not defined, cannot be deemed to be or kept at par as the principal of H^her Secondary School for thc purpose of fhjese Rutes 1991 goveming fhc cases of present appointmeat. Therefore, I hold and conclude that Sadhana Agrawal who was a principal of High School was having no requlsite experience as pcr Schedule III of the aforesaid Rutes for fhe post of Principal (DIET). Her appoiatinent has to be set aside on fhc ground of lack of experience and the same is set aside accoidingly.

23.3 So far as Hemant Upadhyaya aud Prabodh Adhikari aie conceraed, the ground has been taken that both ofthein do not have experience as per para l(ka) of Clause 2. How fhey are lacking in experience has not been pleaded by fhe petitioner. However, respondent no.4 has pleaded vide paaa 5 of his reply fhat he is a postgraduate in Geography wifh first dhrision and has also done B.Ed., aad M.Ed., wifh first division. Hc was having 10 years of experience in teaching as lccturer. He has further pleaded that he had worked as a Principal fi-om 19.9.1997 to 2(X)1. But, he has not clanfied as to whefher he was working as a Prmcipal ia a High School or in Higher Secondaiy School, fherefore, according to these pleadings, it is not possible for fhis Court to say as to whefher he was in fact holdfag the requistte experience for fhis post or not.

23.4 As far as respondent no.5 namety Prabodh Adhikari is concemed he has also not pleaded regardmg his expericnce. He has only stated vide para 5 of his reply fhat he had done B.Ed., and M.Ed., wifh first divfaion and has worked as tecturer fix>m 46 /<A <^

13.8.1998 to 23.10.2001. Thoi^h he mentioned fhe woxd as 'priacipaP in fhis para, no details have becu fumishcd. In fhe facts and circuxnstaaces ofthis caae, nothing caa be said about his el^ibflity also on the basis ofhis own plcadcd qualifications.

23.5 Thc selection of Ghan Shyani Netam for the post of Priucipal (DIET) against fhe rescrved S.T. catEgory has ateo been challcngcd in W.P.No.312/2005 vale paia 5.16 on fhe ground of lack of experience. Reply to interun appUcation has been filed on behalfoffhjs respondent, but in fhc said repty he has not statcd as to how he waa fuIBUtag the requisite qualifications of experieace etc, He has not fUed his retum ia this case aad no arguinents showiag his eUgibitily were advanced at the time of hcarmg, fherefore, his case is also sinular to fhe case of Hemaat Upadhyay and Rrabodh Adhikan and nofhing can be said about his eligibiUly also on fhe basis of records avaUable before this Co-urt Even thc Public Service Commission has not pleaded anythmg about fhe aUegations made by the petitkxneis agaiust these respoudents. Therefore, ia the facts aad circumstances of ttus case, siuce fhe matter relates to basic statutoiy quaM&cation and it goes to fhe toot of setection, I deem it propcr to issue a directkin to fhe Cominissfon to examine their educatioiial qualiflcations and experience by re-scrutmizing fheir individual case with a wiew to find out as to whether fhey possess fhc basic stetutory qualfficatiou aad experience as per Schedule III of the aforesaid Rulcs of 1991 or uot. Thcir rcsult about section wouJd be subject to fhe scrutiny made by the Coimnission. 47 // _ f- <">- . POINT Mo.7

This relates to chaUenge of selection of Shri Gaad Ram Chandrarkar who has been selected as fhe Deputy Director ia ofber backward classes categoiy. He is respondent no.6 ia W.P.No.312/2005. It is submitted fhat he had not given the caste certificate, as required under tfie lanw issued by the State of Chhattisgarh and has submitted a caste cerdficate issued earUer to him by the then State of M.P. and ater the re-oi^anization of the State of M.P. he does not faffl in fhe O.B.C. categoiy being in creainy layer. It is submitted that it was obUgatory on the part of this respondent to funush a fsesh O.B.C. certificate issued by fhc aufhoritics of fhis State. This respondeut has fited his retura and has stated fhat at the tiiae of subinission of hjs appUcation before the coinpetent authorily, he had subniitted provisional certiiBcate dated 01.8.2003 issued by Addl. Tahsiklar, Raipur in respect of caste and crearay layer aud subsequentty at fhe tiine of interview he ftufher subinltted the pennaaeut caste certi&cate to the public servicc commission which goes to show that he belongs to OBC category aad does not hold the status ofcreamy layer as aUeged by fhe petitioners.

24.1 The refusal ofcandidature of Deepak Dubey, petitioner in W.P. No. 433/2005 for the post of Princq)al (DIET) caimot be held to be unjustified, The contention of PubUc Service Coinmission is fhat according to the petitioner's own showing his educational qualification is M.A. (EngUsh Literature), B.Ed., PG Diploma in ELTI (English Language Teachiag) etc. This would show that fhe petitioner was not M.Ed., whlch has becn held to be the essential qualification according to fhe Rules. There is no force ia this arguinent and fhe same caa not be accepted. 49 '^^—" W TSE KESVLT, I W.P.No.21/2005 and W.P.No.4192/2005 staad dismissed, II W.Ps.No.599/2005, 433/2005, 598/2005, 524/ 2005, 312/2005, 287/2005 and W.P.No.718/2005 disposed of in fhe foflowing tenns : (1) (2) The process and mode of selectiou adopted by the PubUc Service Commission is hcld to be iu order; The appoiatment of Dr.Hare Rana Sharma vide appoiatnient letter dated 22.9.2003 is hereby quashed;

2.1 However, due to this quastung, petitioner of W.P.No.€24/'M05 Shri Ram Niwas Singh who is at Serial No. 1 ia fhe wait list of Deputy Directois would not be treated as fhe selected candidate at serial no.2 automaticaUy because the post occupied by Dr. Haie Ram Shanaa was not wifhia fhe purview ofP.S.C. (3) (4) The selection of Sint. R. Bambra showing her to be selected agaiust fhe reserced post for women in. general categoiy is qiiashed for waat of such for wonien iu fhe general a reserved post category; The Coinnnission is dtrected to republfeh the select Ust of general category of Deputy Directors without treatii^ one post as reserved for woin.cn candidate considerfag the case of Smt. R. Bainbra aad the case of Ram Niwas Siagh, on iaterse merits alongwifh other caadidates; 50 (Q^ The selection of Sadhaaa Agrawal to fhe post of Principal (DIET) is set aside. \e.^ The segtion of Shri Ghan Shyam Netam, Shri Hemaat Upadhyay and Shri Prabodh Adbikari pertaming to the post of Principal (DIET) shaU be scrutiny of their fonns by the subjcct to the Public Service Commission wifh a view to find out as to whefher fliey possess the basic statutoiy qualifications and experience as per Schedute III of the M.P. School Education Institute of Education and Trauiiag District (Gazetted) Services Recnutment Rules, 1991 or not. Tbls scrutiny shaU be done stricUy on the basis of pnwisions of fhe aforesaid Rules takiag aid and assistance of fhe decision on various points rendcred by this Court ia fhis judgement. If fhey fulfiU the statutory qualifications aad vaUd experience, selection wotild be (5) (6)

6.1 otherwise fhey will be treated as not sekcted.

6.2 After fh.e scrutmy the Commission wfll republish fhe revised selection Ust of Principal (DIET) among fhe overaU results of fhe candidates before fheni. (7) (8) The commission wfll undertake aU this exercise withia a period of 30 days fi?om today aad ttie revised result iu fhese two categories as directed above shaB be published withm this period. The Govenunent is fi-ee to take decision about filUng up of fhat one post of Deputy Director, which was withdrawn by fhe Govemment, as to whefher fhat post would be fiUed up through the 51 ^> */ process of PubUc Service Commission or by aay ofher mode according to the Riiles. (9) The uiterun order granted earUer in aU the writ petitions stand vacated. lu the facts aad circurastaaces of thc case, there shall be no order as to the costs. The original Judgt&ent wffl bc kept m W.P. No. 599/2005 and a copy ofthe same shaU be placed in ofher cases. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao