Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Judges
  • Justice M.B. Shah
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 16-E of the U.P Education Act
  • U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Judges
  • Justice M.B. Shah
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 16-E of the U.P Education Act
  • U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) had been directed by the Supreme Court in an earlier order dated 10-01-2001 (reported at (2008) 14 SCC 139) to determine the eligibility of candidates who had appeared for interviews for the post of Principal, Government Intermediate Colleges. In compliance, the UPPSC produced before the Court a freshly prepared list of candidates divided into several categories (A–E) based on their teaching experience and the validity of their appointments. The present order addresses clarifications sought by the UPPSC, resolves interpretative disputes regarding the statutory qualifications, and issues further directions on individual interlocutory applications (IAs).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Court’s earlier order interpreting the statutory rules applies to candidates who were not parties to the original appeals but had appeared in the relevant interview.
  2. How the statutory requirement of “at least three years’ experience in teaching Intermediate or higher classes” should be construed—specifically, whether experience in classes IX to XII satisfies the rule.
  3. Whether teaching experience gained in self-financed institutions without prior sanction under Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 can be counted toward eligibility.
  4. What procedure the UPPSC must follow in verifying the authenticity of experience certificates and disposing of individual representations or IAs.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent 1 (UPPSC)

  • Sought clarification on whether the Court’s ruling would extend to individuals who had not filed appeals but were interviewed on the relevant date.
  • Argued that a valid appointment as a teacher under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 mandates prior sanction under Section 16-E; without such sanction, experience certificates are invalid.
  • Indicated that they had referred experience certificates to the Joint Director of Education for verification and intended to decide eligibility through a speaking order.

Certain Appellants

  • Submitted that Section 16-E procedures do not apply to self-financed institutions because the State Government has issued an exemption notification.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Order dated 10-01-2001 in the present matter (reported at (2008) 14 SCC 139) Interpretation of statutory eligibility rules for the post of Principal, Government Intermediate Colleges. Reaffirmed; the Court held that its previous interpretation governs all candidates who appeared in the interview, regardless of whether they were parties to the appeals.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Applicability of Earlier Order: The Court held that because its earlier decision turned on an interpretation of statutory rules, it automatically applies to all candidates who appeared at the concerned interview, not merely to those who were litigants.

2. Interpretation of “Higher Classes”: Relying on Appendix A to the State-framed regulations and a clarificatory circular dated 12-04-1973, the Court ruled that “higher classes” include classes IX to XII. Consequently, teaching experience in any of these classes satisfies the three-year experience requirement. The UPPSC’s narrower reading was rejected.

3. Validity of Appointments and Section 16-E: The Court noted the UPPSC’s position that prior sanction is necessary and the appellants’ claim of exemption for self-financed schools. Rather than adjudicate the exemption question, the Court permitted the UPPSC to verify each candidate’s status with reference to existing records endorsed by the Joint Director of Education and to issue a reasoned (“speaking”) order after granting personal hearings where necessary.

4. Interlocutory Applications: The Court directed the UPPSC to treat specific IAs (e.g., those filed by Maya Singh and Santosh Kumar Saxena) as representations and dispose of them by speaking orders. Remaining IAs for intervention, impleadment, or transposition were deemed infructuous.

Holding and Implications

The appeals and special leave petitions were DISPOSED OF.

All directions issued on 10-01-2001 and in the present order are to be implemented for every eligible candidate who appeared in the interview. The UPPSC must:

  • Apply the clarified interpretation of “higher classes” (IX–XII) when assessing teaching experience;
  • Independently verify the validity of experience certificates, including the applicability of Section 16-E or any exemption, through a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing where required;
  • Consider individual representations referenced in IAs by separate speaking orders.

The decision primarily impacts the parties by directing the UPPSC to finalise eligibility determinations; it does not announce a new legal doctrine beyond the clarified interpretation of existing regulations.

Show full summary ...

    Mohd. Altaf (3) And Others v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission And Another

    Order

    1. Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 1, U.P Public Service Commission (for short “the Public Service Commission”) submits that in compliance with the order dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139, the Public Service Commission has prepared a list of eligible candidates which is produced before us today in court and is reproduced as under:

    “Categories of petitioners

    (A) Lecturers in CBSE/ISCE Board's recognised colleges

    1. Mohd. Altaf CAs Nos. 961-62 of 1999 2. Mahendra Pratap Singh CAs Nos. 963-66 of 1999 3. Vinod Kumar Sharma CAs Nos. 965-66 of 1999 4. Dhananjai Dwivedi CAs Nos. 974-75 of 1999 5. Mohd. Iqbal CA No. 967 of 1998 6. Maheshwar Singh CAs Nos. 974-75 of 1998

    (B) LT grade teachers/Trained graduate teachers

    1. Devendra Swaroop CA No. 968 of 1999 2. Virendra Kumar Singh CA No. 968 of 1999 3. Oumkar Singh CA No. 968 of 1996 4. Ram Prakash CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 5. Anoop Saxena CA No. 969 of 1999 6. Jamuna Prasad Gangwar CA No. 969 of 1999 7. Fateh Chand CA No. 3896 of 1999 8. Ram Pal CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 9. Kamal Prakash CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 10. Mahendra Pal SLP No. 10048 of 1999

    (C) Not validly appointed teacher as per experience certificate given by the Education Department, U.P

    1. Dr. Ram Pal CAs Nos. 961-62 of 1999 2. Prabhakar Tripathi CA No. 974 of 1999 3. Arun Kumar Tiwari CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 4. Vijay Narain Singh CAs Nos. 963-66 of 1999 5. Ram Chandra Pandey CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 6. Smt Asha Singh CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 7. Suresh Narayan Pandey CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 8. Sabhajeet Singh CAs Nos. 963-66 of 1999 9. Shri Prakash Dwivedi CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 10. Prem Bihari Saran Sharma CA No. 972 of 1999 @ SLP (C) No. 15590 of 1999

    (D) Experience certificates not signed by Education Department's officers

    1. Rajendra Mani Pandey CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999 2. Ram Singh CA No. 968 of 1999

    (E) Teacher on fixed pay of Rs 700 per month

    1. Dharmatma Nand Singh CAs Nos. 970-71 of 1999

    Fresh application for impleadment
    1. Virender Kumar Mishra — Experience of Lab Assistant since May 1991 to February 1996.
    2. Santosh Kumar Saxena — Experience of less than 3 years.”

    2. Mr Tripathi submits that the said list consists of a number of other persons who have not preferred any appeal or petition before this Court and he seeks a clarification whether the order passed by this Court would be applicable to them or not. In our view, our order is passed on an interpretation of the statutory rules and therefore, it would be applicable to all concerned who appeared in the interview on the relevant date.

    3. With regard to the names of the candidates, who appeared in the interview, as mentioned in Para B, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that qualification prescribed for the Principals, Government Intermediate Colleges, as per the statutory rule, inter alia, is as under:

    “Essential:
    (1)-(2)***
    (3) 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 CT or LT training college.”

    Mr Tripathi submits that normal interpretation of the aforesaid clause would mean that a candidate must be possessing three years' experience as a Head of Higher Secondary or normal school or must be having teaching experience at the intermediate or higher classes but such teaching experience cannot be in a school where he was teaching lower classes than intermediate classes.

    4. In our view, this submission cannot be accepted in view of the regulations framed by the State Government as mentioned in Appendix A to the said regulations which provide that higher classes mean classes from IX to XII and experience of teaching these classes is admissible for the post of Headmaster of Intermediate College. This is also clarified by the State Government by issuing circular dated 12-4-1973.

    5. With regard to the list of candidates mentioned in (C), (D) and (E) categories, it is Mr Tripathi's submission that to find out whether the candidates were appointed as teachers or not and that they were having experience as per the certificate produced by them, the Public Service Commission has adopted a criteria to find out from the educational authority whether their eligibility certificate was in order. For this purpose, they had made necessary inquiry from the Joint Director of Education.

    6. It is Mr Tripathi's contention that for being validly appointed as a teacher as per the provisions of the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short “the U.P Education Act”) the sanction of the authority concerned is required to be obtained. If such sanction is not obtained, then it cannot be said that the person is validly appointed as a teacher in any school including private schools. For this purpose he relied upon Section 16-E of the U.P Education Act.

    7. As against this, Mr Raj Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants submits that the procedure which is required to be followed under Section 16-E is not required to be followed in a school which is a self-financed institution as they are not getting any grant from the State Government and for that purpose separate exemption notification has been issued by the State Government.

    8. In our view, whether there is a separate notification granting such exemption or not, is not required to be decided in these appeals. It would be open to the Public Service Commission to verify the said fact and decide it in accordance with law by a speaking order. At the time of deciding the aforesaid questions, the Public Service Commission would take into consideration the documents which are already produced on record and which are endorsed by the Joint Director of the Education Department. If necessary, such candidates would be given personal hearing by the Public Service Commission.

    9. Lastly, it is clarified that the directions issued by this Court on 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 as well as today would be implemented in favour of all the eligible candidates. With these observations, these appeals and special leave petitions stand disposed of.

    IA No. 12 in CAs Nos. 974-75 of 1999

    10. Mr Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant Maya Singh is at Serial No. 228 in the merit list. With regard to the said candidate, learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission states that a speaking order would be passed disposing of the contentions which are raised in the IA treating it as a representation to the Public Service Commission and also other representation which he has made.

    IA No. 27 in CAs Nos. 963-66 of 1999

    11. The U.P Public Service Commission is directed to consider the representation made by the applicant Santosh Kumar Saxena by a speaking order.

    12. In view of the order passed above, remaining IAs for intervention/impleadment/transposition would not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Mohd. Altaf (3) And Others v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission And Another
    (Feb 20, 2002)