- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anil Kumar Shahi (1) And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
A group of candidates applied for the posts of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute. Their writ petition before the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on the ground that the matter was covered by the earlier decision in Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P. They appealed to the Supreme Court. While a batch of connected matters (including Tulsi Ram) was decided in the series of judgments collectively referred to as Mohd. Altaf, the present appellants’ appeal had been delinked. After the final orders in Mohd. Altaf (10-1-2001 and 20-2-2002), the appellants filed IA No. 4 of 2003 seeking identical reliefs. The U.P. Public Service Commission (UPPSC) opposed the application, contending for the first time that the appellants had failed to qualify the written examination. The Supreme Court delivered the present order disposing of the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for the advertised posts, as settled in the Mohd. Altaf judgments, is equally applicable to the present appellants whose appeal had been delinked.
- Whether the UPPSC could, for the first time before the Supreme Court, raise the factual contention that the appellants had not qualified in the written examination and were therefore never called for interview.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The eligibility criteria interpreted in the Mohd. Altaf decisions (accepting three years’ teaching experience in any recognised institution, not merely government schools) must govern their cases as well.
- UPPSC had acted irregularly by including names of persons who were originally not notified and by excluding the appellants without justification.
- The new plea about failure in the written examination is an after-thought never raised in the High Court or earlier in the Supreme Court proceedings.
UPPSC's Arguments
- The appellants were not placed in the select list because they had failed to qualify the main (written) examination and hence were never called for interview.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 13-5-1998) | Earlier interpretation of eligibility criteria; basis on which the High Court dismissed the petition. | The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had relied on this case but proceeded to apply the later authoritative interpretation in Mohd. Altaf. |
| Mohd. Altaf (1) v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 14 SCC 139 (Order dated 10-1-2001) | Held that three years’ teaching experience need not be confined to government institutions; directed UPPSC to prepare an eligibility list accordingly. | Treated as binding; directed that the same eligibility interpretation must be applied to the present appellants. |
| Mohd. Altaf (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 14 SCC 146 (Order dated 20-2-2002) | Clarified that the directions in the 10-1-2001 order would operate in favour of all eligible candidates. | Used to extend benefits to the appellants and mandate identical implementation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court observed that although the appellants’ appeal had been delinked, the eligibility criteria were conclusively interpreted in the Mohd. Altaf line of decisions. Equity and consistency therefore required that the same interpretation govern the appellants’ cases.
2. The UPPSC’s plea that the appellants failed the written examination was raised for the first time in a reply to IA No. 4 and had never been pleaded before the High Court or in earlier stages before the Supreme Court. The Court held that it was impermissible to introduce a fresh factual controversy at this late stage without any prior investigation of facts.
3. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to implement the orders dated 10-1-2001 and 20-2-2002 in Mohd. Altaf for the appellants. However, it left open to UPPSC to pass a reasoned order, within four weeks, if it still contended that the appellants were ineligible on the ground of not qualifying in the written examination. Any such order must disclose the marks obtained by the appellants and the cut-off marks, thereby allowing the appellants an opportunity to challenge it, if necessary.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED.
Implications: The UPPSC must apply the eligibility criteria settled in Mohd. Altaf to the appellants and issue a reasoned decision within four weeks. If the Commission seeks to deny them selection based on written-exam performance, it must do so transparently, stating marks and cut-offs. No new legal principle is created; the judgment reinforces uniform application of an existing Supreme Court interpretation and restricts introduction of new factual defences at the appellate stage.
Order
1. The writ petition filed by a group of candidates for the post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute was dismissed by the High Court by a short judgment observing:
“The facts of the case are covered by the judgment of this Court in Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P decided on 13-5-1998.
The writ petition is disposed of on same condition and direction as in aforesaid judgment.”
2. The judgment in Tulsi Ram was challenged before this Court in a group of matters. By an order made on 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 in Civil Appeals Nos. 961-62 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 pertaining to the present appellants, was delinked from the group of matters.
3. In Mohd. Altaf (1) v. U.P Public Service Commission (2008) 14 SCC 139 this Court decided the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid appeal of Tulsi Ram. The controversy in Tulsi Ram centred around the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the post. The eligibility criteria as advertised were threefold and they were as under:
“(3) For the post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute—(1) Postgraduate degree from a recognised university or any degree equivalent thereto recognised by the Government. (2) LT Diploma from Education Department of U.P or BT or BEd or any other degree of university equivalent thereto. (3) At least three years of teaching experience as Head of any Senior Secondary or normal school or three years' experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes or in CT or LT Training Postgraduate College as lecturer.”
4. It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that experience contemplated by Eligibility Criterion 3 was not restricted to teaching in government schools, while the U.P Public Service Commission (U.P PSC) was of the view that the teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a government school. This controversy was resolved by the order of this Court in Mohd. Altaf (1) (2008) 14 SCC 139 and this Court took the view that the lecturers having three years' teaching experience in CT/LT colleges in training colleges were also eligible, since the rules nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be that of a teacher in government college or aided or unaided government college or institution. This Court was further of the view that teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or higher classes. Having laid down the law thus, U.P PSC was directed to implement and carry out the directions of the High Court and prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed to the post advertised within a stipulated period. After the list was prepared in accordance with the directions given by this Court, on 14-3-2001, the appeals came up for hearing and were disposed of by a final order made on 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146. In the said order, after holding in favour of the appellants, this Court said: (Mohd. Altaf (3) case (2008) 14 SCC 146)
“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.”
5. It was observed in the order dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 that: (Mohd. Altaf (1) case (2008) 14 SCC 139)
“8. The aforesaid direction is to be considered in the light of the discussion in the judgment, which specifically provides that if the teachers who have been substantively appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are not paid the salary from the public treasury as those institutions were not given maintenance grant/grant-in-aid it cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of the State Government and such teacher cannot be excluded for being considered to be appointed. The learned counsel for the parties have pointed that most of the matters filed by the teachers are with regard to this clause. It is their contention that if this direction as explained in the body of this judgment stands implemented, most of the matters may not survive”.
6. Although the case of the appellants was delinked from that of Mohd. Altaf, we would have thought that the interpretation as to the eligibility criteria laid down in Mohd. Altaf (1) case (2008) 14 SCC 139 would equally govern the case of the appellants and the appellants would have been dealt with in accordance with the said interpretation.
7. The appellants thereafter made an application IA No. 4 of 2003 before this Court placing on record the different orders made in Mohd. Altaf (1) case (2008) 14 SCC 139 and Mohd. Altaf (3) case (2008) 14 SCC 146 and praying that their appeals be also allowed in terms of the orders of this Court dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 and 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 and for consequential directions for relief to the appellants. While opposing this prayer made in IA No. 4, U.P PSC filed a counter-affidavit in which they have raised a fresh issue that the appellants before us were not included in the list of successful candidates because they had failed to qualify the written examination and, therefore, there was no occasion to call them for interview at all. This, of course, has been denied by the appellants in the rejoinder-affidavit, who have pointed out that U.P PSC had acted irregularly by including in the select list names of the persons, who were originally not even notified in the Official Gazette notification by acting clandestinely.
8. In our view, it is not open to the respondents to raise a fresh controversy on facts before this Court for the first time. We are informed, and it is not disputed before us, that the respondents did not file a counter-affidavit before the High Court opposing the averments made in the writ petition, nor have they done so before us. The new case sought to be set out, about the appellants not having been qualified in the main examination, appears for the first time in reply to IA No. 4. Since there has been no investigation of facts in this case, we decline to entertain this controversy.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent of directing the respondents to implement the orders in Mohd. Altaf dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 and 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 and apply the same eligibility criteria as decided by this Court in the aforesaid orders to the case of the appellants. If it is the case of the respondents that the appellants did not qualify in the main examination and, therefore, they were not called for the interview, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders giving the reason as to why the case of the appellants has not been considered and disclose the marks obtained by them as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview. It will be equally open to the appellants to challenge such an order, if passed by U.P PSC.
10. The learned counsel appearing for U.P PSC states that they have already filed a list of candidates whose cases had been considered pursuant to the directions of this Court. As indicated earlier, this controversy being raised for the first time before this Court, we decline to go into it and leave it open.
11. Since the matter has been considerably delayed, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders and communicate them to the appellants within a period of four weeks from today.
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
Alert