2008 (7) TMI 1099 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court by the UPPSC and State Government
2. Eligibility Criteria for Teaching Experience
3. Disclosure of Marks and Cut-off Marks
4. Implementation of Supreme Court Orders
5. Appointment of Eligible Candidates

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court by the UPPSC and State Government:
The petitioners alleged that the UPPSC and State Government were guilty of willful and deliberate contempt of the Supreme Court's orders dated 07.03.2006 and 09.03.2007. The petitioners argued that despite clear directions, the respondents failed to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioners and the cut-off marks, and did not call the petitioners for interviews. The petitioners also accused the respondents of changing their stance to mislead the court and circumvent its orders.

2. Eligibility Criteria for Teaching Experience:
The eligibility criteria for the posts of Principal and Senior Lecturer required a Post Graduate degree, an L.T. Diploma or equivalent, and at least three years of teaching experience. The controversy centered on whether the teaching experience had to be from Government schools. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Altaf's case clarified that teaching experience from any Higher Secondary School or equivalent was acceptable, not limited to Government schools.

3. Disclosure of Marks and Cut-off Marks:
The petitioners sought the disclosure of the marks they obtained and the cut-off marks for interviews. The UPPSC initially argued that the petitioners did not qualify for the interview stage, but this was contested by the petitioners. The Supreme Court directed the UPPSC to disclose the marks and cut-off marks, and to provide reasons if the petitioners were not considered for interviews.

4. Implementation of Supreme Court Orders:
The Supreme Court had previously directed the UPPSC to implement the eligibility criteria as decided in Mohd. Altaf's case and to consider the petitioners' cases accordingly. The UPPSC was also instructed to prepare a list of eligible candidates and communicate the results. The petitioners argued that the UPPSC failed to comply with these orders, leading to the contempt petition.

5. Appointment of Eligible Candidates:
The petitioners sought directions for their appointment based on their eligibility and the Supreme Court's orders. The UPPSC argued that there were no vacancies available for the petitioners' batch (1997) due to the prioritization of candidates from the 1996 batch. The UPPSC also highlighted that the State Government had decided not to fill certain vacancies on an ad-hoc basis.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the UPPSC and State Government had provided satisfactory explanations and had not willfully disobeyed the court's orders. The court dismissed the contempt petitions but clarified that the respondents were not precluded from considering the petitioners' legitimate claims if they were otherwise eligible. The applications for substantive relief were disposed of in these contempt proceedings.