9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon'ble Court; and/or (b) direct the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview; and/or (c) quash order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 which is in contravention of the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court; and/or (d) direct the respondents that if the candidates are found to have obtained equal to or more than cut-off marks, then to call the candidates for interview and recommend the candidates; and/or (e) direct the respondents/U.P. Government that thereafter to appoint the candidates in order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the mains examination; and/or (f) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under: The petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the preliminary and main examinations for the year 1997 conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmediate or higher classes or in C.T. or L.T. Training Post Graduate College as lecturer. 6. It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that experience contemplated by the above-said eligibility criteria No. 3 was not restricted to teaching in Government schools, while the UP Public Service Commission was of the view that the teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a Government School. This controversy was resolved and settled finally by this Court in Mohd. Altaf's case (supra) by holding 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. Further, it was observed 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, the UPPSC 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 4. Since there has been no investigation of facts in this case, we decline to entertain this controversy. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent of directing the respondents to implement the orders in Mohd. Altaf dated 10.01.2001 and 20.2.2002 (C.A. Nos. 961- 962/1999) 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 calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra) while dealing with similar situation was pleased to record and observe as under: ...It appears that the UPPSC is interested in suppressing some facts from the court as well as from the candidates who appeared in the examinations for some ulterior purpose. From a constitutional functionary like Public Service Commissions much higher standards are expected not only by the Courts but also by the Public at large. If there is a mal- administrations at the level of Public Service Commissions there would be rampant favoritism in making appointments to the service of the state. Despite our various orders making abundantly clear, today also the affidavit which is filed on behalf of the UPPSC is not complete and contains half truth.... In our view, this is an absurd stand because it is the duty of the Public Service Commissions to declare on the Notice Board result indicating marks with all other relevant details. In such examinations transparency is expected and results cannot be kept secret.... Here also the UPPSC wants to play with the court.... The Chairman and the Secretary of the UPPSC are directed to deposits with the registry cost of 10,000/- each for wasting the court time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs against the contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon'ble Court; and/or (b) direct the respondents to recommend the names of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 9.3.2007; and/or (c) direct the respondents/U.P. Government that thereafter to appoint the candidates in order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the mains examination; and/or (d) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. 15. On 16.11.2007, an application for exemption from personal appearance of Dr. (Prof.) Ram Sewak Yadav, Chairman of U.P. Public Service Commission and Dr. J.B. Sinha, Secretary U.P. Public Service Commission, was allowed. The matter was ordered to be listed on 10th December, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. and in the meantime the State of UP was asked to allow the learned Counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioners to inspect the record which was produced before this Court on that day. When the matter was called for hearing on 8.2.2008, this Court made the following order: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel handed over chart t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e representation to the Commission and the Commission passed an Office Order on 07.04.2006 on its interpretation of the order dated 20.02.2002 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 1999 titled Mohd. Altaf and Ors. v. Public Service Commission and Anr. in which it was ordered that the orders would be applicable to all concerned who appeared in interview on the relevant date. As the petitioners in the present case had not been called for interview till the passing of the order dated 20.02.2002, their case could not be considered. However, after rejection of the representation of the petitioners, the Commission realised that the order dated 20.02.2002 should be made applicable to the petitioners due to their higher marks than the cut-off marks. Accordingly, the Commission took necessary steps by deliberating upon the whole matter in accordance with the orders dated 10.01.2001, 20.02.2002, 28.11.2002, 28.08.2003 and 07.03.2006 passed by this Court. He submitted that in Contempt Petition No. 372 of 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 962 of 1999, Shamim Khanam v. K. B. Pandey and other connected matters, this Court was pleased to consider the cases of all the candidates who had appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the State Govt. had decided not to fill up the remaining 45 vacancies on ad-hoc basis. Even if the State Govt. had permitted to fill up the 45 vacancies on ad-hoc basis it would have gone to 70 candidates of 1996 examination in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 28.08.2003. Therefore, in any case, it would not be possible to make a recommendation in respect of the petitioners who are eligible candidates of 1997 examination. 19. Dr. J. B. Sinha, Secretary, UPPSC, filed a separate affidavit in which he pleaded identical statement as stated by the Chairman of the Commission. In rejoinder, the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the Contempt Petition. Dr. J. B. Sinha, Secretary, UPPSC, in his additional affidavit stated that in compliance with the judgment dated 07.03.2006 passed by this Court the petitioners were also placed in the list of eligible Teachers for appointments in the revised list drawn on 14.07.2006. A meeting in this regard was held in the Office of the State Government on 07.03.2007. The State Government has not appointed all the eligible candidates for the examination held in the year 1996. He submitted that no appointment has been m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osts, 35 posts are to be filled against the reserved category candidates selected in the year 1996 and the remaining six to clear the backlog posts, are lying vacant. She submitted that out of 47 newly upgraded posts of Principals in the Colleges, 50% posts of Principals were to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment on the basis of the examination conducted by the UPPSC. She submitted that as on 28.10.2007 when this affidavit was filed, there were 29 vacancies of Principals, which are to be filled by direct recruitment and in addition thereto, 3 posts of Senior Lecturers D.I.E.T. are also lying vacant. Further, it is submitted that in the year 1997 the State Government sent requisition for selection of 443 posts of Principals/Senior Lecturers/D.I.E.Ts. and the UPPSC after selecting the candidates, recommended their names for appointment against the required 443 posts. She also submitted that the National Council for Teachers Education has prescribed new educational qualification for appointment to the post of Senior Lecturers for D.I.E.T. and the minimum qualification is M.Ed. which earlier was B.Ed. 21. In reply to I.A. No. 12 of 2008, Prof. Ram Sevak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's case would apply in the case of the petitioners as well, but the respondents firstly took the stand that the petitioners have not qualified the written examination and later on, they have admitted that the petitioners had qualified in the written examination, but they had not appeared in the interview. He submitted that at least the respondents have entirely taken a new stand that there existed no vacancies against which the petitioners could be appointed. He has brought to our notice the order dated 28.11.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 1999 titled Mohd. Altaf and Ors. v. Public Service Commission and Anr. whereunder strictures were passed against UPPSC for acting arbitrarily, for showing "rampant favouritism" for taking an "absurd stand" and for "playing with the court by taking the stand that there are no vacancies." The learned senior counsel has relied upon the statement of the then Education Minister made in the U. P. Legislative Council stating that there were 113 vacancies for the year 1996, 164 vacancies for the year 1997 and 90 vacancies for the year 1999 as on 03.03.2005 as per Annexure R-3 attached with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the eligible candidates of the year 1996 as per vacancy informed by State Government on 19.09.2002. Break-up for year 1996 vacancies for the post of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys & Girls) S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 216 108 46 04 58 2 Selected 104+ 1* 101 03 Nil Nil * 1 (one) General vacancy reserved as per orders of Hon'ble High Court in Subhash Babu v. U.P.P.S.C. and Ors. 3 Carry forward vacancies 111 06 43 04 58 Details of vacancies filled-up by 1997 Examination Government sends requisition for 548 posts of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys & Girls) and for the post of Sr. Lecturer in District Education & Training Institutes. Thereafter, Government vide letter No. 1978/15-1-97-8(2)/95 T.C., dated 05th September, 1997. Informed U.P.P.S.C. that 548 posts includes 216 posts for which requisition has already been sent to the U.P.P.S.C. in 1996 as a result of which only 332 vacancies are available for 1997 Examination and 111 carry forward vacancies of 1996 Examination are available. Details break-up of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 63 0 24 03 36 2 Selected 44 0 20 01 23 3 Carry Forward 19 0 04 02 13 i) Break up for post of Sr. Lecturers - 38 Plain Cadre S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 38 0 16 03 19 2 Selected 31 0 12 Nil 19 3 Carry Forward 07 0 04 03 Nil i) Break up for post of Principals - 12 Hill Cadre S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 12 0 05 Nil 07 2 Selected Nil 0 Nil Nil Nil 3 Carry Forward 12 0 05 Nil 07 Details of vacancies filled-up by 1999 Examination (General Recruitment) Special Selection for 64 posts which are bifurcated as below: A. Details of 64 posts for Principals (15 for Plain Cadre + 49 for Hill Cadre) i) Break up for post of Principals - 15 for Plain Cadre S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 15 08 03 Nil 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategory. The petitioners also contended that neither UPPSC nor the Deputy Director of Education in their affidavits have whispered a word about any mistake having occurred while giving 548 vacancies in advertisement issued on 01.01.1997 and the stand now taken in the chart that 548 vacancies for 1997 batch was wrongly published in the advertisement can now be accepted. 25. Having gone through the details of vacancies for the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 for the post of Principals and Senior Lecturers in District Education & Training Institutes, as shown in the above-extracted Chart, we find that the UPPSC has satisfactorily explained that the advertisement of 548 posts was made as per the requisition of the State Government which numbers were later on found to be wrong, because 216 vacancies which were advertised in 1996 batch, were wrongly included in 548 vacancies. The vacant posts for 1997 batch were only 332 and not 548 and 111 vacancies carried forward from 1996 batch, the total vacancies in 1997 were 443. The petitioners also contended that 14 new District Institutes of Education & Training have come into existence, thus, creating 84 more vacancies for the post of Senior Lectur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empt jurisdiction was invoked. When the Court directs the authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and, therefore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position cannot constitute contempt of court. There is no willful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order. 27. Having considered the entire factual backdrop of the matter and given our due consideration to the above extracted various orders passed by this Court in this case and having considered the detailed explanations given by the Chairman, UPPSC, Secretary, UPPSC, and Deputy Director [Education] in their respective affidavits as noticed above which in our view are quite satisfactory and further examination of the details of year-wise vacancies position for the posts in question stated in the above- extracted Chart submitted by the UPPSC, it cannot be said that a deliberate circumvention and dubious method was adopted by the contesting respondents to avoid implementation of the judgments/orders of this Court nor the facts and circumstances mentioned above would establish that the contestin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
