1. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission set up under the Utter Pradesh Secondary Service Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982 (U. P. Act 5 of 1982) is in appeal by special leave and challenge is to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in writ petition setting aside the selection of respondent 3 at the instance of respondent 1 to the post of Principal of an Intermediate College


2. The High Court has found that the selection was not acceptable on account of the defective procedure adopted by the selection commission. Under the Act a set of Regulations as also a set of Rules have been framed. The Commission Rules require in respect of recruitment of the post of head of an institution the holding of a preliminary screening on the basis of academic records, teaching and administrative experience under Rule 4(ii) for the purpose of sending two names of seniormost teachers of the institution concerned. Apart from these two names of 5 direct candidates on the basis of shortlisting have to be placed for consideration. 75 marks are prescribed for the interview taking the following factors into consideration


1. Personality


2. Knowledge of subject


3. Knowledge of correct ideas and problems of the educational work ad diagnostic attitude towards them


4. General knowledge


5. Administrative ability


6. Self expressive and impressive views


7. Achievement in curricular activities of the regional and state level


3. The State Government did not make a return to rule nisi issued by the High Court. In course of the bearing the Commission filed a supplementary affidavit to meet the directions of the court regarding allocation of marks for record of service and adverse entry in the character roll. The High Court found that along with this affidavit the Commission had filed a document labelled 'confidential' which provided that the marks obtained by the teacher at the interview should be modulated on the basis of record of service in the particular institution if the same becomes available by the time of the finalisation of result of selection and this modulation was to be done by the two fulltime members of the Commission. The High Court further took note of the position that the instructions provided that after interview the two members of the Board would proportionately reduce the marks to 45 and the remaining 30 marks would be for the entires in the service records but the service records would not be scrutinised by the members of the Commission along with the expert. The High Court noticed several defects in the procedure and was impressed particularly by the fact that while the performance of the teacher candidates on the basis of their service records was available to be assessed by the two members, the performance of the direct candidates being five in number was available to be assessed in regard to the entire 75 marks. The High Court took particular objection to the non-availability of the service record to the full Board at the time of interview. The High Court concluded

"Under the rules and the procedure evolved by the Commission, 75 per cent maximum marks are reserved for personality, knowledge of subject, knowledge of correct ideas and problems of the educational work and diagnostic attitude towards them, general knowledge, administrative ability, self expressive and impressive view and achievement of the regional and state levels. Marks are allocated on these items by the method of grading by the interview Board and administrative ability and the knowledge cannot be judged by the interview Board by merely putting a few questions to the candidate appearing before the Board and the same can be judged after taking into consideration the experience and the service record which may also be helpful in formulating the questions to be put to the teacher candidates appearing before it. As no separate marks for the seven items have been prescribed, the administrative ability and capability may have procured more marks and the balance will till in favour of the candidate. As the service record of the candidate was not before the interview Board, there has been breach of Rules and Regulations which prejudiced the selection and the selection deserves to be set aside." *


4. The appellant's counsel does not challenge the finding of the

High Court in regard to the defects pointed out by it. We are satisfied that the defects noticed by the High Court are found in the selection and the result of such selection cannot be upheld. The appeal has to fail as there is no merit in it 5. In view of the fact that the appeal is being dismissed, the interlocutory order made is vacated and the successful candidate (respondent 1) may be put in charge till there is a fresh selection in terms of the High Court's order. No costs.