The Allahabad High Court has held that the absence of a nominee or representative of the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) from a selection committee does not vitiate the selection proceedings conducted under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984. The Court observed that mere non-presence of the DBEO’s nominee, as provided for under Rule 15(5)(ii) of the Rules, does not render the selection invalid in law.
Justice Irshad Ali, presiding over the matter, noted that Rule 15(5) of the 1984 Rules further deems approval granted if the DBEO communicates no decision on the selection papers within a month. The Court referred to its own Division Bench judgment in similar cases, stating that when the selection committee, by a majority decision, proceeds in the absence of the nominee, the proceedings remain valid and no legal impediment arises to withhold salary on that ground alone.
The case arose from a Class-IV vacancy in a recognised and aided junior high school, intimated to the DBEO in July 2013. Despite repeated requests, the officer failed to send his nominee for the interview initially scheduled in August 2013, which was consequently postponed. The selection committee convened in September 2013 and placed the petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Yadav, first in the merit list. The selection papers were forwarded for approval on 12 September 2013. As no decision was communicated by the DBEO within the stipulated period, the petitioner joined duty as a Peon on 18 October 2013.
Despite joining service, the petitioner did not receive salary. Four representations were made by the school management to the authorities seeking release of dues, all of which remained unaddressed. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus for payment of salary and arrears.