PRAMILA GUPTA v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION — 1997 DIGILAW 581 (ALL)

S. K. PHANJDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was heard along with W. P. 22632 of 1994 by the self same petitioner against the four of the respondents in the earlier writ petition. In the instant writ petition (No. 7582 of 1984) the petitioner challenged two orders as per Annexures 9 and 13 to the writ petition annexure 9 is an order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Agra, dated 5-10-1983. By this order, a represention of respondent No. 5, Manorama Sinha was allowed. The present petitioner, thereafter, lodged an appeal before the Director of Education and through the paper in annexure 13 to the writ petition dated 24 3-1984, the Director of Education, (General 1), anubhag 1, Allahabad, rejected the appeal, not on merits but on technical grounds. These two orders, according to the petitioner, were bad in law who claimed that she should have been appointed to the post of teacher in Hindi in Prem Devi Agrawal Girls Inter College, Mathura managed by present respondent No. 4. ( 2 ) THE subsequent W. P. 22532 of 1994 relates to the aforesaid claim and is directed against an order dated 17-6-1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Agra (respondent 1 in this writ petition), as per Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Through this order, the Deputy Director of education, Agra had considered the representation of Manorama Sinha (respondent No. 4 in this writ petition) and directed the regularisation of her ad hoc promotion as a lecturer in Hindi. Smt. Pramila Gupta filed this writ petition on the ground that such an order could net have been passed during the pendency of the earlier writ petition as there had been a stay order by the High court dated 21-5-1985 staying the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 5-10-1983. ( 3 ) THE post now being claimed by the petitioner as well as by Smt. Manorama Sinha is that of a lecturer in Hindi in the Prem Devi Agrawal Girls Inter College, Mathura. According to the petitioner, the committee of management appointed her against the above post by an order dated 17-10-1981. This appointment was approved by order dated 19-10-1981 of the R. I. G. S. Prior to her being so appointed, the petitioner was initially appointed as an assistant teacher in the L. T grade on 23-7-1973. According to the petitioner, the committee of management appointed her against the above post by an order dated 17-10-1981. This appointment was approved by order dated 19-10-1981 of the R. I. G. S. Prior to her being so appointed, the petitioner was initially appointed as an assistant teacher in the L. T grade on 23-7-1973. She was having M. A. degrees, both in Hindi as well as in Sanskrit. M. A. in hindi degree was obtained in 1976 while M. A. degree, in Sanskrit was conferred on her in 1969. The institution in question was duly recognised by the High School and Intermediate board of U. P. , was upgraded to the intermediate level in 1979 and the R. I. G. S. permitted this institution to start teaching in Class XI, vide her letter dated 17-3-1980. The R. I. G. S. subsequently created the post of the Principal and upgraded the post of L T. grade teacher in hind, to that of a lecturer in Hindi. The committee of management, thereafter, passed a resolution for creation of four posts of lecturer in four subjects including Hindi and Sanskrit and protested against upgradation of the post of L. T. grade teacher to that of lecturer in Hindi It was stated by the petitioner that the resolution of the committee of management was sent to the r. I. G. S. for creation of post including that of a lecturer in Hindi. It was stated that the State government by its letter dated 29-7-1981 permitted creation of posts of lecturer in Hindi with a rider that only that person will be appointed to the post of lecturer in Hind, who was qualified to teach Sanskrit as well. No independent post of lecturer in Sanskrit was created. ( 4 ) A perusal of Annexure 4, however, indicates that this letter was addressed to the Director of education by the Deputy Secretary intimating that the matter was thoroughly considered and the government was reluctant to interfere with the proposal of the R. I. G. S. in the matter of creation of posts. In a post scriptum, in sending a copy to the R. I. G. S. the Deputy Secretary indicated that the R. I. G. S. , should ensure that the person to be appointed to the post of lecturer in Hindi was having the eligibility to teach Sanskrit also. In a post scriptum, in sending a copy to the R. I. G. S. the Deputy Secretary indicated that the R. I. G. S. , should ensure that the person to be appointed to the post of lecturer in Hindi was having the eligibility to teach Sanskrit also. ( 5 ) THE petitioner continued to say that thereafter the committee of management promoted the petitioner to the post of lecture in Hindi as she was the only person eligible for appointment under the guidelines given by the Deputy Secretary having the qualifications for teaching Hindi and Sanskrit. Approval of her promotion was sought for and the R. I. G. S approved this promotion by her letter dated 19-11-1981. The respondent, Monorama Sinha, thereafter filed a Writ Petition no. 15541 of 1987 and this High Court, by its order dated 13-9-1983, directed the Deputy director of Education to decide the representation of Smt. Manorama Sinha. In terms of that direction, the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 5-10-1983 allowed the representation of Manorama Sinha and held that she should be promoted to the post of lecturer in hindi, This order is one of two orders challenged in this writ petition. The representation having been allowed, the writ petition of Manorama Sinha, which was kept pending awailing decision on the representation, was dismissed as infructuous on 15-3-1984. As indicated in the initial paragraphs, an appeal was preferred before the Director of Education by the present petitioner and this appeal was dismissed as per Annexure 13 to the writ petition. The dismissal order is the second order challenged in this writ petition. ( 6 ) IT was the case of the respondent Manorama Sinha that she was initially appointed in July, 1970 as a trained teacher in Hindi in the concerned institution and at the time of joining the institution she was an M. A. In Hindi having obtained the degree in 1969. She had done her L. T. , in the year 1970. She had done her L. T. , in the year 1970. She was also a B. A. (Sanskrit) and, therefore, had all the requisite qualifications for appointment to the pest of teacher in Hindi in the L. T. grade On upgradation of the institution from School to Intermediate the R. I. G. S. recommended that the post of lecturer in hindi be created by upgrading the post of Hindi teacher in L. T. grade and this was confirmed by the Government which declined to interfere with the decision of the R. I. G. S. for creation of a post of lecturer in Hindi by upgradation to the post of teacher in Hindi She claimed her right to be appointed on the ground of having the minimum requisite qualifications and on the ground of being senior to Smt. Pramila Gupta. It was also stated that the minimum qualifications for different posts in different subjects having been indicated under the regulations, which have statutory force, the Deputy Secretary or even the Government could not have added anything to these regulations restricting appointment of only some person having some qualification not indicated in the Regulations. ( 7 ) IT is, thus, a dispute between two claims for a single post of lecturer in Hindi in the concerned institution. Certain facts are net disputed. The respondent No. 4 is senior to Smt. Pramila Gupta in the institution. The respondent No. 4 had been a teacher in Hindi with the requisite qualification of M. A. in Hindi with B. A. (Sanskrit) and the necessary training. The petitioner had been a teacher in Sanskrit with M. A. degrees, both in Hindi as well as in Sanskrit and, of course, with the necessary training. The institution was admittedly upgraded from a High School to an Intermediate College. Admittedly, the R. I. G. S created the post of lecturer in Hindi by upgradation of the pest of teacher in Hindi. The management had appointed the petitioner against the post of lecturer in Hindi under the direction of the Deputy Secretary directing appointment to such person only who teach Sanskrit also On being moved by the respondent No. 5 against such order, the High Court directed the Deputy Director of Education to consider the representation of respondent No. 4. The management had appointed the petitioner against the post of lecturer in Hindi under the direction of the Deputy Secretary directing appointment to such person only who teach Sanskrit also On being moved by the respondent No. 5 against such order, the High Court directed the Deputy Director of Education to consider the representation of respondent No. 4. It was considered and allowed and the claim of Smt. Manorama Sinha was accepted The question that is to be determined by this Court is whether on the direction given by the Deputy Secretary in choosing a candidate with ability to teach two subjects was a valid one. Appendix A, under Regulation 1 of Chapter 2 under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act gives the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers. For Hindi teacher in Intermediate classes (lecturers to teach in classes XI and XII), one must have the M. A. degree in Hindi and sanskrit must be one of the subjects at the B. A. level and he must be trained as well. This appendix does not speak of any desirable qualification in addition to the minimum qualification. ( 8 ) IN this connection certain further Government Orders may also be referred to. The Deputy secretary by his letter dated 20-11-1976, addressed to the Director of Education, indicated that for classes XI and XII there shall be one competent teacher for every subject recognised to be taught in an institution. This suggests that if Sanskrit was a subject to be taught in the concerned institution, there would be a separate post for a lecturer in Sanskrit. The petitioner also referred to a letter of the Deputy Director of Education addressed to the D. I. O. S. , Almora, dated 25-7-1989. It does not relate to the present institution but it was referred to, presumably, on the ground that when a vacancy fell in promotional quota a teacher having the elgibility of teaching two subjects was directed to be preferred This may not be of much impertance in the present case as the letter was addressed in relating to the inter college at Almora and not the present one. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel referred to Section 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel referred to Section 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act. It states, in relation to the power of the State Government, that whenever in the opinion of the State government it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action it may, without making any reference to the Board, pass such order no take such other action concerning the provisions of this Act as it deems necessary and in particular may pass such order modifying or rescinding or making any regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly. This power could have been exercised by the State Government and the Deputy Secretary may not be considered to be the State Government. Moreover, this power could have been exercised when it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action and the order to be recorded by the state Government should modify, rescind or make any regulation The existing regulations indicate the minimum requisite qualifications but the Deputy Secretary directed that a candidate having the eligibility of teaching two subjects should be preferred. This direction could not be read as one competently issued under Section 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act. I have indicated above that if Sanskrit was a subject recognised in the institution for the classes XI and xii, there should have been a separate teacher in Sanskrit. It was argued that due to financial burden the State had issued such a direction Firstly, it was not a direction issued by the State. Secondly, the financial burden of the State may not be converted into an intellectual burden upon a teacher to teach two subjects when the Government was bound to create a post for the subject recognised to be taught in the institution. The direction of the Deputy Secretary must, therefore, be held to be of no- consequence and any order passed upon such direction cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) LOOKED from the above angle the order dated 5-10-1993 passed by the Deputy Director of education in allowing the claim of respondent, Manorama Sinha must be upheld and must not be interfered with. The appellate order did not speak anything on merits but it had confirmed the order dated 5-10-1983 on some technical ground. When the original order is to be sustained, the appellate order may not be interfered with. The appellate order did not speak anything on merits but it had confirmed the order dated 5-10-1983 on some technical ground. When the original order is to be sustained, the appellate order may not be interfered with. ( 11 ) THE writ petition No. 7582 of 1984 accordingly fails and is dismissed. Consequently: the W. P. No. 22532 of 1994 also fails and is dismissed. .