JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondents and the learned Counsel for Basic Shiksha Board, Allahabad. 2. Smt. Satyawati Devi, respondent No. 3 approached this Court by means of W.P. No. 21327/04 against the order of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari refusing to accord approval to the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Head Mistress of Bal Deep Public School Santpura Govindpuri Modinagar, Ghaziabad on the ground that the petitioner was M.A., B.Ed. and therefore did not possess the prescribed qualification for appointment on the post of Head Mistress in a recognized Junior High School. Before the learned Single Judge it was also contended on behalf of State respondents that Smt. Satyawati Devi was also not possessed of requisite teaching experience of three years in a recognized institution. Learned Single Judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition by means of judgment dated 28.5.2004. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.5.2004 Smt. Satyawati Devi filed Special appeal No. 823 of 2004. Division Bench of this Court for the reasons recorded in the order set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter for re-consideration to the District Basic Education Officer for deciding all the questions raised on behalf of the parties. It was further clarified that the District Basic Education Officer shall not be influenced by any of the observation of the Division Bench and shall take its independent decision. 4. At the relevant time one Raju Rana was the District Basic Education Officer Ghaziabad, he was placed under suspension on 4.12.2004. The Dy. District Basic Education Officer Indrajit was permitted to look after the office of District Basic Education Officer with effect from 4.12.2004. Only after three days, on assumption of charge, the Incharge District Basic Education Officer Indrajit passed an order on 6.12.2005 according approval to the appointment of Satyawati as Head Mistress. 5. In the said order, despite noticing the direction of Division Bench of this Court, he did not record any finding on the issue referred by this Court namely (a) a candidate possessing B.Ed. 5. In the said order, despite noticing the direction of Division Bench of this Court, he did not record any finding on the issue referred by this Court namely (a) a candidate possessing B.Ed. degree could be appointed as Head Mistress in a recognized Junior High School or not (b) whether experience certificate submitted by Smt. Satyawati can be treated as valid for the purposes of three years experience as prescribed under the rule as one of the essential qualification for appointment on the post of Head Mistress. This order did not contain any reasons. 6. On 22.12.2004 the same Incharge District Basic Education Officer passed a fresh order wherein he proceeded to record reasons in respect of his earlier order dated 6.12.2004. 7. The order dated 22.12.2004 records that hearing took place in the matter on 18.10.2004 before Basic Shiksha Adhikari in his office (at the relevant time Raju Rana was the officer). On the said Smt. Satyawati Devi produced documents about her teaching experience which have been found to be correct. 8. At this stage of proceedings a query was made by the Court from the Counsel representing District Basic Education Officer, as to on what basis it has been recorded in the impugned order that hearing took place in the office of District Basic Education Officer on 18.10.2004 and as to what documents were produced by Smt. Satyawati Devi. 9. Sri Pankaj Rai Advocate, after obtaining instructions from the present Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vinay Kumar Gil (who is present in the Court) and after perusal of the original records, made a statement that there is nothing on records which could establish that any hearing took place on 18.10.2004 or any records were produced by Smt. Satyawati Devi before the District Basic Education Officer on the said date. It is stated that on 18.10.2004 no hearing took place. 10. On record is a letter dated 19th October, 2004 forwarded by the then District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad to the parties concerned intimating the next date of hearing as 29th October, 2004. In the said letter it was mentioned that on 18th August, 2004 only Smt. Satya Wati Devi and Manager of the institution presented themselves, taking clue from the facts stated in this letter Sri. In the said letter it was mentioned that on 18th August, 2004 only Smt. Satya Wati Devi and Manager of the institution presented themselves, taking clue from the facts stated in this letter Sri. Indrajeet Singh the incharge District Basic Education Officer has presumed that hearing took place on 18.10.2006 and on relevant date records were produced by Smt. Satyawati Devi. 11. Copy of the letter dated 19.10.2004 has been taken on record. 12. It is thus apparent that the order dated 22.12.2004 is based on mere presumption, apparently for camouflaging the alleged compliance of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, referred to above. It is further interesting to note that Sri Indrajeet Singh in his order dated 22.12.2004 has recorded that in absence of any candidate possessed of B.T.C. Training being available in the district, candidate who is possessed of a degree of B. Ed. can be selected and appointed. Neither any Government Order, authorizing such acceptance of B.Ed. candidate, nor any statutory rules in that regard has been referred. It is, therefore, apparent that such finding has been recorded by Sri Indrajeet Singh on mere imagination, totally against the statutory rules applicable. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Ghosh and others v. Chairman and others, (2005) 7 SCC 567 has clarified that a degree of B.Ed. is not equivalent to B.T.C. and candidate having B.Ed. degree cannot claim to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in respect of the post for which the essential qualification prescribed is B.T.C. etc. 14. This Court may also notice that Sri Indrajeet Singh has recorded that after verification and after examining the records it has been found that the experience certificate produced by Smt. Satyawati Devi is genuine and therefore she fulfils all the requisite qualification. The aforesaid finding is also perverse. As to how the certificates were examined and how they satisfy the statutory requirement of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)(Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 has not been stated. The alleged hearing in the matter, as noticed in the order dated 22.12.2004 (i.e. on 18.10.2004) did not take place before Sri Indrajeet Singh. It is a settled law that hearing by one and judgment by another is legally not permissible. 15. The alleged hearing in the matter, as noticed in the order dated 22.12.2004 (i.e. on 18.10.2004) did not take place before Sri Indrajeet Singh. It is a settled law that hearing by one and judgment by another is legally not permissible. 15. In the totality of the circumstances, as noticed herein above, it is no more in doubt that the Division Bench judgment of this Court has been flouted with impunities. Motive and reasons for such arbitrary and illegal act have to be deciphered. This Court feels it appropriate to direct the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow shall hold an enquiry into the matter within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. He shall take all appropriate action against Sri Indrajeet Singh, as contemplated by law. No lignancy is to be shown inasmuch judgment of a Division Bench of this Court has been undermined. 16. Normally this Court would have remanded the matter to District Basic Education Officer for re-examining the case of Smt. Satyawati Devi in light of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 829 of 2004. However, such a course is not being adopted in the facts of the present case inasmuch as this Court feels that, having regard to the facts on record, the issue may be adjudicated by this Court itself. 17. Rule 4 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 lay down the qualifications for appointment of Headmaster in recognized Junior High School and reads as follows : “4. Minimum qualification.—(1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of a recognised school shall be Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination (with Hindi and a teacher’s training course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training). (2) The minimum qualifications for the appointment to the post of Headmaster of a recognised school shall be as follows : (a) A degree from a recognised University or an equivalent examination recognised as such; (b) A teacher’s training course recognised by the State Government or the Board, such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate; and (c) Three years teaching experience in a recognised school.” 18. Recognised School has been defined under Rule 2(h) of the Rules of 1978. The same reads as follows : “2(h) ‘Recognised School means any Junior High School not being a local body recognised by the Board as such,” 19. From the records it is admitted to Smt. Satyawati Devi that she is possessed of a degree of B.Ed. and is not possessed of any Bachelor Training Certificate or Training Certificate, as has been provided for under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. 20. As already noticed herein above, the Division Bench of this Court has held that possession of higher qualification cannot be treated to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed by statutory rules. Further Counsel for Smt. Satyawati Devi as well as District Basic Education Officer could not bring to the knowledge of this Court any Rules/Government Order which authorizing appointment of candidate possessed of B.Ed. Degree as Headmaster/Headmistress under the 1978 rules, merely on the ground that no candidate possessed of B.T.C. etc. is available in the district. 21. It may be clarified that this Court has not examined as to whether in the relevant selections there was any candidate possessed of teaching certificate as required under Rule 4 or not. 22. Similarly, reference may also be had to the experience certificate possessed by the petitioner. Rule 4 read with Rule 2(h), quoted above, contemplates that the teaching experience of three years must be of a recognized institution. Recognition necessarily mean recognition by the Basic Shiksha Parishad constituted under the Basic Education Act, 1972. 23. Counsel for respondent Satyawati has not been able to demonstrate that the document, filed alongwith counter affidavit as Annexure-4, establishes teaching experience of at least 3 years from an institution recognized by Basic Shiksha Parishad. Recognition necessarily mean recognition by the Basic Shiksha Parishad constituted under the Basic Education Act, 1972. 23. Counsel for respondent Satyawati has not been able to demonstrate that the document, filed alongwith counter affidavit as Annexure-4, establishes teaching experience of at least 3 years from an institution recognized by Basic Shiksha Parishad. Thus, on both the counts, which were directed to be examined by the Division Bench of this Court, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that Satyawati is not possessed of prescribed minimum educational qualification nor she is possessed of requisite teaching experience. Rule 5 of the 1978 Rules specifically mandate that no teacher shall be appointed in a recognized Junior High School unless she is possessed of essential qualification prescribed. 24. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed, it is held that Smt. Satyawati Devi is not qualified to be appointed as Headmistress of a recognized Junior High School. All her rights in that regard stand closed accordingly. 25. Records of the present writ petition alongwith copy of the order passed today may be transmitted to the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow for appropriate action being taken against Sri Indrajeet Singh after initiation of suitable proceedings in accordance with law. Report of the action taken must be communicated to the Court through the office of the Registrar General within two months from today. ———