Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2945 (ALL)

ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-08-25

ARUN TANDON

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Aligarh/Agra Division, Agra under the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2009 has held that temporary appointment of the petitioner as head master of a recognised junior high school, referable to Rule 20 of Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1978’) could be made for a period of six months only. The said period of six months expired long back inasmuch as he was appointed on 30th November, 2008, under the approval dated 31st December, 2008. The Committee of Management, however, illegally forwarded a resolution for extension of the appointment of the petitioner, which was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 3rd January, 2009. He has directed that the order of approval dated 3rd July, 2009 granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, wherein temporary appointment of the petitioner on the post of headmaster was again extended for six months, was illegal and is therefore, set aside. A direction to hold fresh selection for regular appointment on the post of principal of the institution and in the meantime charge of the post of principal being given to the senior most teacher of the institution has also been issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to proviso to Rule-20 of Rules, 1978 contends that such temporary appointment could be extended till the end of the academic session and in the facts of the present case, the academic session would expire only on 30th June, 2010. 4. The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner is objected to by the respondents, on the ground that proviso to Rule-20 has to be read along with the main provision. He contends that the said proviso would be applicable only when the period of six months expires during an academic session, and in that circumstance appointment can be extended till the end of the academic session, the purpose being that the work of the institution may not suffer in absence of principal/headmaster, during mid-academic session. He contends that the said proviso would be applicable only when the period of six months expires during an academic session, and in that circumstance appointment can be extended till the end of the academic session, the purpose being that the work of the institution may not suffer in absence of principal/headmaster, during mid-academic session. He clarifies that such extension of appointment cannot be overstretched so as to read that even after expiry of six months, further extension for next academic session can be asked for or granted. He further contended that the petitioner is not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification qua the post of Principal. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 6. I am of the considered opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the respondents has force. Rule-20 of Rules, 1978 reads as follows : “20. Temporary appointment.—Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Management may, with the previous approval of the District Basic Education Officer, appoint for a period not exceeding six months any person as Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, provided that no person shall be so appointed, unless he possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post : Provided further that the District Basic Education Officer may, for reasons to be recorded, extend the aforesaid period of six months for a period co-terminus with the end of the academic session in which extension is granted.” 7. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, it would be apparent that power to make temporary appointment with the approval of the District Basic Education Officer without following the procedure prescribed for regular appointment by direct recruitment on the post of Headmaster has to be for a limited duration of six months only with a condition that the person must be possessed of prescribed qualification. Proviso to Rule-20 confers a power for extension of such period of six months upto the period co-terminus with the end of the academic session in which extension is granted. Meaning thereby that if the term of temporary headmaster/teacher i.e. six months period expires, during mid academic session, then such temporary teacher/headmaster may be granted extension for the period co-terminus with the end of the academic session. Meaning thereby that if the term of temporary headmaster/teacher i.e. six months period expires, during mid academic session, then such temporary teacher/headmaster may be granted extension for the period co-terminus with the end of the academic session. For example, if the term of six months of a teacher/headmaster is to expire in the month of April, he may be granted extension till 30th June of the same year i.e. when the academic session would expire. 8. Proviso to Rule-20 cannot be overstretched, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner and cannot confer a right for any extension of temporary appointment for any period after end of the academic session. The relevant point to determine the applicability of the proviso to Rule 20 is the date on which the period of six months expires and it is with reference to this date only that further extension of temporary appointment can be granted for the remaining term of the said academic session i.e. till the end of the academic session in which the period of six months expires. 9. Consequently this Court holds that petitioner is not entitled to any further extension, inasmuch as period of six months subsequent to temporary appointment would expire in the month of May, 2009 and since the academic session for the relevant period would be 2008-09, the same inturn would come to an end on 30th June, 2009. Therefore, there cannot be any further extension, even under the proviso to Rule-20 of Rules, 1978 in the facts of the case. 10. This Court is not inclined to enter into the issue as to whether the petitioner is possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification or not. The said issue is left open to be agitated at appropriate stage. 11. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————