Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1525 (ALL)

Kalpna Mishra And Others v. State of U. P. And Others

2010-05-10

ARUN TANDON

body2010
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Petitioners before this Court, who are seven in number, were offered compassionate appointment as untrained assistant teachers. They seek quashing of the orders dated 10th November, 2009 and dated 30th November, 2009 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar enclosed as Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition, whereby the compassionate appointees working on the post of Assistant Teachers in Parishidiya Vidyalayas were directed for being sent for training. 3. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, with reference to the Government Order dated 9th December, 2003, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the teachers appointed in primary sections attached to the intermediate colleges have been granted exemption from training. Similar benefits should also be granted to the teachers appointed in Parishidiya Vidyalayas and therefore, he submits that respondent-authorities cannot insist upon the petitioners for undergoing the training. It is stated that the petitioners have completed more than five years of service as untrained teachers. 4. The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner is opposed by learned Counsel for the Basic Education Board and it is stated that in the order of appointment itself issued in favour of the petitioners at item No. 4, it was mentioned that the petitioners would be required to undergo the training in terms of the orders to be issued from time to time. He submits that the appointment has been accepted by the petitioners with open eyes and therefore, they cannot be permitted to wriggle out the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter (Reference page 22 of the present writ petition). He further clarifies that the Government Order dated 9th December, 2003 relied upon by the petitioners is in respect of teachers working in primary sections attached to the recognised and aided intermediate colleges. Said Government Order has no application, qua the Parishidiya Vidyalayas run and managed by the Basic education Board, which is a statutory body constituted under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 . 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ pettiion. 6. Said Government Order has no application, qua the Parishidiya Vidyalayas run and managed by the Basic education Board, which is a statutory body constituted under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 . 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ pettiion. 6. This Court finds that in the letter of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioners would be required to undergo the training in terms of the orders to be issued from time to time. In view of the aforesaid, condition of appointment, which has been accepted by the petitioners without any protest, it does not lie in their mouth to contend that they may not be required to undergo the training, as has been directed under the various orders of the Basic Education Board. This Court may record that training of untrained teachers is for improving their teaching ability. Compassion shown on an earlier stage by offering them appointment as Assistant Teachers untrained in terms of the Government Order applicable cannot be permitted to be mis-utilized by the petitioners by insisting that they will not undergo the training, despite there being a specific condition in their appointment letter to the said effect. 7. This Court therefore, holds that the petitioners cannot object to their being sent for training. So far as the Government Order dated 9th December, 2003 relied upon by the petitioners is concerned, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Parishad has rightly pointed out that the same applies to the teachers working in primary section of recognised and aided intermediate colleges only and has no application qua untrained teachers working in Parishidiya Vidyalayas run and managed by the Basic Education Board. 8. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.