Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1529 (ALL)

RANJIT SINGH v. DISTRICT BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI

2010-05-11

ARUN TANDON

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—This writ petition is directed against an order of the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow dated 11.12.2009 whereunder the representation made by the petitioners for being provided salary from the State exchequer after the institution have been taken on grant-in-aid by the State Government has been rejected. 2. This Court while entertaining the present writ petition required the petitioner to examine the statutory provisions applicable qua appointment on the post of teacher and staff of the institution concerned. 3. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today which according to the counsel for the petitioner discloses all relevant facts pertaining to the appointment. 4. For deciding the controversy following facts, as stated, may be noticed: 5. Shri Phool Chandra Vidya Mandir Junior High School, Neem Gaon, District Mathura is an institution duly recognized as Junior High School by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The provisions of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 1984) and those of U.P Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Teachers and other Employees Payment of Salary Act, 1978 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 1978) are fully applicable to the teachers and staff of the said institution respectively. The institution was taken on grant-in-aid list by the State Government in the year 1998. The petitioners before this Court filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26834 of 2004 claiming therein that they were entitled to be included in the approved list of teachers and staff for payment of salary from the state exchequer from the date the institution was taken on the grant-in-aid list. The writ petition was decided on 11.12.2009 with a direction upon the Secretary, Basic Education to examine the grievance of the petitioners. 6. The Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Government, Lucknow under the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 has rejected the representation made by the petitioners on the following grounds : (a) That the appointment of the petitioners has not been made in accordance with the statutory rules applicable. (b) Appointment has been offered to the petitioners without approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The letter of approval as referred to in their appointment letter has not been issued from the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as is reflected from the despatch register. 7. (b) Appointment has been offered to the petitioners without approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The letter of approval as referred to in their appointment letter has not been issued from the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as is reflected from the despatch register. 7. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the entire procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984 qua teachers/employees has been followed. In support of the said contention, reference has been made to the letter of the Manager asking for permission to advertise the vacancy. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit, it is stated that an advertisement was published in newspaper in the year 1992 inviting applications from eligible candidates. Although no advertisement has been brought on record nor details of any such advertisement have been referred to in any of the letters of the Manager or any document brought on record by the petitioners. 8. This Court may record that Rule 7 of the Rules, 1978 requires publication of the vacancy in at least two newspapers, one of which must be having circulation through out the State and the other in the locality where the institution is situate. It is recorded that the petitioners have failed to satisfy the requirement of Rule 7. The advertisement has to disclose the name of the post, the minimum qualifications and the age limit prescribed. The requirement of the said Rule qua petitioner No. 4 is not satisfied. Under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1978, the Selection Committee for the post of teacher is to consist of a nominee of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari also and similarly under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1984, a nominee of Basic Shiksha Adhikari has to be a member of the Selection Committee. 9. There is no order on record which could establish that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari ever appointed a nominee for the Selection Committee. What is being relied upon is only the signature appended to the tabulation chart by one District Inspector of Schools, Banth, Mathura. Merely because signatures have been appended by an officer of the education department, it will not mean that he was appointed as a nominee by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. What is being relied upon is only the signature appended to the tabulation chart by one District Inspector of Schools, Banth, Mathura. Merely because signatures have been appended by an officer of the education department, it will not mean that he was appointed as a nominee by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. It is further admitted on record that the appointments were offered to the petitioners even prior to the issuance of the order of approval dated 12.7.1992 which is apparently in teeth of Rule 10 and 11 of the Rules, 1978 qua teachers and Rules 15 and 16 of the rules applicable on Class IV employees. 10. There is another aspect of the matter which dis-entitle the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to any relief i.e. the petitioners are not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as required under Rule 4 of Rules, 1978 as then applicable. Petitioners admittedly have the teacher training qualification of B.Ed. The petitioners are neither HTC, JTC, BTC nor do they have a Teacher Training Course, recognized by the Board, as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 1978. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2006 (3) SC 331, has laid down that B.Ed. is not equivalent to BTC. HTC, JTC training certificate and a person possessed of a Degree of B.Ed. is not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in primary institution. The same principle applies with full force qua the recognized Junior High School with reference to the provisions as they stood on the relevant date i.e. in the year 1988. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further clarified that any length of working will not cure the defect of lack of essential qualification at the time of initial appointment. Such appointments have been declared to be void. 12. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the order of the Secretary is strictly in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. —————