Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3012 (ALL)

KALINDI PANDEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-12-21

DILIP GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Janta Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shakkarpur, District Mau (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Institution’) after grant of approval by the District Basic Education Officer on 6th January, 1996, has sought the quashing of the order dated 15th July, 2010 passed by the District Basic Education Officer by which a direction has been issued to the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner as she did not possess the teachers training course certificate provided for in Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’1978 Rules’). The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by the Manager of the Institution for terminating the services of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer on 15th July, 2010. 2. It is stated that the petitioner passed the High School and Intermediate examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad in the year 1975 and 1978 respectively and thereafter graduated from Satish Chandra College, Ballia affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The petitioner also obtained the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education in 1994 from the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur. It is further stated that in view of the said qualifications possessed by the petitioner, she was considered eligible for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution and was duly appointed as such after the District Basic Education Officer granted approval to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for her appointment by the order dated 6th January, 1996 and the petitioner has since then been continuously teaching in the Institution but the District Basic Education Officer by the order dated 15th July, 2010 directed the Manager of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the teachers training course recognised by the State Government or the Board and the Committee of Management, without even providing any opportunity to the petitioner, terminated her services by the order dated 26th July, 2010 solely on account of the said direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer. 3. 3. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner possessed the requisite eligibility requirement as contained in Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules and she was duly appointed as an Assistant Teacher after the District Basic Education Officer had granted approval on 6th January, 1996 to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and, therefore, the District Basic Education Officer was not justified in directing the Management after a period of about 14 years to terminate the services of the petitioner for the reason that she did not possess the teachers training course certificate recognized by the State Government or the Board. It is also his submission that the petitioner was at least entitled to an opportunity from the District Basic Education Officer and the Committee of Management of the Institution before her services could be terminated for this reason. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that that the petitioner had obtained the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education in 1993-94 from the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur which is and was treated as equivalent to teachers training course recognized by the State Government or the Board and, in such circumstances, when the petitioner had continued to teach as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution from 1996 for a long period of about 14 years upto 15th July, 2010, the District Basic Education Officer could not have issued directions to the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is also his contention that even if such a direction was to be issued by the District Basic Education Officer then too the Committee of Management of the Institution was obliged to hold a proper enquiry with opportunity to the petitioner but such enquiry was not held and nor opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and the Committee of Management of the Institution merely terminated the services of the petitioner because of the direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer that the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education would not satisfy the eligibility requirement. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and another v. S.D. Halegkar and others, (1993) 3 SSC 591 and the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Srivastava v. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, Now Mahrajganj, 1994 ACJ 781 and Special Appeal (Defective) No. 123 of 2009 (District Basic Education Officer, District Mau v. Jagdamba Singh), decided on 27th July, 2010. 4. Learned Standing Counsel made submissions on behalf of respondent No. 2- District Basic Education Officer, while Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel made submissions on behalf of the Committee of Management of the Institution. Learned counsel supported the impugned orders and submitted that when the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution as she did not possess the requisite teachers training course recognized by the State Government or the Board, the District Basic Education Officer committed no illegality in directing the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner and mere continuance of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution for 14 years will make not any difference as the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education obtained from the Poorvanchal University cannot be treated as teachers training course certificate. In support of their contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sartaj and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 2 SCC 315 ; Dr. M.S. Patil v. Gulbarga University and others, (2010) 10 SCC 63 ; Shesh Mani Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, AIR 2010 SC 1433 and the decisions of this Court in Dr. Chandra Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 746 and Ajay Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (3) ADJ 583 and Savita Rani v. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Lucknow and others, 2011 (130) FLR 150. Chandra Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 746 and Ajay Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (3) ADJ 583 and Savita Rani v. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Lucknow and others, 2011 (130) FLR 150. Learned counsel also submitted that, in such circumstances, when the petitioner did not possess the requisite eligibility requirement, the initial appointment itself was void and there was no necessity of giving any opportunity before terminating the services of the petitioner and in support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and others v. Shyama Pardhi and others, (1996) 7 SCC 118 . 5. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 6. There are basically two sets of Junior High Schools in the State of U.P. One set is owned and managed by the Board and the other set of recognised Junior High Schools by private management. Separate Rules have been framed for these Junior High Schools in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The recruitment and conditions of service of teachers in privately managed recognised Junior High Schools is governed by the 1978 Rules whereas the conditions of service of teachers in Junior High School owned and managed by the Board are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1981 Rules’). In the instant case, the Court is concerned with the 1978 Rules because the Junior High School in question is privately managed and is not which is either owned or controlled by the Board. 7. To appreciate the controversy involved in this petition, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1978 Rules. 8. A ‘Junior High School’ has been defined under the 1978 Rules to mean an Institution other than High School or Intermediate College imparting education to boys or girls or both from Classes VI to VIII (inclusive) and a ‘Recognised School’ has been defined to mean any Junior High School not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body recognised by the Board as such. The minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher is provided for in Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules which, as it existed at the time when the petitioner was appointed, is reproduced below : “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.” 9. Under Rule 7 of the 1978 Rules, the vacancy is required to be advertised. The constitution of the Selection Committee is provided in Rule 9, while the procedure for making the selection is prescribed in Rule 10. Under the said Rule, the Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates, prepares a list containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference, of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment. The list so prepared shall also contain the particulars regarding the date of birth, academic qualifications and teaching experience certificate of the candidates and the Selection Committee shall forward the list with the minutes of the proceedings to the Management. The Management then has to submit it to the District Basic Education Officer who, after being satisfied that the candidates recommended by the Committee possess the minimum qualification for the post and that the procedure laid down in the 1978 Rules for the selection of the Assistant Teachers has been followed, accords approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and communicates his decision to the Management but if the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the Management with a direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. Under Rule 11, on receipt of the communication of approval, the Management shall offer appointment to the candidate. 10. Rule 10 of the 1978 Rules is relevant for the controversy involved in this petition and is reproduced : “10. Procedure for selection.—(1) The Selection Committee shall, after interviewing such candidates as appear before it on a date to be fixed by it in this behalf, of which due intimation shall be given to all the candidates, prepares a list containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference, of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment. (2) The list prepared under clause (1) shall also contain particulars regarding the date of birth, academic qualifications and teaching experience of the candidates and shall be signed by all the members of the Selection Committee. (3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management. (4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer. (5) (i) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that - (a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post; (b) the procedure laid down in these for the selection of the Headmaster or Assistant Teachers, as the case may be, has been followed he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and shall communicate his decision to the Management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4). (ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the Management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. (iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee.” 11. Rules 15 of the 1978 Rules deals with termination of service of Headmaster or Assistant Teacher and is as follows : “15. Rules 15 of the 1978 Rules deals with termination of service of Headmaster or Assistant Teacher and is as follows : “15. Termination of service.—No Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. Provided that in the case of the Headmaster or an Assistant Teacher of a minority institution the approval of the District Basic Education Officer shall not be necessary.” 12. In the present case, a vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher had arisen on account of the appointment of the Assistant Teacher as Head Master. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as an Assistant Teacher and the Management forwarded the papers to the District Basic Education Officer who on 6th January, 1996 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner. It is thereafter that the appointment order was issued to the petitioner by the Committee of Management of the Institution and ever since then the petitioner has been working as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution. 13. It transpires from the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the Secretary of Basic Education had sent a letter dated 30th April, 2010 to the Director of Education (Basic) in connection with payment of salary to Assistant Teachers in the Junior High Schools. It was stated that it had been brought to the notice of the Government that salary was being paid to certain teachers who were working in excess of the sanctioned strength as a result of which the State was unnecessarily burdened with financial liability. A direction was, therefore, given that in every district, details of the staff working in the Institutions should be gathered and computerized and before making payment of salary of the teachers, it should be ensured that the teachers were working against the sanctioned posts and if the Committee of Management makes payment to teachers working beyond the sanctioned strength then action would be taken against them. 14. 14. It is for this purpose that the communication dated 29th May, 2010 was sent by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau to the Institution for furnishing the required information in the prescribed format and it is on examination of such information that the direction was issued by the District Basic Education Officer on 15th July, 2010 to the Management to terminate the services of the petitioner not for the reason that the petitioner was appointed beyond the sanctioned strength of the Institution but for the reason that she did not possess the teachers training course certificate. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had passed the Intermediate examination in 1978 as the dispute raised is only about the teachers training course certificate. Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules requires that candidates should have the teachers training course recognized by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner possessed Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education from the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur and the petitioner had furnished this certificate with her application form for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of teachers training course since it is not the case of the respondents that some other certificate was furnished by the petitioner. The Selection Committee had considered this Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education from the Poorvanchal University established under the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 as satisfying the teachers training course requirement and, accordingly, sent the recommendation to the Management which forwarded it to the District Basic Education Officer. Rule 10(5) of the 1978 Rules provides that it is only when the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post that he shall communicate his approval to recommendations made by the Selection Committee to the Management. In the instant case, the District Basic Education Officer did send the communication dated 6th January, 1996 to the Committee of Management of the Institution to convey his approval to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. In the instant case, the District Basic Education Officer did send the communication dated 6th January, 1996 to the Committee of Management of the Institution to convey his approval to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had made any false representation before the Selection Committee about the teachers training course certificate as the qualifications and certificate actually possessed by the petitioner were placed before the Selection Committee and since under Rule 10(4) of the 1978 Rules all the papers are required to be sent to the District Basic Education Officer, it has to be taken that the District Basic Education Officer examined all the papers before satisfying himself that the petitioner possessed the requisite minimum qualification by treating the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education as the requisite teachers training course certificate. 16. The petitioner thereafter continued to work as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution for a long period of about 14 years upto 15th July, 2010 and it is only when the communication dated 29th May, 2010 was sent by the Secretary of the Basic Education to seek information in a computerized format for ascertaining the names of the Assistant Teachers working in excess of the sanctioned strength in the Junior High Schools that the District Basic Education Officer, on the basis of information supplied, sent the communication dated 15th July, 2010 to the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the requisite teachers training course certificate. As noticed above, what was actually required to be ascertained by the District Basic Education Officer was whether the petitioner was working in the Institution as an Assistant Teacher in excess of the sanctioned strength or not. 17. What needs to be further noticed at this stage is that even after enforcement of the 1978 Rules, certain untrained Assistant Teachers were appointed in recognized Junior High Schools and they were also receiving salary in a different pay scale known as “Untrained Grade” but the State Government issued orders in 1986 and 1994 that such untrained teachers will be granted exemption from training and they will be paid salary in the Trained Grade pay scale. The petitioner cannot be placed on a lower pedestal than such untrained teachers who were appointed without having any training certificate as the petitioner did possess the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education from a University established by law. 18. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education granted by the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur is a valid teachers training course certificate and the Selection Committee being conscious of this fact made recommendation and the District Basic Education Officer granted approval to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. According to the petitioner, this certificate for Nursery Education has to be treated as teachers training course certificate since the four certificates referred to in Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules are only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive. 19. It is, however, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the teachers training course certificate as contemplated in Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules and in support of their contention, they have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 815 of 2000 (Sanjay Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others) delivered on 23rd December, 2004. 20. The dispute that had arisen in the aforesaid Special Appeal was whether the B.Ed. certificate could be treated as a valid certificate for the purpose of appointment of a Head Master in the Junior High Schools governed by the 1978 Rules as the candidate possessed the B.Ed. certificate which was not treated as a valid teachers training course certificate. It is in this context that the Court observed : “It cannot be disputed that the Teacher’s Training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes whereas the Basic Teaching Certificate (hereinafter referred to as ‘’B.T.C.’) is given to teachers for teaching small children and the two cannot be compared with, as has been clearly observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of NCT Delhi and others, (2003) 3 SCC 548 . The duration of courses of B.T.C. and LT/B.Ed. are entirely different and have been devised keeping in view the stages through which the students pass. The duration of courses of B.T.C. and LT/B.Ed. are entirely different and have been devised keeping in view the stages through which the students pass. In the case of B.T.C. the method of Training Course is devised so as to meet the requirement of teaching at a formative stage for a student who enters the School. Thus it is evident that the training qualification for teaching small children is B.T.C. while the training qualification for teaching children in High Schools and Intermediate Colleges is B.Ed. or L.T. We should, therefore, interpret Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules keeping in mind the observations made by us above and if we do so then there can be no manner of doubt that the Teacher’s Training Course referred to in the said Rule should be confined to such Training Course which are imparted to teach small children only. This is the reason why the Legislature has specifically referred to four such Training Courses which are specifically confined to Specialised Training for imparting education to small children and if we interpret it in such a manner then the question whether the four Certificates referred to in Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules are exhaustive or illustrative may not assume much significance since even if it is held that they are merely illustrative then too we are of the opinion that only such other certificates can be taken into consideration which relate to Specialised Training for imparting education to small children. The B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. Certificates cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration. The Legislature was conscious of the distinction between Training Course Certificates received by candidates to teach small children and the certificates received to teach higher classes as is apparent from the fact that those who had obtained the B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. Certificates were required to complete a special B.T.C. Training Course under the Government Order dated 9.1.1998. If such trained candidates having B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. Certificates were eligible to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers or Headmasters of a Junior High School, there would have been no necessity at all for them to have undergone the Special B.T.C. Training Course. This again emphasises what we had observed earlier that to teach small children a Specialised Training Course is necessary. or D.P.Ed. Certificates were eligible to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers or Headmasters of a Junior High School, there would have been no necessity at all for them to have undergone the Special B.T.C. Training Course. This again emphasises what we had observed earlier that to teach small children a Specialised Training Course is necessary. In this respect reference may also be made to the provisions of Rule 6 of 1981 Rules referred to above wherein also while providing for the age limit of the candidates it has been clearly provided that there shall be no upper age limit in case of B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. Certificates candidates who had completed the Special B.T.C. Training course in the year 1999. The Legislature was, therefore, clearly conscious of the fact that for such candidates a special B.T.C. course was required to be undertaken before they could be considered eligible for appointment. The matter can also be examined from a different angle. Under Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules, the Rule making authority has not merely restricted the minimum qualification to a Teacher’s Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board. Had it done so there would have been no difficulty at all and all Teacher’s Training Course recognised by the State Government or the Board would have been treated to be sufficient. However, the clause proceeds further and goes on to illustrate the meaning of “Teacher’s Training Course” by mentioning Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate. This could not have been done without a purpose. It could only be to indicate the type of Teacher’s Training Course, the Rule making authority had in mind and if we examine the four Certificates referred to in Rule 4(1) we find that all of them relate to Certificates granted in respect of imparting education to small children. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. Certificates cannot be considered as a Teacher’s Training Course for the purposes of possessing the minimum qualification under the 1978 Rules. The view, which we have taken, finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of A.P. and others, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 429.” (emphasis supplied) 21. Certificates cannot be considered as a Teacher’s Training Course for the purposes of possessing the minimum qualification under the 1978 Rules. The view, which we have taken, finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of A.P. and others, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 429.” (emphasis supplied) 21. In the present case, the petitioner possessed the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education which is the training qualification for teaching small children. It cannot, therefore, be said that the certificate of the petitioner placed before the Selection Committee was per se a certificate which would not make the petitioner eligible for appointment. It is no doubt not one of the four illustrative certificates mentioned in Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules but it is a certificate pertaining to training course imparted to small children and it is apparent that the members of the Selection Committee, after taking into consideration the requirement of Rule 4(1), thought it appropriate to make recommendation for appointment of the petitioner and the District Basic Education Officer also, after examining the papers furnished by the Committee, made recommendation for approving the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. 22. It is, in such circumstances, that the Court has to examine whether the services of the petitioner could have been terminated after a period of 14 years for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the teachers training course certificate at the time of appointment. The position would have been different if it was found that the petitioner had submitted a forged certificate with the application form or some other certificate for the purpose of satisfying this condition or the petitioner had not passed the Intermediate Examination with Hindi. 23. The Division Bench of this Court in Jagdamba Singh (supra) examined the consequences that would follow when the appointment as Assistant Teacher was made on the basis of C.PEd. certificate which is not the required certificate but such teacher had taught for 26 years and observed that the appointment cannot be cancelled for this reason and the observations are : “We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein who holds C.P.Ed. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein who holds C.P.Ed. qualification did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1981. However, the Selection Committee had recommended his candidature and the competent authority has also approved his appointment in the year 1983. He had continued to work for a long period of 26 years. His appointment, therefore, could not have been cancelled by the authorities on this ground. We may mention here that even though the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others (supra) has held that candidates holding C.P.Ed. degree/certificate are not qualified for being appointed as Assistant Teacher as it is not one of the prescribed and recognized qualification under the Service Rules but in the last paragraph it had saved the appointments of C.P.Ed. certificate holders who are continuously working after undergoing training. Since the respondent had worked for 26 years and his order of termination is set aside by this Court as far back as on 16-10-2008 and there is no interim order passed by this Court staying the operation of the order dated 16-10-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, in law, he is entitled to continue in service. Therefore, in view of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) he is entitled to continue in service and no relief can be granted in this appeal preferred by the District Basic School Education Officer.” (emphasis supplied) 24. In Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1978 SC 1536 , the Supreme Court examined whether the appointment of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer who did not possess five years experience in the working of Labour Laws would be void and observed that it would not be void but merely irregular and the observations are : “............. The appellant could not, therefore, be legitimately appointed to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer unless, amongst other things, he possessed five years’ experience in the working of Labour laws as Labour Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector for Shops or Wage Inspector, which he admittedly did not. ............. The question then arises as to what was the effect of breach of Cl. (1) of R. 4 of the Rules. ............. The question then arises as to what was the effect of breach of Cl. (1) of R. 4 of the Rules. Did it have the effect of rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired the necessary qualifications to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. We are of the view that the appointment of the appellant was irregular since he did not possess one of the three requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the necessary qualification of five years’ experience of the working of labour laws in any one of the three capacities mentioned in Cl. (1) of R. 4 or in any higher capacity, his appointment must be regarded as having been regularised. The appellant worked as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer from 1st Jan., 1968 and that being a post higher than that of Labour Inspector or Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops or Wage Inspector, the experience gained by him in the working of Labour Laws in the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer must be regarded as sufficient to constitute fulfilment of the requirement of five years’ experience provided in Cl. (1) of R. 4. The appointment of the appellant to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, therefore, became regular from the date when he completed five years after taking into account the period of about ten months during which he worked as Chief Inspector of Shops. Once his appointment became regular on the expiry of this period of five years on his fulfilling the requirements for appointment as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer and becoming eligible for that purpose, he could not thereafter be reverted to the post of Statistical Officer. The order of reversion passed against the appellant was, therefore, clearly illegal and it must be set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 25. In Dr. The order of reversion passed against the appellant was, therefore, clearly illegal and it must be set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 25. In Dr. M.S. Mudhol and another (supra), the Supreme Court observed that even though the first respondent did not have the requisite educational qualification to be selected for the post of Principal but as the default was on the part of the Director of Education in illegally approving the said appointment made in 1981 as a result of which the said respondent continued to work on the post for 12 years, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post, particularly when the infraction of the statutory Rule regarding the qualification was not that grave taking into consideration all the other relevant facts and the observations are : “4. The contention of the respondents that M.Ed. IInd Division was equivalent to M.A. IInd Division is obviously fallacious. ................... We have, therefore, no doubt that the 1st respondent did not have the requisite educational qualifications to be selected for the post of the Principal. 5. As regards the teaching experience, the 1st respondent’s contention is that he had worked as a teacher for 9 years in a High School and Higher Secondary School which had upto 11 standards. According to him, he also worked as a Lecturer in History. His further contention is that the post of the School Inspector in Karnataka where he was working as such and that of the teacher were interchangeable. Hence the selection committee had taken into consideration his experience in both the capacities. These facts are not controverted before us and in any case today, he has the requisite experience of teaching as he has been teaching the 11th and the 12th class continuously for 12 years now, since 1981. It can, therefore, be said that at least as on date when his removal from the post of Principal is sought, he cannot be said to be disqualified on account of the lack of required teaching experience. 6. It can, therefore, be said that at least as on date when his removal from the post of Principal is sought, he cannot be said to be disqualified on account of the lack of required teaching experience. 6. Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, inspite of placing all his cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be inequitous to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same. 7. Whatever may be the reasons which were responsible for the non-discovery of the want of qualifications of the 1st respondent for a long time, the fact remains that the Court was moved in the matter after a long lapse of about 9 years. The post of the Principal in a private school though aided, is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself impelled to interfere with the appointment by a writ of quo warranto even assuming that such a writ is maintainable. This is particularly so when the incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a long period of 9 years when the Court was moved and today about 13 years have elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifications of the incumbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave taking into consideration all other relevant facts. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifications of the incumbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave taking into consideration all other relevant facts. In the circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to go into the question as to whether a writ of quo warranto would lie in the present case or not, and further whether mere laches would disentitle the petitioners to such a writ. (emphasis supplied) The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and another (supra) was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Srivastava (supra) and the observations are : “It is true that the appointment of the appellant was in violation of Regulation 4 of Chapter III and was as such, illegal, but he has worked in the institution from 1971 to 1978, when his service was terminated. But this order of termination was stayed by this Court, on account of which he continued to work upto the time when his writ petition was dismissed in August, 1991. It will be highly unfair to remove a person from service after about 20 years, on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal. Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 189, has held that it will be unfair and unjust to unsettle the career of an employee who has worked for about eight years. In Smt. Rani Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 1990 All CJ 243, another Division Bench did not permit the appointment of Head mistress to be put to an end after five years, even though there was infirmity in making her appointment. Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar (supra) has observed that it would be undesirable to disturb a principal after 12 years on the ground that he was not eligible at the time of his appointment, because it would be inequitous to make him suffer after such a long time.” 26. Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar (supra) has observed that it would be undesirable to disturb a principal after 12 years on the ground that he was not eligible at the time of his appointment, because it would be inequitous to make him suffer after such a long time.” 26. In the present case from the facts narrated above, it is clear that in the year 1996 the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner and the District Basic Education Officer granted approval to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher and the petitioner continued to teach till 2010 for about 14 years when objection was raised by the District Basic Education Officer. The petitioner cannot be said to be at any fault because it is not the case of the respondent that forged documents were filed by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner does not possess the requisite teachers training course certificate for teaching small children. The petitioner does possess Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education from the Poorvanchal University and the petitioner has been regularly teaching students after her appointment in 1996. Thus, at this stage after 14 years, even if it is assumed that the said certificate possessed by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules, then too the absence of the requisite training certificate would not be that grave in the light of the other factors narrated above and the fact that the petitioner has gained sufficient experience. 27. The decisions which have been relied upon learned counsel for the respondents deal with such cases where the candidates did not possess the basic minimum qualification and their appointments were cancelled or they were dismissed from service soon after the appointments were made. 28. In Mohd. Sartaj (supra), the select list was prepared on 19th June, 1985 and the appointments were cancelled on 9th August, 1985 as the candidates did not possess the Basic Teachers Certificate since Urdu Training Certificate from the Jamia Urdu Aligarh was not considered as a Basic Teachers Certificate. 29. In Dr. 28. In Mohd. Sartaj (supra), the select list was prepared on 19th June, 1985 and the appointments were cancelled on 9th August, 1985 as the candidates did not possess the Basic Teachers Certificate since Urdu Training Certificate from the Jamia Urdu Aligarh was not considered as a Basic Teachers Certificate. 29. In Dr. M.S. Patil (supra), the candidate was appointed on 4th February, 1993 and continued to work for 17 years under the interim order passed by the High Court and it is in this context that the Supreme Court observed that the plea that he should be allowed to continue cannot be accepted. 30. In Shesh Mani Shukla (supra), the District Inspector of Schools disapproved the selection of the appellant made by the Management on 10th September, 1987 by the order dated 4th April, 1988 but the appellant was permitted to work. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court held that the appointment of the appellant being in contravention of the statutory provisions was void and merely because that he had worked for some time will not a ground to grant the relief claimed by the appellant for setting aside the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools to disapprove his selection. 31. In Ajay Singh (supra), the appointment of the respondent on the post of X-Ray Technician was challenged by the petitioner. It was noticed that after the issuance of the advertisement, the terms of the advertisement had been changed and the person who did not possess the qualification was considered to be eligible on the basis of the changed qualification. It is in this context that the Court held that the qualification once advertised cannot be changed unilaterally by the Appointing Authority. 32. In Dr. Chandra Kumari (supra), the District Basic Education Officer granted approval to the selection of the respondent on 9th July, 2004 and this was questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition filed in 2004 on the ground that he did not possess the requisite certificate required under Rule 4 of the 1978 Rules as he possessed the B.Ed. qualification and even the application was incomplete as the said certificate was not filed. It was for this reason that the appointment of respondent was set aside 33. qualification and even the application was incomplete as the said certificate was not filed. It was for this reason that the appointment of respondent was set aside 33. In the instant case, it is seen that the objection was raised by the District Basic Education Officer after a period of 14 years. Thus, the aforesaid decisions, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, will not help the respondents. 34. Thus, for all the reason stated above, it is not possible to sustain the direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer on 15th July, 2010 to the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the required teachers training course certificate and nor is it possible to sustain the decision taken by the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner merely because of the aforesaid direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioner had, in the alternative, also submitted that opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner before any decision could have been taken by the District Basic Education Officer or the Committee of Management of the Institution. 36. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shayam Pardhi (supra) to contend that since the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal, opportunity was not required to be given and the relevant observations relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are as follows : “It is now an admitted fact across the Bar that the respondents had not possessed the pre-requisite qualification, namely, 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as subjects. The Rules specifically provide that qualification as a condition for appointment to the post of ANM. Since prescribed qualifications had not been satisfied, the initial selection to undergo training is per se illegal. Later appointments thereof are in violation of the statutory rules. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in directing the reinstatement of respondents. The question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise. The ratio of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 309 , strongly relied on, has no application to the facts of this case. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in directing the reinstatement of respondents. The question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise. The ratio of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 309 , strongly relied on, has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case where appellants possessed initial qualifications but they did not undergo the training. Since the appointment was set aside on the ground of want of training, this Court interfered with, directed the Government to reinstate them into service and further directed them to send the appellants therein for training.” 37. The Court has examined the validity of the impugned order and has found that the District Basic Education Officer was not justified in issuing direction to the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner and nor was the Committee of Management of the Institution justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine this issue. 38. The order dated 15th July, 2010 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau and the consequential order dated 26th July, 2010 issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution are, accordingly, set aside and the writ petition is allowed.