Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1505 (ALL)

MADHULIKA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-05-22

A.P.SAHI

body2013
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. The impugned order dated 13th March, 2013 has been passed by the respondent Board refusing to accept the experience of the petitioner that she has received in a degree college affiliated to the Purvanchal University as she was employed on a fixed honoraria basis. The impugned order further refused to recognize the experience of the petitioner in a self financed Intermediate college. The issue relating to experience in a self financed Intermediate college has already been resolved by the decision of this court in the case of Dr. Deepak Bhatiya and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, writ petition no. 2842 of 2010, decided on 15.7.2010. A copy of the said judgment is annexure 10 to the writ petition. Apart from this, the ratio of the decision in the case of Dr. Madhulika Singh the petitioner herself in writ petition no. 14582 of 2012 relies on the ratio of a Supreme Court decision in relation to experience. The petitioner's experience certificate of teaching in a Girls Degree College is on record and her appointment order in the degree college dated 23.1.2004 is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said appointment order indicates that the petitioner was appointed on a fixed honoraria basis after approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University. In such circumstances, the said appointment cannot be said to be an appointment either de-hors the rules or not in accordance with law so as to disentitle the petitioner to get the said period of experience counted for the purpose of selection. The petitioner has described herself as a full time teacher supported by a certificate from the institution. Payment of a fixed honoraria is not necessarily an indicator of full time or part-time experience. Receipt of emoluments are not a substitute for experience. A teacher getting a fixed salary at times is more devoted towards performance than those who have secured permanent berths. The experience of a teacher in a particular subject can be gauged by performance and the status of involvement in the institution, and not on some subjective assumption. However the genuineness of such experience, like in the present case, would also have to be assessed by the nature of engagement. In the present case the petitioner claims her status of a teacher in a degree college upon approval by the Vice Chancellor of a recognized University. However the genuineness of such experience, like in the present case, would also have to be assessed by the nature of engagement. In the present case the petitioner claims her status of a teacher in a degree college upon approval by the Vice Chancellor of a recognized University. So far as her experience as a teacher in an Intermediate College is concerned, that experience has also to be examined in accordance with the modes of appointment in an unaided Inter College. In both cases payment of honoraria cannot be the criteria of rejection of experience. Merely because a teacher has received lower emoluments, though working on an equivalent post, cannot be the ground to reject a candidature. The judgments referred to hereinabove have to be taken into account that relies on the Apex Court decision in the case of Mohd. Altaf and others Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and another reported in 2008( 14) SCC 139; 2008 ( 14) SCC 144; 2008 ( 14) SCC 146and 2002 ( 93) FLR 1208. It is expected that the Board shall now consider the matter more objectively. Thus the reasons given in the impugned order dated 13.3.2013 cannot be sustained. The impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent Board to consider the experience of the petitioner in the light of observations made hereinabove and pass an appropriate order within six weeks.