Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1896 (ALL)

Vinod Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2016-05-16

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, which constitutes sufficient cause, Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Delay of five days in filing Special Appeal is condoned. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal Vinod Kumar Shukla is assailing the validity of order dated 30.03.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.12238 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein the Learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question on the premises that petitioner-appellant is not at all eligible to be considered for the post of Head Master of the Institution in question recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Record in question reflects that four posts of Assistant Teacher and a single post of Head Master has been advertised and the petitioner-appellant, in his turn, has proceeded to move an application for consideration of his candidature for the post of Head Master and this much is reflected that his candidature has not at all been entertained and same has impelled the petitioner-appellant to be before this Court by preferring Writ Petition No.12238 of 2016 and this Court on 30.03.2016 has proceeded to non suit the claim of petitioner-appellant on the premises that requisite teaching experience is not at all fulfilled by the petitioner-appellant alongwith the fact that petitioner-appellant has not at all got to his credit Teacher's Eligibility Test. Shri Gautam Baghel, Advocate submitted that in the present case petitioner-appellant has to be accepted as eligible as his appointment in question has been prior to 23.08.2010 and in view of this, a totally wrong opinion has been formed and as such, this Court should intervene in the matter. Shri. R.P. Shukla, Advocate has countered the said submission by stating that, on its face value, petitioner-appellant does not fulfil the requisite minimum experience for being appointed as Head Master and in view of this, no interference is required to be made. Shri. R.P. Shukla, Advocate has countered the said submission by stating that, on its face value, petitioner-appellant does not fulfil the requisite minimum experience for being appointed as Head Master and in view of this, no interference is required to be made. On the face of the documents, that has been so appended, it is clearly reflected that petitioner-appellant claims that before moving application for being offered appointment on the post of Head Master of the Junior High School, he has been performing and discharging duties at Pashchim Vahini Sri Krishna Inter College, Basgoti Mavaiya, Bhadohi and from the said Institution in question petitioner-appellant has obtained an experience certificate, certifying that petitioner-appellant has taught in the aforesaid Institution w.e.f. 2006 up-till 2014 and the said experience also indicates that he has been teaching Class VI to VIII. Selection and appointment on the post of Head Master of recognized Junior High School is governed by the Statutory Rules i.e. U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The requisite eligibility criteria that has been provided for under Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules in question are as follows: "4. Minimum Qualification.-(1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of a recognised school shall be a Graduation Degree from a University recognized by U.G.C., and a teachers training course recognised by the State Government or the U.G.C. or the Board as follow: - 1. Basic Teaching Certificate. 2. A regular B.Ed. degree from a duly recognized Institution. 3. Certificate of Teaching. 4. Junior Teaching Certificate. 5. Hindustani Teaching Certificate. (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 U.G.C. or Board, such as follows: 1. Basic Teaching Certificate. 2. A regular B.Ed. degree from a duly recognized Institution. 3. Certificate of Teaching. 4. Junior Teaching Certificate. 5. Hindustani Teaching Certificate. (c)Five years teaching experience in a recognised school." A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules would go to show that for being appointed as Head Master, five years of teaching experience is one of the pre-requisite terms and conditions in a recognized school. 3. Certificate of Teaching. 4. Junior Teaching Certificate. 5. Hindustani Teaching Certificate. (c)Five years teaching experience in a recognised school." A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules would go to show that for being appointed as Head Master, five years of teaching experience is one of the pre-requisite terms and conditions in a recognized school. The issue is as to whether the experience certificate that has been so appended by the petitioner-appellant should be accepted as a valid experience certificate or not in the facts of the case as accepted position is that the experience of petitioner-appellant is from an Institution that has been recognized under U.P. Act No.2 of 1921. Such an issue has already been answered by this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (1) ALJ 467 wherein learned Single Judge of this Court has proceeded to form an opinion that teaching experience has to be from an Institution that is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act 1972 and the experience from any other Institution will be of no avail. View to the similar effect has been reiterated by the Special Appeal Bench of this Court in the case of Tasneem Fatima vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (11) ADJ 428 decided on 27.11.2014. Relevant extract of the said judgement reads as follows: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the relevant rule categorically prescribes 3 years experience to be possessed as minimum qualification which has already been extracted by the learned single Judge as rule 4 (2)(c) of the 1978 Rules in the impugned judgment itself. Section 2 (e) of the 1978 Rules has also been extracted which defines a Junior High School and section 2(g) of the 1978 Rules has also been extracted to indicate the status of a Junior High School. Thus, the rules clearly require teaching experience from a recognized school which, according to the aforesaid definition, has necessarily to be a Junior High School." Consequently, in the facts of the case, it is writ apparent that petitioner-appellant is not having to his credit requisite teaching experience that is required for being appointed as Head Master of recognized Junior High School, in view of this, the opinion formed by learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality. Special Appeal sans merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.