Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2834 (ALL)

Girraj v. State of U. P.

2016-08-17

MANOJ MISRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1; and Sri Ashok Kumar for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Considering the nature of the order that is being passed, learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that this petition may be finally decided at the fresh stage itself. The petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School run by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad as a male OBC candidate for subjects science and maths. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 29.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioner holds BCA degree without any maths/ science subject as part of the curriculum of BCA course and, therefore, he was not eligible as per the prescribed qualifications. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the qualifications prescribed, apart from others, provided that a candidate must possess a graduation degree with science/ maths as one of the subjects obtained from an University recognized by law or such equivalent degrees which may be notified. It has been submitted that on 27.8.2013, guidelines were issued by the Board of Basic Shiksha providing for technical degrees which were considered as equivalent to graduation degree. Attention of the Court has been invited to page 54 of the paper book so as to demonstrate that BCA degree obtained by a candidate, who had passed the Intermediate Examination with Science stream, would be eligible for consideration. It has been submitted that the petitioner had passed his Intermediate Examination by taking science subjects, namely, Chemistry, Physics and Biology, and, thereafter, in the BCA curriculum also mathematics was taught to the petitioner as would be evident from his marks sheet, which has been appended by the petitioner along with supplementary affidavit, disclosing that in the first semester examination of BCA course, foundational course in mathematics was one of the subjects and likewise in the second and third semesters discreet mathematical structure was one of the subjects taught. It has been submitted that since the petitioner had mathematics as one of the subjects in his BCA course and BCA was considered to be equivalent to graduation course in view of guidelines issued by the Board, there was no justification to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground on which it has been. It has been submitted that since the petitioner had mathematics as one of the subjects in his BCA course and BCA was considered to be equivalent to graduation course in view of guidelines issued by the Board, there was no justification to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground on which it has been. It has also been submitted that while passing the impugned order, the curriculum for the BCA course has not been examined by the respondents and, therefore, the order impugned suffers from non consideration of relevant material. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the order impugned has not dealt with the various aspects which have been placed before this Court, the matter may be remanded back to the second respondent to pass appropriate order in respect of acceptability of the qualification possessed by the petitioner. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, the respondents have not accorded consideration to various aspects which have been placed by the petitioner before this Court including the guidelines dated 27.08.2013 issued by the Board of Basic Education according eligibility recognition to BCA degree holders who have passed Intermediate Examination with Science Stream. Further, it has not been considered by the respondents as to whether mathematics in the curriculum for the BCA course was sufficient or not to consider the petitioner as a graduate with Maths for the purpose of being appointed as Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School. It would be appropriate to observe that a Senior Basic School Teacher may not require very high level knowledge of his subject and, therefore, the consideration of the authorities while assessing the qualification of a candidate must be guided with the nature of duties that a candidate would be required to perform as a teacher in the institution. Whether the BCA degree holders have adequate knowledge of maths/ science is a matter which requires consideration by the second respondent and for such consideration report may be obtained from such experts which the second respondent may consider fit and proper. Whether the BCA degree holders have adequate knowledge of maths/ science is a matter which requires consideration by the second respondent and for such consideration report may be obtained from such experts which the second respondent may consider fit and proper. However, since the order impugned does not take into consideration various aspects which have been placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order dated 29.12.2015 and remit the matter back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made herein above. The order dated 29.12.2015 is therefore set aside with a direction to the second respondent (Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad) to take a fresh look into the qualifications of the petitioner in respect of his candidature for the post of Assistant Teacher, Senior Basic School (Science and Maths). The second respondent shall take into consideration the various aspects which have been noticed herein above and, before passing any order, he may also take an expert opinion with regards to the suitability of the qualifications possessed by the petitioner keeping in mind whether such qualification has been accepted or not while appointing any other candidate. It is expected that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The second respondent shall provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so that he may be able to place necessary documents in support of his claim. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.