Important point
When a person did not hold essential qualification for a post and thus did not hold any right over the post, no hearing was required before cancellation of his service.

Headnote:Service Law—U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972—U.P. Basic (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981—Rule 8—Appointment to the post of Asstt. Teachers (Urdu)—Requisite qualifications were High School Examination of Board of High School and Intermediate Education together with training qualification either one among the Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC), Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of Training or any other training recognized by State Government as equivalent thereto—Both appellants had High School Degree as well Intermediate Degree with Urdu with Urdu Training Certificate such as Abid, Abid-e-Mahir and Moallim-e-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh—Appellants were selected for post and were appointed—Within a very short span their appointment was cancelled on ground that they did not possess Basic Training Certificate—Writ challenging impugned order on merits as well on ground that no hearing opportunity was given before cancelling their appointment which was breach of principles of natural justice was dismissed by High Court—Appeal—Appellant did not hold training qualification as prescribed under Rule 8—When facts were admitted, an enquiry would have been an empty formality—Appellant did not hold any right over the post and thus no hearing was required before cancellation of their services—No prejudice was caused to appellants by not serving notice of giving hearing—No interference was warranted.
       Held : The requisite qualification is High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. or equivalent qualification recognized by the State Government together with the training qualification which consisted either one among the Basic Teacher’s Certificate (B.T.C.), Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior’s Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the State Government as equivalent thereto. Thus under the Rules, the basic qualification for the post of Asstt. Teacher, apart from the educational qualification, was the training qualification of the Basic Teacher’s Certificate or Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate or Junior Teacher’s Certificate or Certificate of Teaching or equivalent training course recognized by the State Government. It is an admitted position by both the parties that these qualifications are required for appointment to the post of Asstt. Teacher. It is also not the case of the appellants that the academic qualifications were amended at the time of their appointment. Thus, admittedly on the date of appointment, the appellants did not hold the training qualification to be appointed to the post of Asstt. Teachers as prescribed under Rule 8. It is the case of the appellants that once appointed their services could not have been cancelled, without affording them an opportunity of being heard and giving them a chance to explain their position. (Paras 11 and 12)
       In the present case, the appellants’ case fall within the exception laid down in S.L. Kapoor’s case (supra) and other supporting cases, as admittedly, the appellants were not qualified and they did not possess the B.T.C. or Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate or Junior Teacher’s Certificate or Certificate of Teaching or certificate of any other training course recognized by the State Government as equivalent thereto at the time of their initial appointment. In view of the basic lack of qualifications, they could not have been appointed nor their appointment could have been continued. Hence the appellants did not hold any right over the post and therefore no hearing was required before the cancellation of their services. In the present case, the cancellation order has been issued within a very short span of time giving no probability for any legitimate expectation to the appellants regarding continuation of their service. There was no separate appointment order issued in favour of the appellants but the memorandum dated 19.6.85 wherein the list of selected candidates was published, provided that all the selected candidates must join their respective schools/colleges within 15 days and from this the nature of appointment made cannot be ascertained. Moreover, the cancellation order itself gives an opportunity that if they do hold and possess the B.T.C. qualification along with intermediate qualification, they may contact and get the same verified on 14.8.85 by the appointing authority and they may bring this to the notice of the concerned authorities. The copy of the order of cancellation was also sent to the Principal concerned of the institution with the remarks that he should relieve Urdu teacher with immediate effect if he did not possess the certificate of passing the examination of intermediate and B.T.C.; and, if he possessed these certificates he should submit the same to the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar. Therefore, it is apparent that any person having the basic qualification for the appointment can produce it before the concerned official so that immediate steps can be taken with regard to the order of appointment cancellation. In our opinion, on the above facts no prejudice has been caused to the appellants by not serving notice of giving hearing before the order of cancellation was issued. (Paras 19 and 20)
       It is settled law that the qualification should have been seen which the candidate possessed on the date of recruitment and not at a later stage unless rules to that regard permit it. The minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 8 should be fulfilled on the date of recruitment. Equivalence of degree of Moallium-e-Urdu, Jamia Urdu Aligarh with that of B.T.C. in the year 1994 would not entail the benefit to the appellants on the date they were appointed. The appellants could not have been appointed to the post of Asstt. Teachers without having training required under Rule 8. That being the case, the appointments of the appellants were de hors the Rules and could not be treated to be continued. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeals and are, accordingly, dismissed. (Para 21)

Judgment

P.P. Naolekar, J.—In the year 1984, the Government of U.P. had decided to appoint Urdu teachers in most of the districts of U.P. and the number of teachers to be appointed for each district was fixed. For the district of Muzaffarnagar, 60 Urdu teachers were to be appointed. In pursuance of the decision of the Government of U.P., the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Distt. Muzaffarnagar by an advertisement dated 15.10.84 invited applications for the post of Astt. Teachers (Urdu). The minimum educational qualification for the said post as per the advertisement was that the candidates should have either passed the Higher Secondary, Intermediate or equivalent examination thereto recognized by the Government (along with Urdu as subject) and possessed the Basic Teacher’s Certificate (B.T.C.), Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior Teacher’s Certificate (J.T.C.), or Certificate of Teaching (T.C.) or equivalent thereto, recognized by the Government or any training equivalent thereto. The advertisement also provided that the higher caste candidates who were trained by 1974 and those Scheduled Caste, Backward Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, who were trained upto 1975 may only apply because other candidates trained after this period were not going to be considered. Both the appellants had the High School Degree as well as the Intermediate Degree with Urdu as one of the subjects along with Urdu Training Certificate such as Adib, Adib-e-Mahir and Moallim-e-Urdu from the Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. In pursuance of the advertisement issued dated 15.10.84, the Basic Education Board, Muzaffarnagar conducted an interview and the Upper Basic Shiksha Adhikari, respondent No. 4 herein, on 19.6.85 published a list of selected candidates, which included the names of the appellants herein. The list/memorandum itself provided that all the selected candidates were required to join their respective schools/colleges within the period of 15 days, otherwise their appointment would automatically be deemed to be cancelled. After receipt of the memorandum both the appellants joined duties within the stipulated 15 days and started working as per the conditions of service. However, on 7.8.85, i.e., within a very short span of their appointment the Urdu Advisory Director of Education, respondent No. 2 herein, issued direction to respondent No. 4, regarding the cancellation of the appointment of the appellants on the ground that they did not possess the Basic Training Certificate (B.T.C.). Respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 9.8.85 cancelled their appointment and directed them to contract the appointing authority, along with B.T.C. and Intermediate (Urdu Certificate) for the purpose of verification, if these documents were in their possession. Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned order, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 20.9.85 and the High Court stayed the operation of the order of cancellation of their appointments.

2. Meanwhile, the appellants acquired B.T.C. in 1993 and 1995 respectively and continued with their service. Before their appointment, on 28.1.85 the Special Secretary to the U.P. Government by letter informed all heads of departments and Chief Officers, U.P. that Hon’ble Governor had approved such candidates who were qualified as Moallim-e-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and got the experience of teaching at Higher Secondary School as eligible for employment in the State services/educational institutions. Similarly, on 21.10.88 the Special Secretary to the U.P. Government passed an order to inform all head of departments and Chief Officers of U.P. that the candidates with the degree of Moallim-e-Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, and those who had got the experience of teaching upto Higher Secondary level had been directed to be appointed as teachers in State services. On 13.9.94 the Secretary of U.P. Government by his order informed all authorities of education that Hon’ble Governor ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 37

Important pointWhen a person did not hold essential qualification for a post and thus did not hold any right over the post, no hearing was required before cancellation of his service.

Cases Referred (17)

Important point
When a person did not hold essential qualification for a post and thus did not hold any right over the post, no hearing was required before cancellation of his service.