SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(All) 1047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
SARLA SRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 10441 Of 1994
Decided On : 09/11/1997

Advocates Appeared:
R.K.OJHA

The appointment of a teacher made before the enforcement of rules prescribing qualifications cannot be affected by the subsequent prescription of the qualifications.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - U. P. HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE (PAYMENT OF SALARIES) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 3 - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - QUALIFICATION - TEACHER APPOINTED BEFORE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES PRESCRIBING QUALIFICATIONS - CANNOT BE TERMINATED ON GROUND OF LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section of a school in 1970. At the time of her appointment, there were no specific qualifications prescribed for the post. In 1978, the U. P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High School) (Recruitment and conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (Rules of 1978) were framed, which prescribed certain minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Section. The petitioner did not possess these qualifications. In 1989, the primary section of the school was brought under the U. P. High School and Intermediate (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1971 (Act of 1971), and the petitioner's salary was to be paid by the District Inspector of Schools (D. I. O. S.) under the provisions of the Act. However, the D. I. O. S. refused to grant financial approval for the payment of the petitioner's salary on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualifications.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's appointment in 1970 was valid as there were no specific qualifications prescribed for the post at that time. The subsequent prescription of qualifications under the Rules of 1978 could not affect the petitioner's rights. The court also held that the petitioner's long teaching experience of about 27 years could not be overlooked and that she was not lacking in any manner in her teaching job.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section in 1970 was valid, given that there were no specific qualifications prescribed for the post at that time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Riksh Pal Singh v. Secretary, U. P. Basic Education Board and others, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 351, in which it was held that the services of teachers who were appointed before the enforcement of the Rules of 1978 could not be terminated on the ground that they did not possess some requisite minimum qualifications, which have been provided for the first time by the Rules of 1978.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner as Assistant Teacher under the provisions of the Act of 1971.

O. P. GARG, J.


( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking the relief that the respondent No. 1, the District Inspector of Schools (for short d. I. O. S. ) be directed to grant approval for the payment of salary of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher working in Primary Section under the U. P. High School and intermediate (Payment of Salaries)Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971 ).

( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel have been heard at sufficient length

( 3 ) THE petitioner was admittedly appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Section of Lal bahadur Sastri Takniki Inter College, Manda. District Allahabad on 6. 8. 1970 which was duly recognised and was paid the salary by the management. The primary section of the College was also put under the Payment of Salaries Act by the State Government vide G. O. No. 3048-15-8-89-354/87, dated 6. 7,1989 and since then the payment to the teachers working in the primary Institutions are made by respondent No. 1 under the Act of 1971. There were live teachers in the Primary Section. Approval has been accorded by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the four teachers who have been allowed to draw their salary. In respect of the petitioner, the financial approval has not been granted and consequently, she is not being paid the salary The obvious reason for not granting the approval in the case of the petitioner is, as the petitioner could ascertain, that she, according to the respondent No. 1, was not qualified to hold the post of teacher in Primary Section. According to the petitioner, she was Junior High School/prathama pass and in the year 1970 when she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Section, no particular qualification was laid down and subsequently, by laying down specific qualifications for the post, the right of the petitioner to receive the salary cannot be defeated or jopardised. It was also made clear that the petitioner has passed the High School examination in 1991. A number of letters and reminders were sent by the petitioner as well as Committee of management-respondent No- 2 to the D. I. O. S. but the financial approval has not been accorded.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Anoop Kumar Maheshwari. Assistant District Inspector of schools, Allahabad, the only plea taken is that on the relevant date, i. e. , 1. 10. 1989, the petitioner did not possess the requisite minimum qualification as is required for appointment on the post of assistant Teacher in Primary Section, and consequently, respondent No. 1 is not obliged to accord financial approval in respect of a teacher who is ineligible for appointment.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that by Government Order dated 6. 9. 1989, the salary of the teachers serving in the Primary Section is to be paid by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Act of 1971. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 6. 8. 1970 in the Primary Section. This fact is fortified from the details given in Annexure 1 to the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1--the Committee of Management. At the time of initial appointment, the qualification of the petitioner was Junior High school/prathma. The petitioner did not have any certificate or diploma of teachers training and was also not High School pass at the time of her initial appointment. Prior to 1972, the primary teachers were not governed by any rules, or, regulations and were paid the salary from the funds of the management. It was in 1972, that the U. P. Basic Education Act was enacted by the State of U. P. with a view to provide for establishment of U. P. Board of Basic Education and the matter connected therewith. Under the provisions of the Act, the Government of U. P. framed rules known as U. P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High School) (Recruitment







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top