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

1999 Supreme(All) 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth, J.
ANJULA - Appellant
Versus
JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SAHARANPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 41997 Of 1998
Decided On : 01/07/1999

Advocates Appeared:
P.S.Chauhan

A person who does not possess the requisite qualification for a post cannot be appointed to that post, even on an ad hoc basis.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF LECTURER - QUALIFICATION - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - VALIDITY - U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - SECTION 16(1)(A) - U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION RULES, 1956 - RULE 10(1)(A) - U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 1978 - RULE 10(1)(A).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in a school. The approval for the appointment was granted by the Deputy Director of Education, subject to the condition that the appointment was being made on the basis of financial sanction granted by the Accountant, in the office of the District Inspector of schools. The Accountant informed the District Inspector of Schools that the appointment appeared to be illegal and, therefore, payment of salary may not be made. The Manager of the School terminated the petitioner's service on the ground that since no salary is being paid from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, her appointment was cancelled with immediate effect.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Lecturer in Civics. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to any opportunity of hearing before her termination of service, as she did not have the requisite qualification for the post.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Lecturer in Civics? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before her termination of service?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Lecturer in Civics, as she was an M. A. in Hindi and did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed in the post of Lecturer in Civics. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any opportunity of hearing before her termination of service, as she did not have the requisite qualification for the post.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner alleges to have been appointed on 2. 9. 1996 in the post of Lecturer. A copy of the said appointment letter is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It does not disclose as to on which subject or in which post the petitioner was appointed. The approval was obtained by the committee of Management from the Deputy Director, 1st Region, Meerut through a letter dated 27. 12. 1995 being Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Approval to the appointment of the petitioner was accorded through the said letter with the condition that the appointment was being made on the basis of financial sanction granted by the Accountant, in the office of the District Inspector of schools subject to the condition that in case there is any suppression of fact or irregularity, in that event the approval would be ineffective. By a letter dated 25. 10. 1996, the Accountant in the office of the District Inspector of Schools was informed by the District Inspector of Schools that the appointment in the post of Lecturer appears to be illegal and, therefore, payment of salary may not be made. Thereafter, by an order dated 1. 7. 1998. the Manager of the School had terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that since no salary is being paid from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, her appointment was cancelled with immediate effect. By an order dated 3. 9. 1998 contained in Annexure-5, the Joint Director of Education, saharanpur Region, Saharanpur had held that the appointment of the petitioner was invalid since she was sought to be appointed in the vacancy created in the post of Lecturer in Civics on account of promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta, a Lecturer in Civics as officiating Principal, while the petitioner was M. A. in Hindi and did not possess the qualification for being appointed in the post of Lecturer in Civics.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. S. Chauhan contends that there was a post created in hindi, against which the petitioner was appointed as has been contended in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. But from the appointment letter, it does not transpire that the appointment was made against the post of Lecturer in Hindi as has been created. The appointment letter is thoroughly silent as to on which post she was appointed. Whereas the approval shows that the approval was granted to the appointment in the vacancy created due to promotion of Smt. Kiran gupta to the post of officiating Principal, till the said Smt. Kiran Gupta is reverted to the said post. Whereas Mr. Chauhan submits that the post of Lecturer in Civics was converted into Hindi on account of necessity of the teaching in school. This proposition has been opposed by Mr. S. C. Srivastava, learned standing counsel on the ground that a particular post since been created cannot be converted or the subject can be changed. At best, if there is no necessity of the post, the same could be surrendered and a new post could be created. In the present case, there was no question of surrendering the post since the promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta was in an officiating capacity subject to her reversion upon the regular appointment in the post of Principal. This contention is also contradicted by the statement of Mr. Chauhan to the extent that the post of Lecturer in Hindi was also created. Both these contentions cannot go together. Either the petitioner has to be appointed in the post of Lecturer in Hindi so created or in the post of Lecturer in Civics against a short-term vacancy on account of promotion of Smt. Kiran Gupta, a Lecturer in Civics as officiating Principal, while the petitioner was M. A. in hindi. In any event, such post can be created, or surrender can be accepted, by the District inspector of Schools. The Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools cannot claim to have any power or jurisdiction to convert or change or alter a post. He is only entitled to grant financial sanction.

( 3 ) IN the present c





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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top