Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju, J.
SANJEEV KUMAR DUBEY - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, ETAWAH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 41564 Of 1997
Decided On : 04/27/1998
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - DYING-IN-HARNESS RULES - VALIDITY - U. P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE COMMISSION ACT, 1982, SECTION 16(2) PROVISO - U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION REGULATION, CHAPTER II, REGULATION 1, APPENDIX-A, ITEM 34 - GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 2. 2. 1995 - ARBITRARINESS - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS TO BE MADE ONLY ON MERIT - NO APPOINTMENT UNDER DYING-IN-HARNESS RULES TO BE MADE ON THE POST OF TEACHER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father, a confirmed Science Demonstrator, died in-harness leaving behind his widow, four sons, and one daughter. Petitioner, the eldest son, applied for appointment as Science Demonstrator under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner lacked training as a teacher and was only B. Sc. Petitioner challenged the rejection order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proviso to Section 16(2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982, and the Government Order dated 2. 2. 1995, which allowed for the appointment of dependents of teachers who died in-harness as teachers in Trained Graduates Grade, were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the appointment of teachers should be made only on merit and that merely because a person has the minimum qualification does not mean they are competent to be appointed as a teacher.
Issues: 1. Whether the proviso to Section 16(2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982, and the Government Order dated 2. 2. 1995, were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the appointment of teachers should be made only on merit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proviso to Section 16(2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982, and the Government Order dated 2. 2. 1995, were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because they allowed for the appointment of dependents of teachers who died in-harness as teachers in Trained Graduates Grade without regard to their merit. 2. The court held that the appointment of teachers should be made only on merit because the education of thousands of students is at stake and an incompetent teacher can ruin their lives.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for appointment as Science Demonstrator and directed the respondents to offer the petitioner a job as a Class III employee within a month.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the Impugned order dated 30. 9. 97 Annexure-18 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Science Demonstrator in Sri Radha Vallabh Inter College, Phaphund, district Etawah.
( 2 ) THE petitioners father was a confirmed Science Demonstrator in the Institution in question and he died in-hamess on 31. 12. 93 leaving behind his widow, four sons and one daughter. The petitioner claims to be his eldest son.
( 3 ) THE petitioner made an application to respondent No. 2 Committee of Management for appointing him under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. True copy of the petitioners application dated 24. 7. 95 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that he has done his B. Sc. and hence is qualified for being appointed as Science Demonstrator. The petitioner has relied on the Government Order dated 2. 2. 95 copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This government Order provides that when teacher in a recognised Institution dies in-harness, then one member of his family who is not below 18 years of age can be appointed on a teaching post for trained graduate.
( 4 ) IN paragraph 7 of the petition, it is stated that the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, on 5. 2. 96 wrote a letter to the Manager of the Institution seeking some information and documents. True copy of the said letter is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In paragraph 8 of the petition. It is stated that the Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution on 10. 3. 96 for appointing the petitioner under the Dylng-in-Harness Rules. True copy of the resolution is annexure-9 to the writ petition. Thereafter. It appears from paragraphs 10 to 12 of the writ petition that certain correspondence followed between the District Inspector of Schools, the committee of Management and the petitioner vide Annexures-11 to 16 to the writ petition. However, by the impugned order dated 30. 9. 97 Annexure-18 to the writ petition, the District inspector of Schools Informed the petitioner that since he had not received training as a teacher and was only B. Sc. hence he cannot be appointed on the grade of trained graduate teacher. Aggrieved this petition has been filed in this Court.
( 5 ) WHEN this writ petition was Initially argued before me on 12. 12. 97 after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel, I passed the following order :
"the petitioner is claiming appointment as a Teacher (Demonstrator) under Dying-in-Harness rules. In my prima facie opinion, no appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules can be made on the post of teachers. There are many cases where the father is very intelligent and learned but the son is not, and there are cases vice versa also. Hence the appointment of a teacher done under Dying-in-Harness Rules is arbitrary and Illegal since if a person who is Incompetent and riot deserving to be a teacher is appointed as a teacher the result will be that the lives of thousands of children may be ruined because if the teacher is not learned it is obvious that students will also not get good education. Hence, prima facie. In my opinion, no appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules can be made on the post of teacher and such appointment should be made only on merit. Put up on Monday, i. e. , 15. 12. 97 before me. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the petitioner may address/argue on this. Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, leanred Additional Chief standing Counsel will Inform learned Advocate General about this order. The validity of the relevant provisions in the Act and Rules will also be decided. "
( 6 ) THE case was listed before me on 9. 3. 98 and I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eligibility qualification for appointment as Science Demonstrator is only B. Sc. vide Appendix-A,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
