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

2003 Supreme(All) 1009

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and R.K. Agrawal, J.
State of U.P.
Versus
Rosalia Minj Sohanta
Special Appeal 664 of 2002
Decided On : 02 May 2003
Special Appeal 664 Of 2002

Advocates Appeared:
R.K.OZA, Ran Vijay Singh,

The absence of prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment does not render the appointment illegal.

Headnote:

TRAINING - Teacher Appointment Dispute - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, Section 19(1), U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 - The court discussed the qualifications required for appointment as a teacher in recognized schools, the retrospective effect of a government order, and the recognition of qualifications by the University Grant Commission. The court found that the respondent was entitled to be treated as a trained teacher and receive salary accordingly.

R. K. AGRAWAL, J.

( 1 ) THE present special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16. 2. 2000, passed by the learned Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1303 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge, had disposal of the writ petition quashing the order dated 8. 10. 1992, contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition and directing the authorities to treat the petitioner as trained teacher in terms of the government Order dated 21. 10. 1994 and pay the salary as trained teacher in the revised scale alongwith arrears.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are that the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) was appointed on 17. 7. 1973, as Assistant Teacher in Primary School namely Bal vidyalaya Nayapura, Stanely Road, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the School ). She was given trained grade as she was having certificate of diploma in Education from the Pune university. Sometimes in February, 1992, the authorities found that the diploma possessed by the respondent No. 1 was not recognised as equivalent to B. T. C. , and since B. T. C. was the only training after obtaining of which a person becomes eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, therefore, vide order dated8. 10. 1992, she was designated as untrained teacher and ordered to draw salary as untrained teacher. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which had been finally disposed off by the learned Judge vide order dated 16. 2. 2000 which is impugned in this special appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Shri R. K. Ojha learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel submitted that on the date when the respondent No. 1 was appointed as trained Teacher in Primary School on 17. 7. 1973, she did not possess the requisite training i. e. , B. T. C. and therefore, she was not eligible and could not have been appointed as a trained Teacher. According to him, the certificate of Diploma in Education from Pune University is not recognised as equivalent to B. T. C. Training by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and thus, no benefit can be drived from the said certificate. He further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has rightly been granted salary treating her to be as untrained Teacher and the learned Judge was not justified in directing payment of salary as trained Teacher to the respondent No. 1. He relied upon the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Ravi shankar and Ors. , 1998 (3) SCC 146 and decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U. P. and Ors. v. Param Hansh Singh, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1685.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to him, the Government Order 21. 10. 1994, did not have any retrospective effect and all those untrained Teachers who have completed 10 years service or were going to attain the age of superannuation within 2 years, were to be treated as trained Teachers after a committee constituted under the aforesaid Government Order examined their cases. Thus, the Single Judge was not justified in directing the respondent No, 1 to be treated as trained Teacher bye-passing the Government Order dated 21. 10. 1994. He further submitted that the learned Judge had granted the relief, which was not even claimed by the respondent No. 1. He relied upon the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Laxman Roller flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. , (1998) 8 SCC 326.

( 6 ) SHRI R. K. Ojha learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School on 17. 7. 1973. She possessed the certificate of Diploma in Education from Pune University, which is a recognised University by the University Grant Commission and therefore, its Diploma is recognised all over India. He further submitted that as far back in the year 1986, a











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