The main legal point established in the judgment is that the qualifications required for the appointment of teachers and the eligibility criteria specified in Appendix-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 must be met, and the limited scope for examination available to the State authorities in case of appointment of teachers in a minority institution as per section 16-FF of the Act of 1921 must be adhered to.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Khalil Higher Secondary School, Bareilly is a recognized intermediate institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are also applicable upon it. The institution is a minority institution. The State Government has already determined sanctioned strength of teaching and non-teaching staff in the institution concerned vide order dated 22.2.2013, which is at page 56 of the writ petition. This order would go to show that thirteen posts of L.T. Grade teacher are sanctioned in the institution.

2. On 29.5.2012 the institution advertised three posts of L.T. Grade teacher and one post of primary teacher in 'Amar Ujala'. The subject for which appointment was to be made included the subject of Social Science. The Committee of Management proceeded to make appointment against all advertised vacancies and the petitioner claims to have been selected on the post of L.T. Grade teacher in Social Science. Papers thereafter were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, Bareill for grant of approval. The Inspector on 22.7.2013 approved the appointment made on three out of four advertised posts but petitioner's claim was kept pending. Since no decision was taken with regard to grant of approval to petitioner's appointment, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.66613 of 2013 which came to be disposed of with following directions on 16.12.2013:-

"Accordingly this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.4, District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law, on the pending papers relating to selection of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

3. It appears that direction of this Court was not complied with and consequently a contempt petition was filed. The Inspector on 24.2.2014 proceeded to pass an order rejecting the claim of petitioner on the ground that there already existed a teacher who could teach Social Science in the institution, and therefore, there was no requirement of appointing a teacher in Social Science stream. The order of Inspector was assailed by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.25080 of 2014, which was disposed of on 19.5.2014 vide following orders passed:-

"I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Sri R. P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner does not have qualification in as much as under the Appendix-A to the Intermediate Education Act at serial No.55, the requirement of qualification for being appointed as Assistant teacher to teach Social Science is that in B.A. the candidate must possess at least two qualifications out of the History, Political Science, Geography and Economics. It is submitted that petitioner has only one of the subject i.e. political science and therefore, he is not qualified to be appointed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that before the interview on 4.12.12 result of history subject was already declared and therefore,he was qualified to be appointed.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand upon written instruction submits that in the institution, the ratio of teacher is much higher than students and therefore, no fresh appointments can be made.

Considering the teacher and taught ratio and considering the averments made by the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that this aspect of the matter can suitably be looked into by the Director Secondary Education before whom the petitioner may make a represent