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

2020 Supreme(All) 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BISWANATH SOMADDER, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta w/o Late Syamal Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Education (Secondary), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 48 of 2020
Decided On : 11-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Amit Shukla.
For the Respondents:C.S.C., Ashok Khare (Senior Advocate) assisted by Siddharth Khare.

Point of Law
Under sub-section (6) of Section 25-N it is open to the appropriate Government or the specified authority to review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under subsection (3).

Headnote:

U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 – Section 18(2) – Intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order whereby the order dated 16.05.2013, which was impugned in the writ petition, has been set aside and the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, has been directed to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the judgment for the senior most eligible person to be allowed to officiate as Principal of the Institution so long as regularly selected Principal is not made available. Further, the respondent-petitioner has been held to be entitled to salary as officiating Principal in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(2) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 – Held, Since the appellant possessed the requisite eligibility criteria as per the relevant Regulations, as on the date of occurrence of vacancy on the post of Principal in the institution as against the writ petitioner who was not eligible on the said date, the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the DIOS, which was under challenge in the writ petition, could not be held to be erroneous so as to warrant interference – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 43 and 45)

Facts of the Case

District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, has been directed to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the judgment for the senior most eligible person to be allowed to officiate as Principal of the Institution so long as regularly selected Principal is not made available. Further, the respondent-petitioner has been held to be entitled to salary as officiating Principal in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(2) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.

Finding of the Court

Since the appellant possessed the requisite eligibility criteria as per the relevant Regulations, as on the date of occurrence of vacancy on the post of Principal in the institution as against the writ petitioner who was not eligible on the said date, the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the DIOS, which was under challenge in the writ petition, could not be held to be erroneous so as to warrant interference.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Shukla, for the appellant and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, for the respondent-petitioner.

2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 passed in Writ-A No.48219 of 2013 (Anita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the order dated 16.05.2013, which was impugned in the writ petition, has been set aside and the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, has been directed to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the judgment for the senior most eligible person to be allowed to officiate as Principal of the Institution so long as regularly selected Principal is not made available. Further, the respondent-petitioner has been held to be entitled to salary as officiating Principal in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(2) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, [the Act, 1982].

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the post of Principal at Jalaun Balika Inter College, [the Institution], Jalaun fell vacant on 30.6.2009. The aforementioned Institution is a recognized Institution under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, [the Act, 1921] and the payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of the said Institution is regulated in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees Act, 1971, [the Act, 1971].

4. A question arose as to who is entitled to officiate as Principal of the Institution and by an order dated 16.5.2013 the District Inspector of Schools, [the DIOS], Jalaun accepted the candidature of the appellant herein to officiate as Principal as against the claim of the respondent-petitioner primarily on the ground that on the date of occurrence of the vacancy on 30.06.2009 the petitioner did not fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria.

5. The learned Single Judge while adverting to the rival claims of the two teachers has taken notice of a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Amal Kishore Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (10) ADJ 529, on the point as to whether a person possessing Bachelor's degree in physical education is qualified to be appointed as Principal in a recognised intermediate college. Following the view expressed by the Full Bench that a teacher having B.P.Ed. degree is not eligible to be appointed as Principal of an intermediate college, the learned Single Judge drew an inference that the training qualification possessed by the appellant being a diploma in physical education she could not be treated to possess the requisite training qualification for the purposes of appointment to the post of Principal in a recognised intermediate college.

6. As regards the petitioner not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Principal on the date of occurrence of the vacancy on 30.06.2009, since she obtained the necessary qualification only later on 15.12.2010, the learned Single Judge applying the doctrine of necessity held that though the initial appointment of the appellant as officiating Principal in such circumstances may be justified but such necessity would continue only so long as a qualified and eligible teacher was not available to be appointed as officiating Principal. It has been further held that the petitioner having acquired the necessary eligibility on 15.12.2010, the appellant had no right to continue as Principal any further and accordingly the order dated 16.5.2013 has been set aside and the District Inspector of Schools has been directed to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the judgment for the senior most eligible person to be allowed to officiate as Principal of the Institu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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