Back
2021 Supreme(All) 58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD(LUCKNOW BENCH)
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Roshanee Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others – Respondents
Service Single No.8368 of 2020
Decided on : 27-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Onkar Singh
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ajay
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for benefits, such as weightage of past services, is determined by the clear and specific provisions of the relevant rules and regulations, and the fulfillment of statutory qualifications and conditions.
Headnote:
Shiksha Mitra - Appointment and Reversion - Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 1981 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 1981, Civil Appeal No.9529 of 2017 - The court discussed the appointment and reversion of Shiksha Mitras, the statutory qualifications, reservation policy, and the regularization of Shiksha Mitras as Teachers. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) was referenced, which allowed Shiksha Mitras to be considered for recruitment if they acquired the requisite qualifications in the next two consecutive recruitments. The court also highlighted the definition of 'Shiksha Mitra' under Clause 2 (V) of the Rules, 1981 and its interpretation in the context of providing weightage of past services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as Shiksha Mitra, was absorbed as Assistant Teacher but later reverted to the post of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner sought various reliefs including quashing the definition of 'Shiksha Mitra' and mandamus to give her benefits based on her Shiksha Mitra experience. The Full Bench and the Hon'ble Apex Court had previously ruled on the appointment and regularization of Shiksha Mitras.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's absence from service without sanctioned leave disqualified her from being treated as a 'Working Shiksha Mitra' and from receiving weightage of past services as per the Rules, 1981. The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of the definition of 'Shiksha Mitra', the eligibility for weightage of past services, and the impact of the petitioner's absence from service without sanctioned leave.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the clear definition of 'Shiksha Mitra' under the Rules, 1981 and the petitioner's failure to fulfill the conditions for receiving weightage of past services. The court also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) regarding the recruitment and qualifications of Shiksha Mitras.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no infirmity or illegality in not providing weightage of past services to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, 1981 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:-
(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the definition of "Shiksha Mitra" as provided in Clause 2 (V) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 1981, to the extent which says that the "Shiksha Mitra" means "working Shiksha Mitra" Annexure No.1.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and set aside all the consequential Government Orders, to the extent which treats "Shiksha Mitra" as "Working Shiksha Mitra".
(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to give all the benefits i.e. weightage of Shiksha Mitra, as per her Shiksha Mitra experience, to the petitioner ignoring the condition of "Working Shiksha Mitra".
(IV) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties, to permit the petitioner to rejoin on the post of Shiksha Mitra, in Primary School Badiyan Kheda, Block Sikandarpur Karna, District Unnao.
(V) Issue any other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with cost."
3. By means of order dated 13.1.2021, this Court while considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to file amendment application granted him time to file such application to explain the term 'working Shiksha Mitra' as indicated in Appendix-I of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2017.
4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he shall not file any amendment application as it is not required in this case.
5. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Mitra in Primary School Badiyan Kheda, Block Sikandarpur Karna, District Unnao on 14.11.2008 pursuant to the Government Order dated 26.5.1999. Thereafter, she was absorbed/appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 1.7.2015 as per Government Order dated 19.6.2013.
6. Batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court by the persons, who claimed to be eligible for appointment and whose chances were affected by filling up vacancies of Assistant Teachers by regularizing the Shiksha Mitras against such vacancies. Those writ petitions were opposed by the State Government and Shiksha Mitras by stating that the scheme of Shiksha Mitras was to meet a situation where sufficient trained Teachers were not available while constitutional mandate of imparting elementary education was to be fulfilled. The issue referred to the Full Bench of this Court to adjudicate as to whether appointment of Shiksha Mitras in pursuance of Government Order dated 26.5.1999 was of the statutory character. Some more issues were raised before the Full Bench but for deciding this writ petition, there would be no fruitful purpose to deal with those issues. The Full Bench was of the view that the nature of appointment of Shiksha Mitras could not authorize them to be treated as Teacher in terms of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (for brevity "Rules, 1981"). Further, they did not have the qualifications prescribed under the said Rules inasmuch as on the date of appointment, they did not have Bachelor Degree nor they had Basic Teachers Certificate as prescribed under the Rules, 1981. The Full Bench further held that the reservation policy had not been followed. No doubt they may have served the need of the hour, their regular appointment in violation of requisite statutory qualification was illegal. The matter went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; State of U.P. and Another Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and Others, Civil Appeal No.9529 of 2017. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased
