Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And ors – Respondents
Special Appeal No.441 of 2021
Decided on : 05-01-2024
B.P.Ed. - Appointment of Assistant Teacher - Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment and Selection of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 - Summary: The court discussed the essential qualifications for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in a Primary School and the recognition of B.P.Ed. degree as an alternate qualification. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of the B.P.Ed. qualification and its applicability for the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Rakesh Kumar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School but was later terminated due to lacking essential qualifications. The appellant challenged the termination through a series of writ petitions and appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant lacked the essential qualification as prescribed under the statute for the appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, as the B.P.Ed. degree was not recognized as an alternate qualification.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the recognition of the B.P.Ed. qualification for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in a Primary School.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the B.P.Ed. qualification as discussed in the Full Bench judgment of Amal Kishore Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, and concluded that the B.P.Ed. degree is not recognized for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in a Primary School.
Final Decision: The Special Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision that the appellant lacked the essential qualification for the appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School.
JUDGMENT :
(1) Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2) The instant Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 assailing the order dated 04.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1301 (SS) of 2017, Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that since the appellant/petitioner lacks essential qualification as prescribed under the Statute for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the attached Primary School of the Institution inasmuch as B.P.Ed. degree is not an alternate qualification prescribed for B.T.C., he cannot claim to be qualified.
(3) Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal, which lies in narrow compass, need mention infra to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal.
(4) Swami Vivekanand Inter College, Gonda (here-in-after referred to as ‘the institution’ for the sake of brevity) is a recognized and Government aided institution imparting education upto Intermediate classes. The institution is governed under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment and Selection of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.
(5) On 17.03.2010, the Committee of Management got published advertisements for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the daily newspapers ‘Swatantra Bharat’ and ‘Trigut’. Subsequently, the Committee of Management appointed Rakesh Kumar (appellant/petitioner), Shailendra Kumar Singh and Ms. Poonam Devi and the relevant papers were sent by the Manager of the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools for approval on 16.04.2010. However, the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 05.05.2010 disapproved the selection and appointments made on three posts of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Section of the Institution by the Committee of Management.
(6) Aggrieved by the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 05.05.2010 disapproving the selection of three persons including the appellant/petitioner, Writ Petition No. 2981 (SS) of 2010, Km. Poonam Devi and others v. State of U.P. and others was filed before this Court. While disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 09.08.2010, the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda was directed to send the matter alongwith complete record to the State Government for its approval and liberty was granted to the State Government to examine the matter independently and take a decision either way for requisitioning the Committee of Management. The decision so taken within two months was directed to be communicated to the Committee of Management.
(7) Assailing the order dated 09.08.2010, Km. Poonam Devi and others filed Special Appeal No. 607 of 2010 before a Division Bench of this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2012 modifying the order dated 09.08.2010 to the extent that the primary section concerned should not make appointment beyond the sanctioned strength available and, further that once sanction in respect of appointment has already been granted at any state in respect of vacancy, against the said vacancy no fresh sanction would be required to fill up the post. In case the appellants have been appointed against sanctioned posts, it would be inappropriate on the part of the authority to insist upon a seeking a fresh sanction.
(8) Thereafter, the District Inspector of School passed an order dated 17.07.2012 for payment of salary to the aforesaid three persons with the stipulation that if any adverse material pertaining to the appointment of these three persons would come to his notice, the order would be cancelled. To this effect, appointment authority and the concerned teacher would be responsible. When the three Teachers submitted their testimonials for making entries in the service books, it was found that
Point of law : Court cannot substitute the statutory qualification, which is not otherwise provided under the relevant provisions, which prescribe the essential qualification for appointment to the p....
The Supreme Court ruled that B.Ed. is not a valid qualification for primary school teachers, affecting eligibility for appointments made after its decision.
The court established that D.El.Ed. is the sole qualification for primary school teachers, invalidating B.Ed. as a qualification and affirming the prospective application of its ruling.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the qualifications required for appointment as a trained Teacher in Secondary School do not necessarily mandate a specific graduation subject,....
The absence of a specific requirement for a headmistress to pass the TET under the 1978 Rules, and the non-retrospective application of the TET requirement to invalidate the respondent's prior appoin....
Higher qualification like B.Ed. (Special Education) not equivalent to prescribed 2-year Diploma unless expressly declared; eligibility strictly per Recruitment Rules as on cut-off date; courts cannot....
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
