Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Praveen Kumar Giri
Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board – Appellant
Versus
Tripurari Dubey – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitioners entitled to salary as headmaster. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellants argue against salary payment based on qualifications. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. tet qualification not mandatory for existing assistant teachers. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. rte act does not eliminate existing headmaster posts. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. arrears for salary limited to three years prior to writ filing. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. court orders examination of claims and payment determination. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Alok Kumar Gupta, Sri Sudheer Rana, Sri Kamal Kumar Kesharwani, Sri Man Bahadur Singh, Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Sri Anurag Shukla and Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.
2. This bunch of special appeal is preferred by the U.P. Basic Education Board through its Secretary challenging an order passedby learned Single Judge granting salary of the post of headmaster to the writ petitioners who are working as such since long. In the leading case, the writ petitioner has been working as headmaster since 2014, yet, the salary for t
Employees discharging duties of a higher post are entitled to salary for that position, barring statutory restrictions, and salary arrears are limited to three years from the filing of the writ petit....
Ad-hoc principals are only entitled to the salary of their position following the fulfillment of specific preconditions under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the opposite party as Headmaster in-charge was not equivalent to the appointment as Headmaster, and he was entitled to 'cha....
financial Liability to the State is not a reigning consideration while interpreting statutory rules and notifications.
Minority institutions must adhere to the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act when appointing staff, especially when receiving government grants.
KTET qualification is not mandatory for Headmaster appointments as per relevant statutes and communications.
The Court ruled that K-TET qualification is not mandatory for promotion to Headmaster in Minority Educational Institutions, based on earlier judgments.
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
