Advocates:
['ARVIND KUMAR SHUKLA', 'C S C', '', 'MOHD SHERE ALI']

Judgment Reserved on 5.9.2022

Judgment Delivered on 3.1.2023

Court No. - 18

i) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5544 of 2019

Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali

and

ii) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7142 of 2020

Petitioner :- Maya Yadav

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Both the above referred writ petitions involve identical questions of law

and facts. The Writ Petition (A) No. 5544 of 2019 is being treated as the

leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same is being

considered for deciding the controversy involved.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Mohd. Shere Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2

and 3, learned Standing counsel has accepted notices on behalf of the state

respondent. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

3. The writ petition (Writ-A No. 5544 of 2022) has been filed assailing the

order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the District Basic Education Officer,

MaharajGanj (Annx. No. 9 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder

the approval of the selection of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in

Siddharth Poorv Madhyamik Vidyalaya Pipra, Rasoolpur, Maharajganj has

been denied on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the TET

qualification at the time of his selection. Further prayers for commanding

the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 13.03.2019

and release the arrears of salary to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect

from 03.11.2011 i.e. the date of joining and continue to pay the current

salary month to month as and when the same fell due has also been

claimed.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the District

Maharajganj there is a recognized, aided institution in the name and style of

Siddharth Poorv Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Junior High School) imparting

education from class 6 to 8. The District Basic Education Officer,

Maharajganj granted permission by order dated 24.8.2011 to the

management of the institution to fill up the post of Assistant Teachers and

accordingly the posts were advertised in the daily newspapers namely

"Aaj" and "Swatantra Chetna" on 31.08.2011. The District Basic Education

Officer vide order dated 05.09.2011 nominated his nominee the Block

Education Officer, Nautanwa, Maharajganj to participate in the selection

process. The Selection Committee met on 18.08.2011 and selected 8

Assistant Teachers including the petitioner. The selection proceedings were

forwarded by the Manager of the Institution to the District Basic Education

Officer and after expiry of the requisite period prescribed under the 1978

Rules the Management issued the appointment letter to the petitioner on

24.10.2011 and in compliance thereof the petitioner joined the Institution in

question on 3.11.2011 and has been continuously working as Assistant

Teacher under the interim order granted by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the District

Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj under the impugned order dated

13.03.2019 which rejecting the approval to the appointment of the

petitioner has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the appointment

of the petitioner was made after the enforcement of the Right to Children to

Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the U.P. Right of Children

to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 which provides that a

candidate for appointment as Assistant Teacher must possess the essential

qualification of TET. The petitioner did not possess the requisite essential

TET qualification on the date of his selection and under such circumstances

the approval for the selection of the petitioner cannot be accorded.

6. L