Allahabad High Court
Smt. Praveena Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 August, 2011
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44485 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Praveena Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- K.P. Shukla,Anurag Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,H.M.Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Contesting parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage of the proceedings without calling for any counter affidavit specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today.
Nagar Palika Kanya Inter College, Kasganj, District Kashiram Nagar is an aided and recognized Intermediate College. Provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder as well as those of the Intermediate Education Act and regulations framed thereunder are fully applicable to the teachers including Principal of the institution.
Petitioner before this Court, who claims to be working as Lecturer in the said institution, challenges the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 25.07.2011 whereunder it has been directed that Nirmal Nigam, respondent no. 5 shall work as Officiating Principal of the institution.
On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that appointment of Officiating Principal under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act can be made of the senior most teacher possessed of the prescribed minimum qualifications. Nirmal Nigam was appointed as Lecturer in the institution for the first time on 09.03.2009 by direct recruitment on the recommendation of the Selection Board. Prior to the said appointment, she was employed as Clerk in the Sales Tax Department. She does not have minimum teaching experience of our years of teaching Classes IX to XII as is mandatory under Item No. 1 of Appendix A of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He, therefore, submits that this aspect of the matter has completely been ignored by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, counsel for the respondent no. 4 does not dispute the date of appointment of respondent no. 4 nor could he dispute the fact that prior to the said appointment, Nirmal Nigam had not worked as teacher in any recognized institution.
It is more or less admitted that Nirmal Nigam does not have four years experience of teaching Class IX to XII as is provided for under Item No. 1 of Appendix A of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Shri Awasthi however submitted that the petitioner is also not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as she has been promoted on the post of Lecturer recently and has actually not taught Classes XI to XII for over a period of four years.
Shri K.P. Shukla disputes the correctness of the averments so made.
It is not necessary for the Court to enter into the disputed issues of fact as to whether the petitioner has teaching experience of four years of Class IX to XII as required under Item No. 1 Appendix A of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The issue has not been examined by the District Inspector of Schools. However, it is an admitted position that so far as respondent no. 5 is concerned, she is not possessed of the required teaching experience of four years, therefore, she cannot be appointed as Officiating Principal in absence of essential qualification being possessed by her. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation to record that so far as respondent no. 5 is concerned she cannot be appointed as Officiating Principal because of lack of minimum essential qualification prescribed for the post. The issue that the Officiating Principal be possessed of the prescribed minimum qualifications has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 756 of 1991 decided on 14.09.2001 which has since been followed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55697 of 2000 decided on 25.05.2001. The Special Appeal filed against the same bearing no. 810 of 1993 was dismissed and thereafter the Special Leave to Appeal No. 154 of 2000 filed was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 23.11.2009.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be legally sustained. It is hereby quashed.
The issue as to whether the petitioner is possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification is left open to be agitated before the District Inspector of Schools, who shall summon the original records from the institution to ascertain that the petitioner has taught the required classes for a period of four years or not. It is left open to the respondent no. 5 to refer to the judgment in the case of Balbir Kaur and another vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others reported in 2008 (3) ESC 409 (SC) for establishing as to what meaning is to be attached to the required teaching experience of four years of teaching Classes IX to XII under Item No. 1 of Appendix A of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The District Inspector of Schools shall appoint a qualified person, in terms of Appendix A of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, on the post of Officiating Principal.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed.
Dated :08.08.2011
VR/44485/11
