Allahabad High Court
Gyanendra Pal Tyagi vs The State Of U.P. And Others on 24 November, 2011
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
A.F.R.
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 62394 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gyanendra Pal Tyagi
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- N.L.Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Dhiraj Pal Singh
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard Shri P.N.Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri N.L.Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Dheeraj Pal Singh on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and Standing Counsel on behalf of the other respondents.
Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). He submits that the Joint Director of Education has held that the respondent no. 5 being senior to the petitioner and being qualified is entitled to be appointed as Officiating Principal in the institution in view of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Act, 1982.
Challenging the order so passed, one short ground has been raised on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. It is stated that although respondent no. 5 may be senior to the petitioner but since he has to his credit a post graduation degree of M.A. and teaching qualification of BTC, he is not eligible/qualified for the post of Head Master/Principal of the institution in view of the provisions contained in Appendix-A to Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. According to the petitioner unless a teacher is possessed of a Degree of B.Ed. as the teaching qualification, he is not eligible for the post of head of institution.
The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner has only been stated to be rejected.
The word 'Trained? used in various entries including that of the Head Master provided for under Appendix-A has been explained by para 2 of the Appendix itself. Para 2 of Appendix-A reads as follows :
?Under it in reference to prescribed qualifications the work ?trained? means post-graduate training qualification such as, L.T., B.T., B.Ed. S.C. or M.Ed. of any university or institution as specified in earlier para or any equi' (Degree or Diploma). It also includes departmental A.T.C. and C.T. with minimum teaching experience of five years. J.T.C./B.T.C. grade teacher shall also be considered to be C.T. if he has worked in C.T. grade at least for five years.?
From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that a candidate who has a teaching qualification of C.T. With 5 years minimum teaching experience has been declared to be possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification within the meaning of the word 'Trained' as used in Appendix. It has further been provided that a teacher with teaching qualifications of JTC/BTC/HTC shall be considered to be C.T. If he has worked in C.T. Grade at least for five years. Meaning thereby that a teacher possessing BTC qualification on completing five years of service in C.T. Grade shall be deemed to be C.T. Within the meaning of Clause II and such C.T. Teacher with minimum teaching experience of five years would be considered to be possessed of the minimum prescribed qualification within the meaning of the word 'Trained' as provided under Clause II.
On simple reading of the aforesaid provision, this Court finds that the respondent no. 5 who has admittedly obtained teaching qualification of BTC and has completed more than 10 years of service in C.T. Grade has necessarily to be treated to be possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification within the meaning of the word 'Trained' in view of the provisions contained in Appendix-A to Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. There is no illegality in the order so passed.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Dated :24.11.2011
VR/62394/11
