Allahabad High Court
Radha Rani Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7805 of 2021
Petitioner :- Radha Rani Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Durga Singh,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was initially appointed as Warden Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls Vidyalaya, Bareilly upto Class-8th. She is aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2021 which records that the petitioner is a Commerce graduate and, therefore, is not entitled to continue in contractual employment as Commerce is not a subject which is being taught in Junior High School level. This order is assailed primarily on the ground that no opportunity of hearing has been given and there is no bar in appointing Commerce graduate as warden teacher. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3061 of 2021.
Petition is opposed by Sri Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent who states that the permissible subject upto Class-8th has been specifically mentioned which does not include subject Commerce. It is also stated that the Warden also worked as a teacher and unless she has a requisite qualification, she cannot claim continuance as a matter of right. Reliance is also placed upon the circular issued by the Director on 14.7.2020.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and also perused the materials on record.
Admittedly, permissible subjects taught uptill class-8th is specified which does not include Commerce as one of the subject. Teachers would be required in specified subjects which are being taught in the institution. In the absence of Commerce being a subject to be taught in the Junior High School, this Court finds no illegality in the decision taken by the District Basic Education Officer, discontinuing petitioner's engagement.
So far as the grant of opportunity is concerned, this Court is of the view that grant of opportunity, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not serve any purpose and cannot be a ground to appoint the petitioner.Law is settled that where consequences would not change on account of opportunity being granted, the insistence for the authorities to observe principles of natural justice would result in useless formality, which would not be insisted upon by the Courts. (See: Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the advertisement dated 14.11.2013 to submit that the requirement insisted now is contrary to what has been mentioned in the conditions of the advertisement. This argument cannot be accepted in view of Clause-8 of the advertisement which states that the teacher must possesses graduation degree in the subject which is to be taught by her. This would clearly support the contention of the respondent that the teacher would be required only in the subject which is taught in the institution.
Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.8.2021
n.u.
