Allahabad High Court
Smt. Veena Rai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20614 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Veena Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya R.K.,Avinash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Shukla,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
The petitioner herein had applied for being appointed as full time teacher for imparting teaching from Class-VI to VII in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya, Siddhaor, Barabanki. Copy of the advertisement is annexed as Annexure no.6 to the petition and it is dated 03.11.2014. Two posts of Music teacher were advertised and the required qualification as mentioned in the Advertisement was Trained Graduate Teacher and Trained Eligible Teachers' certificate, that is all. There was no requirement therein to submit any certificate or educational testimonials pertaining to Music at the graduation or other level. The contention of petitioner's counsel is that whatever documents were demanded, were submitted and she was duly appointed in 2015. She imparted teaching till 2020 when the services were required to be renewed. The appointment of the petitioner was renewed every year without any objection. It is only in 2020 after issuance of the Circular dated 14.07.2020 that scrutiny of testimonials was undertaken. However, in view of a Circular dated 14.07.2020, while considering the renewal, the claim has been rejected on the ground that she did not possess any degree in the subject of Music. In this regard, petitioner's counsel says that this is factually incorrect as after her appointment, she was asked to perform the duties of Music teacher as she possessed the requisite degree in Music. She could not produce the original degree in the year 2020 at the time of renewal as the same had been lost but she produced photocopy of it. Subsequently, as is also mentioned in the impugned order, she produced original certificates. He referred to the recital in the representation of the petitioner dated 30.04.2021 which has been reproduced in the impugned order. He says that this was not taken into consideration and her renewal has been declined on the ground that while applying for appointment as full time teacher, the subject of Music was not mentioned as one of the subjects in which the petitioner had graduated. The only subject mentioned were General Hindi, Samaj Shastra and Rajniti Shastra. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in these subjects, the petitioner had graduated from Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. However, as far as graduation in Music is concerned, that was a separate degree obtained by the petitioner from another institution, namely, Calorx Teachers' University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat which is a State private university established by State Legislature vide Gujarat Act No.08 of 2009 and there was no requirement of mentioning this degree in the application form. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the State Project Director.
As regards the Circular dated 14.07.2020 on which heavy reliance was placed by Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for State Project Director, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that this Circular has been quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed in Writ-A No.9673 of 2021 [Kuldeep Kumar Saxena & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] which is applicable in this case also.
In view of the above, as the petitioner claims to possess graduation degree in the subject of Music as aforesaid and has annexed certain documents in this regard and also relies upon the recent judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed in Writ-A No.9673 of 2021 and as the impugned order does not take into consideration the aforesaid degree claimed by the petitioner though it notices the recital in the petitioner's representation that she possessed such degree and that she was not allowed to submit the originals when she offered to submit them subsequently, but does not consider this aspect, therefore, the impugned order is quashed.
The State Project Director is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for renewal in accordance with relevant rules/ policy applicable on the subject keeping in mind the aforesaid and the other averments made in the petitioner's representation dated 13.04.2021. He shall undertake this exercise aforesaid and complete it within two months. Consequences shall follow accordingly, meaning thereby, if on a scrutiny of the testimonials submitted by the petitioner, it is found that she did possess a valid graduation degree in the subject of Music from a recognized University then her claim would be considered accordingly for renewal just as it has been done in the case of others. However, if it is found that she does not possess the degree, of course, she would be informed about the same with reasons.
As far as Annexure no.2 is concerned, it is an order dated 03.11.2020 by which the petitioner was disengaged from service. The same will abide by the results of the exercise to be undertaken by the State Project Director as aforesaid, meaning thereby, if she succeeds before the State Project Director then this order will automatically go and she will have to be appointed again. If the results are otherwise, then the order will stand as it is.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 9.5.2022
Shanu/-
