District Basic Education Officer vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9376 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 176 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hridaya Narayan Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

In Re: Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 1 of 2023

Counter affidavit to the delay condonation application filed today is taken on record.

Having perused the contents of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application as also the counter affidavit filed by the respondent.

We are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the present appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

The delay condonation application is, accordingly, allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The appeal is treated to have been filed within time. Office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal.

In Re: Appeal

Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh and Sri Sanjay Kumar learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Hridaya Narayan Mishra learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 4366 of 2021 (Km. Deepa Tomar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) whereby the communication dated 17.1.2020 to the writ petitioner refusing to grant appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School in District Shamli, originally allotted to the petitioner, has been set aside.

The order impugned records that the respondent herein/writ petitioner had undertaken examination for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school in the year 2018 conducted by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and was duly selected. As per her merit position, she was allotted District Shamli during counselling. When the appointment letter was not issued to the writ petitioner, she filed a Writ-A No. 12322 of 2019 (Nidhi Chaudhary And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) wherein direction was issued vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2019 to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for issuance of appointment letter. It seems that after consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner by communication dated 17.1.2020, her claim had been rejected on the ground that she had obtained two academic qualifications namely Graduation Degree and Diploma in Education, in one and the same Academic Session.

The order of the learned Single Judge categorically records that there is no dispute about the fact that the Graduation course was pursued by the writ petitioner in the year 2013 which has been done privately through the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the Diploma in Education (2 years course) was completed in the year 2012 from the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Learned Single Judge has, thus, opined that there was no prohibition in pursuing two courses namely the Graduation through the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the Certificate course in Education which was a regular course, in the same academic year.

Challenging this finding returned by the learned Single Judge, it is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the training qualification, which is minimum essential qualification as per Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (In short as "the Rules, 1981") is a training course recognised by the Government of U.P. from time to time to teach children from Class I to VIII for which graduates are eligible for admission. This submission is based on the definition of word "Training" in Rule 2(q) of the Rules, 1981.

It is argued that a person who is not a Graduate, is not eligible to complete a training in elementary education in the State of U.P. as per Rules, 1981. The submission, thus, is that the Diploma in Education imparted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal cannot be said to be an essential qualification for appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher in the State of U.P. within the meaning of Rule 8 read with Rule 2(q) of the Rules, 1981.

This submission is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein placing the circular dated 18.1.2021 appended as Annexure C.A.-'1' to the counter in writ petition issued by the Director General, School Education, U.P., Lucknow issued at the stage of counselling for removal of difficulties in selection against 69,000 vacancies in the primary institutions run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. It is clarified therein that those candidates who had completed training qualification after Intermediate Course (10+2 examination) and completed Graduation thereafter, were to be considered in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 2(q) of the Rules, 1981. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant before the writ Court, it was asserted that since the writ petitioner completed training before Graduation, she cannot be considered in accordance with Rule 2(q) of 1981 Rules.

Be that as it may, having noticed the provisions of Rule 8(1)(ii)(a) which prescribes academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher of Junior Basic School in the State of U.P., we may note that the essential qualification prescribed in the said rule is Bachelor's degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government equivalent thereto, together with any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. Two years Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) recognised by NCTE in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure), Regulations, 2002 is one of the training qualification prescribed in Rule 8(1)(ii) of the Rules, 1981. It is not the case of the appellant that the training qualification possessed by the writ petitioner does not confirm to the requirement of Rule 8(1)(ii) or it is not a two years Diploma in Elementary Education in accordance with the NCTE Regulations, recognized by NCTE. No such reason has been mentioned in the order impugned dated 17.1.2020 to reject the claim of the writ petitioner.

Only bone of contention of the appellant is that the writ petitioner was not Graduate at the time of entry into the Diploma in Elementary Education imparted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. This objection is technical in nature, inasmuch as, it is evident that the petitioner had obtained Graduate course through the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and Diploma in Education in two simultaneous academic years. The training qualification possessed by the writ petitioner is a two years Diploma course imparted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, validity or recognition of which by the NCTE could not be disputed by the appellant. No such ground agitated in the counter affidavit or in this appeal are incorporated in the order impugned, which proceeds only on the ground that the writ petitioner completed two academic course in simultaneously academic years, which is against the norms of UGC.

The learned Single Judge has held that said objection untenable for the simple reason that the Degree course had been completed through the distance mode and two years Diploma in Education course was a regular course. There cannot be any prohibition in pursuing two courses simultaneously. Moreover, new ground taken in the counter affidavit to supplement the reasoning giving in the order impugned dated 17.1.2020 cannot be entertained being highly technical, for the reasoning given above.

For the above noted reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 31.3.2023

Brijesh