Allahabad High Court
Smt. Dr. Sarita Singh vs The State Of U.P.Thru The Secretary ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80547
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21371 of 2007
Petitioner :- Smt. Dr. Sarita Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.Thru The Secretary Basic Education And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- M.D. Singh Shekhar,Hari Shankar,M.D. Singh,Ram Dayal Tiwari,Y. P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K. Sahai,Mrigraj Singh,P.D. Tripathi
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Mr. M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hari Shankar for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order or the opposite party no. 2 dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition);
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to interfere with the petitioner's service as Assistant Teacher, Prathamik Vidyalaya Maseeda, Block Sikrara, Distt. Jaunpur and to pay the salary and other emoluments to the petitioner for the post of the Assistant Teacher regularly month to month."
3. Learned Senior counsel submits that on 22.1.2004, a notification was made for Special B.T.C. Training by prescribing minimum qualification of B.Ed and L.T. however later on the second notification was made on 22.2.2004 by which other qualification i.e. B.P. Ed., C.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. were added for minimum qualification for the same. He submits that as the petitioner was having minimum qualification for the said course, therefore, she had applied for the same and successfully completed the training. Thereafter under the orders of District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Pradhimik School, Madhupur, Block Sujanganj, Distt. Jaunpur, where she joined on 10.1.2006, however, she was transferred at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Maseeda, Block Sikrara, Distt. Jaunpur and she joined there on 28.1.2006. He further submits that on 1.2.2007, respondent no. 2 has issued a show cause notice stating therein that the minimum qualification of the petitioner i.e. B.Ed. was not from the recognized institution of N.C.T.E. therefore, her services may be terminated, thereafter, the petitioner had duly replied the said notice on 13.2.2007 however the services of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order dated 28.3.2007.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gyanendra Kumar Sharma and 49 others Vs. State of UP and others, 2007 (9) ADJ (DB). He prays for allowing the present writ petition.
5. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the the fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Gyanendra Kumar (supra).
6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has perused the records.
7. The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher since 10.1.2006 and was discharging her duties with due diligence, therefore, due to change in the policy, her services was not liable to be terminated by the impugned order.
8. This Court in the case of Gyanendra Kumar (supra), has held as under:-
"22. What we have to keep in mind is as to what was the proposal of the State Government and what was the approval given by the N.C.T.E. In its letter, the N.C.T.E. has itself clarified that it has allowed all B.Ed. graduates for the above course and no difference was made between B.Ed. (face-to-face) and B.Ed. (Distant Mode).
23...
24....
25....
26. Thus, the intention of the Government was to cover these categories in this course. It is therefore to be seen in the proper perspective. Those who have taken training for physical education are permitted to take this course. Thus if the physical teachers are to be permitted to take this course, there was no reason for exclusion of those who have done the B.Ed. course by a distant mode. It will amount to exclude those who are similarly situated and include those who are dissimilar for the object to be achieved. The interpretation by the Government Counsel will, therefore, make the Government Order violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
27....
28. In these circumstances, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge has to be interfered with and it is, therefore, set aside. The appeals and the petitions will stand allowed. The Government order dated 10.7.2007 will have to be read as including those students who have done their B.Ed course by the distant education method under these two Universities. Both the appeals are allowed, accordingly."
9. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Gyanendra Kumar (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.3.2007 passed by respondent no. 2, is hereby quashed.
11. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join her services with all consequential benefits within a period of ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
Rahul Dwivedi/-
