Allahabad High Court
Anurag Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. on 25 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
2025:AHC:63344
Reserved :- 18/04/2025
Delivered :- 25/04/2025
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17659 of 2017
Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra,Ghan Shyam,Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Rahul Mishra,Rajesh Kumar,Ram Krishna Patel,Vivek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar,Babban Prasad Dwivedi,C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18242 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam,Prabhakar Awasthi,Rajesh Kumar,Ram Krishna Patel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Haridwar Singh,Jagannath Maurya,Krishna Kumar Chand,O.P.S. Rathore
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2454 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam,Prabhakar Awasthi,Rajesh Kumar,Ram Krishna Patel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19145 of 2024
Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Samarath Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surya Bhan Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioners was appointed under Dying In Harness/on compassionate basis on 23.09.2008 and it was approved by District Inspector of Schools, Auraiya on same day. Educational qualifications of petitioner are as follows :-
"A. Passed High School, IInd Division in year 2000.
B. Passed Intermediate, IInd Division in year 2002.
C. Passed B.A. IInd Division in year 2005.
D. Passed Μ.Α. (Hindi) IInd Division in year 2010.
E. Passed I.G.D. (Intermediate drawing grade examination duly recognized by N.C.T.E.) in Grade A in year, 2007 and same is equivalent to B.Ed.
F. Passed B.A. (Sanskrit)as Single Subject in the year 2016"
2. It is case of petitioner that he was eligible for consideration for promotion on post of Lecturer under promotional quota against a post, which became vacant on 30.06.2012 due to retirement of one Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla and accordingly, he has applied for promotion. It is further case of petitioner that a meeting of Committee of Management was held on 30.07.2016, wherein proposal was passed for promoting petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) being qualified and papers were accordingly forwarded to D.I.O.S., Auraiya on 06.08.2016.
3. Aforesaid papers were examined by D.I.O.S., Auraiya and were forwarded for further action to the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.
4. At this stage, a complaint was made that promotion of petitioner was illegal and accordingly, the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur sought a clarification and accordingly, the D.I.O.S., Auraiya submitted a report dated 29.08.2016 wherein not only complaint was rejected but petitioner's promotion was held to be legally valid.
5. At this stage, when no decision was taken by Joint Director of Education, on papers for forwarded to accord approval of promotion. The petitioner has filed a Writ A No. 48512/2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2016 that Regional Selection Committee will pass necessary and consequential order.
6. In pursuance of above direction, the Regional Selection Committee vide order dated 09.12.2016 rejected claim of petitioner for promotion on post of Lecturer (Hindi). It was observed therein that issue in regard to consideration of eligibility for promotion would be the date of occurrence of vacancy or date of consideration was referred to a Larger Bench since a judgment passed by Full Bench in Raeesul Hasan Vs. State Of U.P.Through Secy.Education And 5 Ors. ,2015 (6) ADJ 778 was doubted and since at that stage, matter was not finally heard by Full Bench.
7. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner rushed to this Court to challenge aforesaid order dated 09.12.2016 by way of filing a Writ A No. 182/2017, which was allowed vide order dated 05.01.2017, whereby order impugned was set aside and matter was remitted back to consider petitioner for promotion on post of Lecturer (Hindi) in accordance with law laid down by Full Bench in Raeesul Hasan (supra). Relevant part of order is quoted below :-
"Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court, disagreeing with the law laid down by the Full Bench, has referred the matter to a larger Bench and a five Judge Bench of this Court is considering the issue. However, he does not dispute that as on date, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra) holds the field.
In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned decision of the Committee dated 9.12.2016 headed by the Joint Director of Education cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education is directed to reconsider the proposal submitted by the management for promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Hindi in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Raeesul Hasan Versus State of U.P. and others (supra). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for promotion with reference to the year of recruitment, which aspect shall be determined strictly in accordance with law after verifying the facts from the record and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned."
8. In above circumstances, matter was again considered by Regional Selection Committee, however, vide order dated 22.02.2017, it was again rejected but now on a different ground that petitioner was not eligible for promotion since he does not possess certificate of training. For reference, relevant part of order is quoted below :-
"उपलब्ध कराये गये विवरण से यह स्पष्ट है कि श्री अनुराग कुमार त्रिपाठी मृतक आश्रित कोटे में स्नातक वेतनक्रम में दिनांक 24.09.2008 को कला अध्यापक के रूप नियुक्ति की गयी थी। श्री अनुराग कुमार त्रिपाठी की शैक्षिक अर्हता वर्ष 2005 में उत्तीर्ण किया तथा प्रशिक्षण अर्हता के अन्तर्गत आई०जी०डी० बाम्बे है जो वर्ष 2007 में उत्तीर्ण किया तथा एम० ए० हिन्दी विषय में 2010 में बी०ए० संस्कृत वर्ष 2016 में उत्तीर्ण किया। श्री त्रिपाठी की नियुक्ति कला अध्यापक के रूप में की गयी थी। इनके सम्बन्ध में राजाज्ञा संख्या दिनाक 25.10.2000 के द्वारा उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन प्रवक्ता वेतनक्रम आदि देने की व्यवस्था प्राविधानित है। श्री त्रिपाठी की प्रशिक्षण अर्हता के रूप में आई०जी०डी०बाम्बे अर्हता है जो कि माध्यमिक शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 के अध्याय 2 विनियम 1 के परिशिष्ट क' के अन्तर्गत वर्णित स्नातक प्रशिक्षण अर्हताओं में सम्मिलित नहीं है। प्रशिक्षित स्नातक की अर्हता में प्रशिक्षित शब्द से तात्पर्य स्नातकोत्तर प्रशिक्षण अर्हता जैसे पूर्ववर्ती पैरा में यथानिर्दिष्ट किसी विश्वविद्यालय या संस्था की एल०टी०, बी०टी०, बी० एड०, बी०एड० एस०सी० या एम०एड० या किसी समकक्ष अर्हता (उपाधि या डिप्लोमा) से है।
इस प्रकार श्री अनुराग कुमार त्रिपाठी प्रशिक्षित स्नातका की अर्हता पूर्ण नही करते है। माध्यमिक शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 व चयन बोर्ड अधिनियम 1982 यथासंशोधित 1998 की धारा 10 के अन्तर्गत प्रशिक्षित अर्हता पूर्ण नहीं करते है।
अतः माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के आदेश दिनाक 05.01.2017 के अनुपालन में विचार करने के पश्चात मण्डलीय समिति द्वारा यह पाया गया कि श्री अनुराग कुमार त्रिपाठी प्रशिक्षित स्नातक अर्हताधारी नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में नियमों के अन्तर्गत प्रवक्ता हिन्दी पद हेतु पदोन्नति की अनुमन्यता नहीं दी जा सकती है।"
9. Aforesaid order is impugned in Writ A No. 17659/2017 (First Writ Petition).
10. During pendency of above referred writ petition, petitioner has filed another writ petition being Writ A No. 18242/2021 (Second Writ Petition) impugning the order dated 24.11.2021, whereby District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya has provided additional time to one Preeti Singh, a selected candidate in pursuance of direct recruitment, to join on post of Lecturer (Hindi) as the post on which petitioner was earlier promoted was included in quota of direct recruitment. No interim order was passed in said case.
11. During pendency of above referred two writ petitions, petitioner has filed third writ being Writ A No. 2454/2022 wherein he has challenged the order dated 01.12.2021 and 02.12.2021 (third Writ Petition), whereby a direction was passed to allow Preeti Singh to join on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and by subsequent order, she was allowed to join. In said writ petition also, no interim order was passed.
12. During pendency of above-referred 3 writ petitions, petitioner has filed Writ A No. 19145/2024 (fourth Writ Petition) with a prayer to direct respondents to pay arrears of salary to petitioner, for months of August, September, October and November, 2024. In this writ petition also, no interim order was passed. All four Writ Petitions are decided by present Judgment.
13. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner has fairly submitted that fate of subsequent 3 writ petitions would depend upon outcome of Writ A No. 17659/2017 (first Writ Petition). Petitioner's promotion on post of Lecturer (Hindi) was illegally cancelled and petitioner was forced to work as Assistant Teacher. Even there is a dispute so far as payment of salary on said post is concerned.
14. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that since Preeti Singh is appointed by direct recruitment in said college, petitioner's future avenues of promotion, if any, are closed. In case this writ petition is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to Preeti Singh, since she can still be adjusted in another college on said post.
15. Learned Senior Advocate has mainly stressed that dispute between parties was crystalised when in earlier round of litigation, this Court vide order dated 05.01.2017 has allowed Writ A No. 182/2017 placing reliance on Raeesul Hasan (supra), therefore, even law profound therein was overruled by subsequent judgment of Larger Bench Sadhana vs. State of U.P. and others: 2017 SCC OnLine All 4379, still, petitioner's claim can be considered on the basis of Raeesul Hasan (supra). He has fairly submitted that judgment of Full Bench is against petitioner that he may not be qualified on the date when vacancy was determined though by referring a subsequent judgment of a 3 Judges' Bench in Siddharth Shanker Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others; 2023(6) ADJ 308, he submitted that it may come to his rescue that since therein it was held that promotion on post of Lecturer does not require teaching experience of 5 years.
16. Per contra, Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for respondent - 5 has supported impugned order and submitted that petitioner cannot challenge her appointment, since she was appointed through direct recruitment. The Full Bench judgment in Sadhana vs. State of U.P. (Supra) is absolutely against the claim of petitioner.
17. Learned counsel has also submitted that petitioner does not possess certificate of training and training from Intermediate Drawing Grade Examination would not be equivalent to B.Ed.
18. Learned Standing Counsel has supported above submissions of learned counsel for respondent - 5.
19. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
20. The petitioner was promoted on post of Lecturer (Hindi), however, order was cancelled as Raeesul Hasan (supra) was doubted and matter was referred to a Five Judges' Bench of this Court and at that stage, it was pending.
21. In aforesaid circumstances, on challenge, this Court has set aside the order dated 30.05.2017 that since at that stage, Raeesul Hasan (supra), still, holds a good law and by order dated 05.10.2017 matter was remitted back to consider petitioner's promotion, if he was otherwise eligible.
22. On remand, petitioner's claim for promotion was rejected by impugned order only on one ground that he was not 'trained' and a certificate course from Intermediate Drawing Grade Examination was not recognized for that purpose.
23. Meanwhile, Larger Bench in Sadhana (supra) has set aside Raeesul Hasan (supra) as such now petitioner was not eligible for consideration so far as experience of 5 years on date of determination of vacancy is concerned, though now in terms of Siddharth Shanker Mishra (supra), 5 years' experience is held to be not a required eligibility. Therefore, only issue left for consideration whether petitioner is a trained teacher as well as effect of appointment of Preeti Singh as the post of quota for promotion was included in the quota for direct recruitment.
24. Chapter 2, Regulation 1 of Regulations under The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 being relevant is mentioned hereinafter :-
"अशासकीय मान्यता प्राप्त उच्चतर माध्यमिक विद्यालय में प्रधान एवं अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति हेतु न्यूनतम अर्हतायें।
किसी केन्द्रीय अधिनियम, प्रान्तीय अधिनियम या राज्य अधिनियम के द्वारा या अधीन स्थापित या निर्गमित किसी विश्वविद्यालय की या किसी ऐसे संस्था की, जो विश्वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग अधिनियम, 1956 की धारा 3 के अधीन विश्वविद्यालय समझी जाती हो या संसद के किसी अधिनियम द्वारा विशेष रूप से सशक्त किसी ऐसी संत्त्या की सम्बद्ध विषय में उपाधि और डिप्लोमा इसके अधीन विहित न्यूनतम अर्हताओं के प्रयोजनार्थ मान्य होंगे।
इसके अधीन विहित अर्हताओं के सम्वन्ध में शब्द 'प्रशिक्षित' से तात्पर्य स्नातकोत्तर प्रशिक्षण अर्हता जैसे पूर्ववर्ती पैरा में यथानिर्दिष्ट किसी विश्वविद्यालय या संस्था की, एल० टी०, बी० टी०, ची० एड० बी० एड० एस-सी० या एम० एड० या किसी समकक्ष अर्हता (उपाधि या डिप्लोमा) से है। इसके अन्तर्गत विभागीय ए० टी० सी० और कम से कम पांच वर्ष के शिक्षण अनुभव वाला सी० टी० भी होगा। जे० टी० सी० बी० टी० सी० बाला अध्यापक भी सी० टी० समझा जायेगा यदि उसने सी० टी० श्रेणी में कम से कम पांच वर्ष कार्य किया हो।"
25. Supreme Court in a recent judgment passed in the case of Kanishk Sinha and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal & Another: 2025 INSC 278, has considered law of prospective and retrospective operation and relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter :-
"Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpreted by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time.
Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many."
26. The above referred law would be against the submission of Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner that since on basis of Raeesul Hasan (supra), the issue was finalized between the parties, since according to Kanishk Sinha (supra), judgment of Full Bench (supra) would have retrospective operation, though similar view would be for Siddharth Shanker Mishra (supra) in favour of the petitioner, however, still there are two adverse factors against the case of petitioner :-
"(a) He was not completely qualified since he does not posses training certificate from a recognized institute and petitioner has failed to brought on record that a training (drawing examination) was recognized is State of UP. Training Certificate is an essential qualification in terms of above referred provision of Intermediate Act and no contrary provision was placed on record.
(b) He can not challenge appointment of Preeti Singh (Respondent No. 4), since not only she was appointed through direct recruitment but if she is now shifted to some other college, she will be highly prejudiced."
27. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no ground to interfere impugned order, accordingly first Writ Petition 17659 of 2017, is rejected. Consequently Writ Petition Nos. 18242 of 2021 and 2454 of 2022 are also dismissed. So far as Writ Petition No. 19145 of 2024 is concerned, it is disposed of with the direction that petitioner will be paid regular salary of post of Assistant Teacher.
28. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- April 25, 2025
Sinha_N.
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
