Allahabad High Court

Smt. Seema Rani vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors. on 23 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88515
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8112 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Seema Rani
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Shukla,Virendra K. Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 24.04.1990 i.e. about more than two and a half decades. Admittedly, she passed C.P.Ed. (Certificate in Physical Education) from a Institute namely Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amrawati, Maharashtra and she was appointed without any objection to said qualification . In the year 2007, a controversy in regard to said qualification for the first time arose and certain orders were passed by this Court and accordingly, an inquiry was conducted and since said qualification from referred institution was considered as not recognized, an order of termination dated 22.10.2012 was passed which is impugned in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the interim order dated 14.02.2013 passed in present case, which is reproduced hereinafter in it's entirety and that the petitioner on strength of said order is still working and still left service of about 5 years.

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ram Lal Singh and Sri Shivam Yadav for the respondent - Basic Education Board.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed in Church City Junior High School as an Assistant Teacher and she was regularized in the services in the year 1990. She was continuously functioning but it appears that the issue of trained and untrained teachers came to be raised with regard to payment of salary as a result whereof several writ petitions were filed including employees of the same institution and sister institutions. The interim order that was passed in the writ petition was to the effect that these teachers would continue to get salary of the untrained grade and on the final disposal, the order impugned in the writ petition was set aside with a direction to the Director of Education (Basic) to finally determine the status of such employees including the petitioner.

The Director of Education (Basic) in the order dated 22.10.2012 impugned herein has entailed the facts of the petitioner Smt. Seema Rani, which is extracted at page 122 of the paper-book.

The finding recorded on the basis of such facts, is to the effect that the petitioner did not possess the required training as per Rule 4 of The Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The second ground taken is that those employees, who have acquired B.Ed. qualifications will also not get the benefit as they were employed much prior to the introduction of the said qualifications in the year 2008.

So far as the petitioner is concerned, she has been non-suited on the ground of non-possessing of qualification as prescribed in Rule 4, which is extracted here under:-

"4. Minimum Qualifications.--(1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of recognized school shall be a Graduation Degree from a University recognized by U.G.C., and a teachers training course recognized by the State Government or U.G.C. or the Board as follows:-

1. Basic Teaching Certificate.

2. A regular B.Ed. Degree from a duly recognized Institution.

3. Certificate of Teaching.

4. Junior Teaching Certificate.

5. Hindustani Teaching Certificate."

Sri Singh for the petitioner contends that according to the said rule, the petitioner possesses the qualifications inasmuch as she has a C.P.Ed. from Bhartiya Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya and, therefore, this training is equivalent to that as prescribed in Rule 4 (1). For this, reliance is placed on the D.O. letter dispatched by the Director of Education (Basic), who is Chairman of the Basic Shiksha Parishad where it has been recorded that the Basic Education Board in its meeting held on 17.6.1992 at Item No.5, has resolved to grant equivalence to a C.P.Ed. Training Certificate for the purpose of employment in basic schools.

Sri Singh, therefore, contends that once the Board has granted this equivalence then the conditions as prescribed in Rule 4 (1) of the 1978 Rules are fulfilled.

Sri Shivam Yadav, on the other hand, contends that the minimum qualifications prescribed in Rule 4 are exhaustive and the said equivalence as claimed by the petitioner does not confer the benefit of training, as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. He further contends that in view of the undisputed facts on record, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

I have examined the provisions of Rule 4 read with Rule 2 (C) of the 1978 Rules.

Prima facie, it appears that the said D.O. letter of the Director of Education incorporating the resolution of the Board on 17.6.1992, Annexure-13 to the writ petition, has not been referred to by the Director while proceeding to pass the impugned order.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of an interim relief.

Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 10.11.2012 shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on her post. It is further directed that the respondent - institution shall not appoint any other person against the said post without leave of the Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent - Board and the learned Standing Counsel shall file their counter-affidavit within 3 weeks. Issue notice to the respondent No.6 returnable at an early date. Steps may be taken within a week. The said respondent may also file a counter-affidavit within 3 weeks.

List thereafter. "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier said degree was recognized by the G.O. dated 24.08.1978, later on, it was de-recognized by an order dated 28.02.1996 i.e. after the petitioner was appointed and it is further argued that the said G.O. will not have retrospective effect. Contents of G.O dated 28.02.1996 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"????????? ????? ???? ??????? ????????/26288/95-96 ?????? 7.9.95 ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??????- 1891/15-?? ??? 17/?????/78 ?????? 24.08.78 ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????- 356/5{13} 95-?? ???-14/1994 ?????? 23.03.95 ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????????? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???

????? ????????????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if there was irregularity in the appointment, however, taking note of service period of about 35 years, same may be ignored and for that he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others (2024) 9 SCC 327 as well as Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Ram Prakash and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 10.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the said certificate was de-recognized therefore, it's adverse consequence will follow and petitioner's appointment was rightly cancelled. However, above fact that petitioner is still working i.e. for last 35 years is not disputed.

7. After taking note of above submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner has make out a case for interference with the impugned order on following grounds.

A. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1990 and was terminated in the year 2011 and by the interim order dated 14.02.2013, he is still working. As such, she has already worked for more than three and a half decades and has left only about 5 years of service. Therefore, at this stage to non-suit her would not only against the interest of justice but it would also be adverse to her family.

B. As referred above, aforesaid certificate was recognized by the State of U.P. vide G.O. dated 24.08.1978 and when the petitioner was appointed said certificate was valid. Therefore, effect of the subsequent G.O. dated 28.02.1996, whereby, said certificate was de-recognized would have no adverse affect. Since the said G.O. could not be considered as retrospective, even it's contents does not indicate so.

8. The outcome of the above discussion is that the impugned order is set aside and since petitioner is already working as Assistant Teacher under an interim order, she will continue to work in terms of relevant legal provisions if there is no other legal impediment.

9. With the aforesaid observations and discussions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 23.5.2025

Imtiyaz