Allahabad High Court
Ram Kishore Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 13 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
2025:AHC:77440
Reserved :- 08/05/2025
Delivered :- 13/05/2025
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29346 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ram Kishore Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Bhushan,Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- Manvendra Singh,R.P. Singh,Satyendra Chandra Tripathi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. In present case, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in pursuance of an advertisement issued by Committee of Management of concerned school and approval of his appointment was granted on 15.07.2010.
2. After appointment, petitioner was not paid regular salary on basis of an objection raised by Finance and Accounts Officer that petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification as provided under Section 4(1) of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984, and apparent by dispute was that since petitioner was B.A. and B.P.Ed. (Bachelor in Physical Education) which was not included in the qualification for appointment of Assistant Teacher and Rules provide that a candidate who possesses BTC or B.Ed. or Teaching Certificate or J.T.C. or H.T.C. will only be eligible.
3. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No. 16168/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2014, with a direction to consider his case.
4. In aforesaid circumstances, case of petitioner was considered and his claim was rejected by Divisional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Agra vide order dated 30.04.2014. Relevant part of it is mentioned below :-
"श्री राम किशोर त्रिपाठी बी०पी०एड० प्रशिक्षित योग्यताधारी है तथा विद्यालय में व्यायाम शिक्षक का कोई भी पद सृजित नहीं है। इस सम्बन्ध में अधोहस्ताक्षरी के पत्रांक-23-24 दिनांक 13.04.2011 के द्वारा जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी मैनपुरी को भी अवगत कराया जा चुका है तथा प्रतिलिपि प्रबन्धक / प्रधानाध्यापक को भी पृष्ठांकित की गयी है।
याची के प्रत्यावेदन दिनांकः 01.04.2014 व जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी, मैनपुरी तथा वित्त एवं लेखाधिकरी (बेसिक शिक्षा), मैनपुरी की आख्या का परीक्षण किया गया।
उ०प्र० सरकार शिक्षा अनुभाग-6 संख्या-1512/79-6-2008-28(35) 01 लखनऊ 12 जून, 2008 को जारी अधिसूचना के अनुसार उ०प्र० मान्यता प्राप्त बेसिक स्कूल (जूनियर हाई स्कूल) अध्यापकों की भर्ती एवं सेवा की शर्ते (पंचम संशोधन) नियमावली 2008 के अनुसार किसी मान्यता प्राप्त स्कूलो के स०अ० के पद के लिये न्यूनतम आर्हतायें विश्वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग से प्राप्त किसी विश्वविद्यालय से स्नातक उपाधि एवं राज्य सरकार या विश्वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग या परिषद द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त निम्नलिखित में से कोई अध्यापक प्रशिक्षण पाठ्यक्रम होगी-
1. बेसिक टीचिंग सर्टीफिकेट।
2. सम्यक रूप से मान्यता प्राप्त किसी संस्था से कोई बी०एड उपाधि
3. टीचिंग सर्टीफिकेट।
4. जूनिवर टीचिंग सटीफिकेट।
5. हिन्दुस्तान टीचिंग सर्टीफिकेट।
इस प्रकार उक्त प्रशिक्षण योग्यता ही मान्यता प्राप्त जूनियर हाई स्कूलों में स०अ० के रूप में चयन हेतु मान्य है।
याची श्री राम किशोर त्रिपाठी कथाकथित स०अ० जन सहयोगी विद्या मन्दिर, चितायन, मैनपुरी की प्रशिक्षण योग्यता नियमावली में निहित प्राविधानों के अनुसार व विधिक न होने के कारण याची का प्रत्यावेदन दिनांक 01.04.2014 अमान्य करते हुये निरस्त किया जाता है।"
5. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner was duly appointed and his appointment was approved also. Degree of B.P.Ed. is an accepted degree for purpose of training and it is equal to BTC or B.Ed. Petitioner is a qualified graduate, therefore, even there was no post of Physical Instructor, he was qualified to discharge duties of Assistant Teacher by providing teaching.
6. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Amal Kishore Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 1247 of 2013 decided on 10.10.2018 and Nand Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020:AHC-LKO:5133-DB.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order and reiterated reasons assigned in the impugned order that petitioner was not qualified. There was no post of Physical Instructor and he has also submitted that Amal Kishore Singh (supra) is against case of petitioner.
8. I have considered above submissions and perused the record.
9. It is not disputed that petitioner was appointed on post of Assistant Teacher and not on post of Physical Instructor or Sports Teacher. Petitioner has qualified B.P.Ed. which is a course for purpose of Physical Instructor/Games Instructor.
10. This Court has recently considered the issue whether B.P.Ed. can be considered as requisite training for appointment of primary teacher in Gopal Narain Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:65784 and relevant part of it is mentioned hereinafter :-
"7. In view of above submission, the Court takes note that there are at least three judgments which are against the claim of petitioner that B.P.Ed degree is not recognized as a qualification for an Assistant Teacher for primary classes. Firstly, a judgment passed by Full Bench in Amal Kishore Singh Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary & 4 Others, 2018:AHC:207913-FB, Secondly, a judgment passed by Division Bench at Lucknow in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Secondary Edu Lko & Ors, 2024:AHC-LKO:1129-DB. For reference, following paragraph of judgment passed by Division Bench is reproduced hereinafter :-
"(21) Since much emphasis has been laid by the appellant-petitioner that the B.P.Ed., qualification is equivalent to B.Ed., and in support of this, he has relied upon paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of judgment of Full Bench in Amal Kishore Singh (supra), it is necessary to have a look into the aforesaid paragraphs which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"45. We now proceed to examine the stand of the State Government in respect of the controversy in hand. In this regard we would allude to an affidavit filed by Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow dated 18th May, 2017 wherein the State Government has also accepted the position that B.P.Ed. qualification is equivalent to other teaching qualifications enumerated in Paragraph 2 of Appendix-A and it reads thus:-
"8. That in Appendix in reference of Regulation-1 Chapter-II of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, does not refer specifically the B.P.Ed. Course. After the Regulation 2001 came into force. It has been adopted by the State as equivalent to 'trained' for which a necessary amendment is required to be incorporated I the Schedule. As a principal, the B.P.Ed. Degree is treated to be equivalent to a 'trained' as referred in para-2 of Appendix-A.
9. That in view of the above, the B.P.Ed. Course is equivalent to that of B.Ed., L.T., B.T./C.T. It is further clarified that the necessary amendment is to be incorporated in the schedule."
46. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the stand of the State Government on the issue, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by Division Bench in Vindhyachal Yadav that B.P.Ed. could not be equated with other teaching qualifications prescribed under Appendix-A of Regulation 1 of Chapter-II of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and accordingly, we overrule the same as well as all other judgements of this Court taking a contrary view.
47. We, thus, answer question (i) in affirmative and question (iii) by holding that Vindhyachal Yadav does not lay down the correct law. However, question (ii) has to be answered, subject to certain riders. A B.P.Ed. degree being a post graduate training qualification, would entitle a person to hold post of Headmaster of a recognised High School but not that of Principal of an Intermediate college. The reason is that under Regulations, 2001 as well as under Minimum Qualification Regulations, 2014 framed by NCTE, B.P.Ed. is recognised as eligibility qualification for teaching Classes IX - X (Secondary/ High School) but not for Classes XI - XII (Senior Secondary/ Intermediate). For teaching Intermediate classes, the person should possess M.P.Ed. degree of at least two years duration from any National Council for Teacher Education recognised institution. These regulations do not prescribe any separate qualification for Head of institution and thus the qualification prescribed for a teacher of Intermediate classes (Senior-Secondary) would also apply to Head of such an institution. We have already held above that the qualifications prescribed by NCTE would be binding on the State, therefore, the qualifications prescribed by Minimum Qualification Regulations, 2014 have to be read alongwith Appendix-A and thus, a teacher possessing B.P.Ed. degree, would not be eligible to hold post of Principal of an Intermediate College."
(22) A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs indicates that a teacher possessing B.P.Ed., degree is eligible to be appointed as Headmaster of a High School, but not as Principal of an Intermediate College.
(23) Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner is having the qualification of B.P.Ed., and has applied for Assistant Teacher in Primary School and as per verdict of the Full Bench of this Court, as mentioned above, it is not applicable in the case of the appellant-petitioner.
(24) Relying upon the judgment of Full Bench of Amal Kishore Singh (supra), the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, wherein it has been observed that the B.P.Ed., degree is not recognized for Primary Schools, is perfect. Consequently, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein it has been observed that the petitioner lacks essential qualification as prescribed under the Statute for appointment as Assistant teacher in the attached school of the Institution inasmuch as B.P.Ed. Degree is not an alternate qualification prescribed for B.T.C. etc., he cannot claim to be qualified."
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, since position of law is being settled by Full Bench of this Court and followed by Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court that B.P.Ed. is no a qualification i.e. requisite training for appointment of primary teachers and counsel for petitioner has not shown any contrary position of law.
9. There is another factor which also goes against petitioner that at the time of appointment, he has accepted his appointment as untrained teacher without any objection, when he was aware that his degree of B.P.Ed. from Amravati University, Maharashtra was not recognized in State of U.P. and after service of about a decade, he raised his claim that said degree be accepted.
10. The claim of petitioner is also barred by doctrine of estoppel, since his claim was not based on basis of any subsequent development. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed."
11. In aforesaid circumstances, in above referred judgment of Gopal Narain Shukla (supra), this Court has taken note of Amal Kishore Singh (supra) as well as Rakesh Kumar (supra) wherein it was held that B.P.Ed. is not a training qualification for purpose of appointment of Assistant Teacher in primary school.
12. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere with impugned order. Therefore, present writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- May 13, 2025
Sinha_N.
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
