DEVENDRA PRASAD AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKAHND AND ANR

1. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in the above numbered writ petitions, the same have been taken up together and are

decided by this common judgment. In order to maintain clarity, the facts of WPSS No.156 of 2010 are taken into consideration.Â

The petitioners were appointed on different dates as Assistant Teachers in unaided Primary Schools/ Junior High Schools in different districts of

Uttarakhand. In exercise of the powers under sub section (1) of the Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, the rules were

framed, called as the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978

(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1978â€​). The rule 4 of the Rules,1978 laid down the minimum qualification which reads as under :-

“4. Minimum qualification. - (1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of recognised school shall be Intermediate

examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination (with Hindi and a teacher’s training

course recognized by the State Government or Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate

or Certificate of Training) .Â

(2) The minimum qualifications for the appointment to the post of Head master of a recognized school shall be as follows - (a) A degree from a

recognized University or an equivalent examination recognized as such;

(b) A teacher's training course recognized by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching

Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate; andÂ

(c) Three years teaching experience in a recognized school.

It is evident from the Rule 4 of the Rules, 1978 that the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher is intermediate examination of the

Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination with Hindi and a teacher’s training course recognized

by the State Government or Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate or Certificate of

Training.Â

The petitioners have obtained their BTC course through correspondence course.Â

The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell is that their case is covered by the Government Order issued by the erstwhile State of U.P. on 06.09.1994

and 13.06.1995. It is evident from the plain reading of annexure No.2 dated 06.09.1994 that it was meant only for untrained serving teachers who

were working in different categories of the schools. The remaining untrained teachers were to be imparted two years correspondence training and

they were to be given salary only after passing of the examination.Â

The Government Orders dealt with untrained teachers who were already appointed but did not possess the BTC Course. They were to be given

salary after getting two years training. Â

The Government Orders dated 06.09.1994 and 13.06.1995 were modified on 27.03.1998 (annexure CA1) whereby the decision was taken to do

away with BTC correspondence course. The petitioners have not placed this document on record.Â

It is also clarified by the letter dated 18.03.1996 that the facility with correspondence BTC training was admissible only to the untrained teachers

appointed on compassionate ground as being dependant of the deceased. Â

The petitioners must possess minimum essential educational qualification prescribed under the Rules. The candidate must possess regular BTC

certificate. The correspondence course cannot be read into the Rules. The State of U.P. has also done away with the BTC correspondence course

vide order dated 27.03.1998. The State of U.P. has taken a decision to impart the training to the teachers who were untrained but they were appointed

after approval of District Education Officer. According to Government Order dated 27.11.2006 only those candidates would be considered eligible for

appointment who were sent for training on 18.03.1996. There is no illegality in the condition No.4 of the letter dated 27.11.2006. The petitioners cannot

be treated as duly qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Schools since they lack the minimum basic essential educational

qualification laid down under the Rules. The petitioners have concealed letter dated 27.03.1998 issued by Government of U.P. The petitioners cannot

choose the facts according to their own convenience.   Â

Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.Â

Â