Dharmveer Singh vs State of U.P.& Ors.

V. M. Sahai, J.—The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether B. Ed. teachers training certificate could be treated to be minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Head Master of a recognised Junior High School as envisaged by Rule4 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (in brief Rules 1978).

Adarsh Janta Junior High School, Krishna Nagar, Ganga Khadar, Hastinapur, Meerut (In brief institution) is a recognised and aided institution. It is not owned or maintained by Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education (in brief Board) or any local body recognised by the Board. A put''HO managing committee manages, the institution. Service conditions of Teachers are governed by Rules 1978.

The petitioner was appointed on post of assistant teacher by committee of management on 1111975 on probation of one year. He joined on 7111975. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut (in brief BSA) approved his appointment by order dated 2161980 with effect from 7111975. In June 1997 the head master of the institution Shri Dhara Singh retired and charge of officiating head master was given to Shri Daya Nand. In November 1997 new management was elected. Shri Satya Prakash Tyagi was elected its manager. On 20121997 the management directed the petitioner to officiate as head master of the institution. He is working since then. In 1998 the management held selection for the post of head master. It issued interview letter to the petitioner on 2031998. The letter sent by registered post for appearance on 2231998 was received by the petitioner on 2831998. Therefore, he could not appear. The selection committee selected Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, the respondent No. 4. The management accepted the recommendation and passed a resolution on 2431998 appointing him on the post of head master. The BSA granted approval on 2631998. The appointment letter was issued on 2731998. The respondent joined on the same day. The petitioner challenged the approval by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13969 of 1998. It was claimed that the management without properly advertising the post made selection of respondent. Further, respondent was not qualified for being appointed on the post of head master. This court disposed of this petition on 2741998, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation, which was to be decided by BSA after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, within two months by a reasoned order. The petitioner made a representation on 1851998. The BSA after hearing petitioner, management and respondent No. 4 by order dated 2351998 rejected the representation. It was held that the management on 631998 published the advertisement in newspaper ''Dainik Chamakta Bharat'' printed from Meerut. And if the petitioner received the registered letter sent by the management on 2831998, after the selection was over, it was the responsibility of the postal department. It was further held that under Rules 1978 minimum qualification prescribed for the post of head master was B.A., B.T.C., but there was no bar for appointing a candidate who possessed higher qualification of M. Sc. B.Ed, by means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of BSA dated 2351998, approval dated 2631998 and appointment letter dated 2731998 issued by the management in favour of respondent No. 4. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to make appointment on the post of head master of the institution in accordance with Rules 1978.

I have heard Shri P.R. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Khare, leaned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vinod Kumar Singh for respondents No. 3 and 4, Shri Sudhakar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

Shri Ganguly the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Rule 4(2) prescribes the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of head master of a recognised Junior High School. It provides that the candidate must possess a degree from the recognised university or an equivalent examination recognised as such and a teacher''s training course recognised by the State Government or the Board and three years teaching experience in recognised schools. He urged that the respondent No. 4 possessed B.Ed, teachers training certificate which is not a recognised teachers training certificate prescribed under the Rule, therefore, the respondent did not possess the minimum qualification as provided by Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules 1978. And he was not eligible to be appointed head master of the institution. He further urged that the appointment of respondent No. 4 was made without issuing any proper advertisement of vacancy in newspaper having wide circulation as provided by Rule 7. The learned counsel lastly urged that the committee of management which appointed respondent No. 4 having been found to be fictitious and signatures of its manager having been cancelled the appointment made by the management was illegal and it must be held invalid.

Shri Khare the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 urged that teacher''s training courses mentioned in Rule 4 (2)(bx of the Rules 1978 is illustrative and not exhaustive, therefore, B.Ed, which is also a teachers training course has to be treated equivalent to the courses mentioned in the Rule. He relied on the decision of apex court in State of Maharashtra and others v, VS. Naik and others, AIR 1980 SC 1095. The learned counsel urged in any case if it was found that B.Ed, is not an equivalent qualification for appointment of a head master of a Junior High School, in that case since respondent possessed a B.Ed, teachers training certificate which was higher than the B.T.C. teachers training course and there being no bar in Rules 1978 for not considering a higher teachers training certificate, the B.Ed, training qualification of respondent had to be treated to be a qualification presciibed by Rules 1978, The learned counsel urged that advertisement was issued in accordance with Rule7, in a newspaper having adequate circulation in the locality. He urged that Rule 7(1) of Rules 1978 has been amended by notification dated 2091999 and now it has been provided that no vacancy shall be filed except after its advertisement in at least two newspapers, one of which must have adequate circulation all over the State and the other in the locality the School is situated. But when appointment was made in 1998 the unamended Rules were applicable, which were complied by the management. And there was no illegality in the advertisement. The learned counsel further urged that, if subsequently, the management which had appointed the respondent was held to be an invalid committee, it would not amount to nullifying his appointment.

Educational qualification of the respondent No. 4 M.Sc. B.Ed. He is a graduate and has three years teaching experience. He passed B.Ed, teacher''s training course. The question is whether B.Ed, teachers training certificate could be treated to be minimum qualification for appointment on the post of head master of a recognised Junior High School as envisaged by Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules 1978. For better understanding of the dispute Rule 4 of the Rules 1978 is extracted below:

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 teacher''s training course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as (Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching �Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training).

(2) The minimum qualification for the appointment to the post of Headmaster of a recognised school shall be as follows:

(a)A degree from a recognised University or an equivalent examination recognised as such;

(b) A teacher''s training course recognised by the State Government or the Board, such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training of Basic Teaching Certificate; and

(c) Three years teaching experience in a recognised schools."

A perusal of this rule indicates that a teachers training certificate is essential qualification for the post of head master. The use of expression ''such as'' in Rule 4 (2) (b) was relied in support of the submission that it would include B.Ed. The expression ''such'' has been defined in Webster''s Third New International Dictionary is as below:

"1. of a kind or character about to be indicated, suggested or exemplified, 2 having a quality already or just specified used to avoid repetition of a descriptive term. 3 of the same class, type, or sort: in the same category: similar."

The expression ''such'' has been defined in Black''s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition as below:

"Of that kind having particular quality or character specified. Identical with, being the same as what has been mentioned. Alike, similar, of the like kind. "Such represents the object as already particularized in terms which are not mentioned, and is a descriptive and relative word, referring to the last antecedent."

The expression ''such as'' has been used to mean teachers training courses of the similar type or category as mentioned in Rule 4 (2) (b). The teachers training course, therefore, must satisfy the condition of being recognised by the State Government or Board. And the course must be similar to certificates mentioned in the Rule. The State Government or the Board has not recognised or declared training qualifications of B.Ed, or L.T to be the equivalent qualification as enumerated in Rule 4 (2) (b), therefore, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner possessed the teachers training qualification envisaged by Rule 4 (2) (b) of Rules 1978.

It may now be considered whether B.Ed, or L.T. is equivalent to teachers training courses such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or Basic Teaching Certificate. The expression ''such as'' as explained earlier means courses of similar type. Since B.Ed, is not a course of similar type the respondent was not qualified to be appointed as head master. The submission of Shri Khare appears to be based on Government treating B.Ed, as sufficient for appointment in Basic Schools in 1998. But the submission proceeds on misapprehension. In junior basic schools managed by U.P. Basic Education Board education is imparted from Class I to V In senior basic schools education is imparted from Class VI to VIII. Service conditions of teachers and head master of these schools are governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in brief Rules 1981). Rule 8 prescribes essential qualification for appointment to the post of teacher or head master. The essential teachers training qualification which has been prescribed is the same as was provided in Rules 1978. It provides teachers training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher''s Certificate, Hindustani Teacher''s Certificate, Junior Teacher''s Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. The essential qualification for appointment of head master of junior basic schools is five years teaching experience as assistant master of junior or senior basic schools. And for appointment of head master of senior basic schools three years teaching experience as permanent head master of junior basic schools or permanent assistant teacher of senior basic schools. Therefore, only that assistant teacher who possessed the essential teachers training qualification as provided by Rule 8 could be appointed head master. Teachers training qualifications prescribed by Rule 4(2) (b) of Rules 1978 and Rule 8 of Rules 1981 are same. In 1998 there were large number of vacancies of about twenty eight thousand assistant teachers in basic schools, but candidates with B.T.C. or equivalent training qualifications were not available. The candidates were available who had L.T and B.Ed, or other equivalent qualifications which are essential teachers training qualifications for appointment of assistant teacher L.T Grade for teaching High School Classes 910as provided by Appendix ''A to Regulation 1 Chapter II to the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. In view of large number of vacancies the State Government decided to fill the posts of assistant teachers from the candidates who had passed L.T/B. Ed./C.P. Ed/D.P. Ed/B.P. Ed. The government framed a scheme for one time selection for academic session 199798. It issued a government order on 911998 that looking to the experience of candidates who had passed L.T./B.Ed./ CP.Ed./ D.P.Ed /B.P.Ed, these candidates would be eligible for appointment in basic schools. But the candidates were required to undergo B.T.C. Special Training Course of six months. And after completion of the course they would be treated to be eligible for appointment as assistant teachers in the schools managed by the Board. This court upheld the validity of government order dated 911998 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29107 of 1999 Alok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 1971999. The candidates who had passed L.T/ B.Ed./ C.P.Ed./ D.P.Ed./ B.P.Ed/ training courses filed writ petitions before this court claiming that they possessed L.T/B.Ed. training certificates which was higher than B.TC. and in any case it had to be treated to be equivalent to B.TC. training certificate. This Court did not accept that L.T./B.Ed. training certificates were higher or equivalent to B.T.C. training certificate. In Nirmal Chandra Mishra and others v. State of U.R and others, 1997 (1) ESE 412 it was held that B.Ed, training course is not equivalent to B.TC. as the State Government has not declared L.T. or B.Ed, training course to be rquivalent to B.TC. training course. In another decision in B.Ed. Berozgar Sangh, Sonbhadra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1997 ALR (30) 737; 1997(2) LBESR 440 (All) it had been held that B.Ed, or L.T. cannot be treated to be equivalent to B.T.C. The court further held that B.Ed, and B.T.C. are different training courses for teaching different type of children, therefore, B.Ed, is neither higher nor lower than B.T.C. It is thus, clear that neither the State Government nor the Court treated B.Ed, to be a course recognised under Rule 8 of Rules 1981. Teachers training qualification mentioned in Rule8 of Rules 1981 and Rule 4 (2) (b) of Rules 1978 are same, therefore, B.Ed, training qualification of petitioner cannot be treated to be equivalent or higher, to teachers training qualification envisaged be Rule 4 (2) (b) of Rules 1978. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 was not qualified to be appointed as head master of the institution and his appointment is liable to be quashed.

Shri Khare learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has argued that where a minimum qualification has been prescribed under the rules candidates who possess higher qualification cannot be left out from the zone of consideration. He placed reliance on decision of the apex court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others, (2000) 2 SCC 606. This decision of the apex court is not of any help to the respondents. In paragraph 21 the apex court observed that the law laid down was on its own facts and it was not laying down any rule for universal application. The court said so as minimum qualification laid down for peon was making the provision for promotion of a peon as clerk and Regional (Language) Section Writers under the recruitment rules nugatory. It was held that a criteria which had the effect Of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he was having higher qualification than prescribed would be irrational. It is not so in Basic Schools. An assistant teacher can be appointed as head master only if he holds teachers training certificate as provided in Rules and not because he is B.Ed. Further this court has held that B.Ed, is not higher than B.T.C. It has been explained earlier that even the Government while permitting B.Ed, and L.T. candidates to be appointed in basic schools in 1998 directed that they shall have to take Special B.T.C. training course for six months. The assumption, therefore made by the learned counsel that B.Ed, is higher qualification is not correct. In either view the submission does not have any merit.

13.1 have held that respondent No. 4 did not possess minimum qualification for the post of head master of junior high school and his appointment is liable to be quashed, therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider the other questions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

In the result this writ petition succeeds and allowed. The order dated 2351998 Annexure6 and approval granted on 263 1998 Annexure3 respectively to the writ petition passed by District Basic Education Officer, Meerut and appointment letter dated 2731998 issued by Committee of Management in favour of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi the respondent No. 4 Annexure4 to the writ petition are quashed. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh selection for appointment on the post of Head Master in Adarsh Janta Junior High School, Krishna Nagar, Ganga Khadar, Hastinapur, Meerut in accordance with Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978.

The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to function as Head Master of the aforesaid institution till a new head Master is selected, in accordance with rules.

Petitioner shall be entitled to his costs. Petition allowed