Rudra Nath Mishra vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Tandon, J.—Admittedly the Petitioner has to his credit following qualifications i.e. M.A./L.T.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, as well as another Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Writ petition No. 15793 of 2007 decided on 23.03.2007) has held that teaching qualification of L.T. like B.Ed. cannot be considered as equivalent to the teaching qualifications prescribed under Rule 4 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 namely JTC, BTC, HTC etc.

From the facts of the present writ petition it is apparently clear that the Petitioner before this Court claims to have been appointed in a recognized Junior High School on 07.06.1999 which appointment is stated to have been approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 07.06.2000. However, it is established from the documents on record that the Petitioner had to his credit teaching qualification of L.T. only (Reference Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

In view of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi (Supra) as well as in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar Chauhan (Supra), it has to be held that the Petitioner was not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification on the date he claims to be appointed in a recognized Junior High School. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2006 JT (3), 331 has specifically held that qualifications for appointment have to be judged on the date of appointment. The Apex Court has also clarified that any length of working will not cure the defect of lack of essential qualification at the time of initial appointment. Such appointments are null and void. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors. reported in 2008 (4) ALJ 207.

This Court may also refer to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1978 which declares that a person not possessed of prescribed minimum qualifications cannot be appointed in a recognized institution (Junior High School).

In view of the aforesaid, since the Petitioner is not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification, no relief can be granted to him.

At this stage, Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj (Supra) as well as judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi (Supra) and of the Hon''ble Single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar Chauhan (Supra) do not lay down correct law. He clarifies the provision applicable in the case of basic institutions viz. a viz. the qualification prescribed in recognized Junior High School are different as is clear from the language of the provisions applicable in the two category of institutions.

The Division Bench of this Court has already examined the matter in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi (Supra), this Court finds no good ground to take a different view.

Writ petition is dismissed.