Shyam Veer Singh vs State of U.P.and Others

Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri P.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2, Sri Gaus Beg, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No.4 and 5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Committee of Management, Junior High School, Thana, Unnao in the year 1985 along with Sri Saheblal and Sri Shyam Singh. Later on Sri Saheblal and Sri Shyam Singh were absorbed in the services but the petitioner''s case for absorption against the regular vacancy was not considered by the Committee of Management. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he has worked in the said institution for several years. The Institution came under the purview of grantinaid in the year 1984 and is presently under the complete supervision of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Unnao. The petitioner had submitted experience certificate issued by the Deputy Manager of the Institution, Sri Surendra Singh, to demonstrate that he had satisfactorily worked in the Institution. The petitioner is having B.A. and Shiksha Visharad degree issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in 1st Division in the year 2003.

The petitioner has indicated in the writ petition that initially he was not a trained teacher but due to pressure exerted by the Management, he proceeded for taking Visharad degree. After obtaining a degree in Shiksha Visharad, the petitioner approached the Management for absorbing him as regular teacher. The petitioner was not allowed to resume duties or absorb despite submitting several representations. He had raised grievance through this writ petition that the opposite parties are going to appoint other persons which may result in termination of services of the petitioner. He has also placed an interim order passed by this Court on 18.11.2002 at Allahabad to prove that Shiksha Visharad certificate is equivalent to B.T.C. This Court had passed an ex parte interim order on 16.9.2004, allowing the petitioner to continue in the services and issued directions for payment of salary.

Counter affidavits have been filed by the opposite parties No.3 and 5 and appearance has been put in by Sri Gaus Beg and Sri Singh. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have categorically submitted that the petitioner is stranger to the Junior High School, Thana, Unnao as he was never appointed in the school as Assistant Teacher. It has been categorically admitted by the petitioner Sri Shyam Veer Singh that he was not a trained teacher in the year 1985. He had obtained the alleged Shiksha Visharad degree in the year 2004 only. He was not found qualified and fit for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Institution. There was no resolution of the Committee of Management on record, indicating that the petitioner was ever appointed in the Institution. There were no signatures of the petitioner in the attendance register of the school, which is regularly maintained in the Institution. The petitioner was neither appointed in the school nor he had worked in the school. He has manufactured some certificates issued by the Deputy Manager of the School. A certificate dated 10.10.2004 has also been produced before the Court along with the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties No.3 and 4 in support of its submissions that Annexures No.1 and 2 of the writ petition are forged and fabricated documents. However, the learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that later on Sri Jagmohan Singh, Adhyaksh, Prabandh Samiti had supported the version of the petitioner by filing an affidavit on 30.11.2004, but no documents have been annexed by Sri Jag Mohan Singh in support of his affidavit. The Management has further submitted that Sri Saheb Lal and Shyam Singh were also not appointed in the Institution.

Sri Ajay Pal Maurya, Head Master of the Institution has filed a counter affidavit and denied that he had ever issued any experience certificate to the petitioner. According to the Head Master of the Institution, the petitioner was not appointed in the Institution nor any certificate was issued to the petitioner by him. The petitioner''s name was never entered as staff member of the Institution. No selection process was initiated nor any appointment was approved for the same in the year 199091 in accordance with law by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

The Basic Shiksha Adhikari has filed a separate counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner was never appointed in the Junior High School, Thana, Unnao. No such appointment was ever approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, a prerequisite under the law. The Committee of Management had never passed any resolution nor any such resolution for appointment of the petitioner was ever sent to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, seeking its approval. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari had never granted any approval in respect of the petitioner, Sri Shyam Veer Singh. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari had denied that any representation was submitted before him. The interim order dated 18.11.2002 is not in existence as the writ petition cited by the petitioner has been dismissed. The Hon''ble High Court has held that Shiksha Visharad degree issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag is not equivalent to the B.T.C. nor the organization is recognized or a legal body. The petitioner has not come with clean hands and he has misled the Court and obtained an ex parte interim order by submitting fabricated documents.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is nothing on record to show as to how and in what manner, the petitioner was appointed. The U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment & Conditions of Services of Teachers Rules, 1978 are applicable on the Management for making appointment on the post of teacher. The petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said rules. No process of direct recruitment was initiated before appointing him as teacher.

Morever, the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Unnao has categorically stated on the basis of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was never appointed in the said school and no intimation was sent to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari nor any approval was accorded by the said authority. The opposite parties have further submitted in, their counter affidavit that the Committee of Management had neither passed any resolution for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher nor the approval was sought from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari after making alleged appointment.

Since no appointment was made, no question for approval arises in the matter. No appointment order or approval has been placed on record to set out a case by the petitioner. The petitioner was not a trained person. The alleged degree of Shiksha Visharad obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag by the petitioner cannot be said to be a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment in the Basic Schools vide judgment reported in (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1716, Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Others. This Court has dealt with this issue and has held that the degree of Shiksha Visharad conferred on the petitioner by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, cannot be given valid recognition for the purpose of appointing a teacher in the Basic Schools. Since Shiksha Visharad is not equivalent to B.T.C., on this point also the petition deserves to be dismissed.

As far as the affidavit filed by Sri Jagmohan Singh is concerned, he had sworn the affidavit on the ground of his personal knowledge. He has not indicated whether he has gone through the record of the Institution or not. The affidavit is silent regarding legality and validity of alleged engagement in the Institution. The petitioner has failed to establish that he was a legally, validly appointed teacher of the Junior High School, Thana, Unnao. The Head Master of the Institution has also submitted before this Court that the petitioner had never worked as teacher in the Institution during the relevant time.

In view of above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.

(Petition dismissed)