Tasneem Fatima vs State of U.P. & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 2452007 and 982007 passed by the opposite party No.4, Annexure Nos. 1 and A4 to the writ petition.

The brief facts of the case are that the National Girl''s Junior High School, LalakaPurwa, District Sultanpur is a duly recognized institution (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) and is receiving grantinaid from the State Government.

The petitioner claims that she was duly selected to be appointed as Headmistress of the Institution. After her selection was approved by the opposite party No.4 by letter dated 2872003 appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 3072003 and the petitioner assumed charge of the office of the Headmistress of the Institution on 182003. Although the petitioner started functioning as Headmistress of the Institution yet her salary was not paid. The petitioner filed several representations before the concerned authorities for payment of her regular salary, however petitioner''s representation remained unattended as a result the petitioner was compelled to file Writ Petition No.111 of 2004 before this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties for payment of her salary. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 752007 and the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in the said writ petition were directed to pay the petitioner''s salary including the arrears within a period of three months.

In compliance of the order of this Court dated 752004 passed in Writ Petition No. 111 of 2004, the opposite parties started making payment of salary to the petitioner. However, it appears that one Rajesh Kumar Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Lok Ayukt, Uttar Pradesh alleging that the experience certificate appended by the petitioner to her application form submitted by her at the time of selection related to primary education whereas the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Headmistress of a basic school prescribed under Rule 4 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Rules) requires three years teaching experience in a Junior High School and since the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Headmistress of Junior High School, the approval granted to her appointment was liable to be revoked. On the said complaint, the Lok Ayukt issued direction to the Regional Assistant Director (Basic), Faizabad Region, Faizabad, opposite party No. 3 to look into the matter and pursuant to the direction so issued, the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, opposite party No.4 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause as to why the order approving her appointment be not revoked on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Headmistress under Rule 4 of Chapter VIII of 1978 Rules.

Upon receiving show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her reply before opposite party No.4 on 25122006. The opposite party No.4 by his order dated 2452007 reyoked the approval granted to the petitioner''s appointment on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Headmistress as the experience certificate submitted by her along with her application form related to primary level education whereas the qualification prescribed under Rule 4 of 1978 Rules requires a candidate for the post of Headmistress in a Junior High School to possess three years experience in a recognized Junior High School.

This Court passed an order on 2962007 directing the petitioner to place her genuine experience certificate before the authorities concerned and if it was found that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was genuine then the petitioner would be allowed to continue.

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 2962007, the petitioner submitted her experience certificate before the opposite party No.4 along with a letter of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Barabanki dated 7102002 addressed to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sultanpur alongwith her representation dated 572007. The opposite party No.4 by an order passed on 982007 held that since the petitioner had obtained appointment on the post of Headmistress of a Junior High School on the basis of a experience in a primary school, she did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Headmistress as Rule 4 (2) of 1978 Rules requires minimum three years teaching experience in a Junior High School and, hence, the approval granted to her appointment was rightly revoked.

The petitioner also added the relief for quashing the order dated 982007 passed by the opposite party No.4 by amending the writ petition.

In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No.4, it has been stated that the order dated 2452007 by which the petitioner''s approval has been revoked was passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said approval was given subject to the condition that if any information/certificate/documents submitted by the petitioner was found to be wrong or forged and fictitious, the approval given to the petitioner shall be deemed to be cancelled with immediate effect and the payment made to the petitioner shall be recovered from her and the Manager of the Institution. The opposite party No.4 in his counteraffidavit further submitted that upon a complaint received by Lok Ayukt, Uttar Pradesh against the petitioner''s application a direction was issued to the Assistant Education Director (Basic), Faizabad to look into the matter whereupon it transpired that experience certificate submitted by the petitioner along with her application form related to primary education and not Junior High School. Thereafter a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner but since the petitioner was unable to satisfy the opposite party No.4 that the experience certificate submitted by her related to Junior High School, the approval granted to the petitioner''s selection was revoked by the impugned order.

The petitioner filed her rejoinder affidavit to the counteraffidavit filed by the opposite party No.4 reaffirming and reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit annexing thereto as AnnexureSRA1, a true copy of her experience experience certificate dated 172001 duly certified by a Manager of Madarsa Tablighulquran Rudauli, Barabanki

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are absolutely arbitrary and illegal. The approval granted to the petitioner''s selection as Headmistress could not have been revoked after the petitioner had worked for more than four years on the post of Headmistress and there was no complaint against the working of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if it is assumed that on the date of her appointment as Headmistress she did not possess three years experience in a Junior High School, the petitioner has acquired necessary experience of teaching in a Junior High School after having worked for more than four years as Headmistress and the lack of experience at the time of recruitment has been made good and as such, the petitioner''s appointment could not be disturbed on equitable considerations. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Apex Court reported in 2001 AIR SCW 1025, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others v. Abahi Kumar and others.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the opposite party No.4 by revoking the approval granted to the petitioner''s appointment has illegally reviewed his earlier order without being vested with any statutory power of review.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it not being the case of the opposite parties that the approval of the petitioner''s appointment had been obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or the concealment of facts, the order approving petitioner''s appointment could not be revoked and reviewed by the opposite party No. 4, who is not vested any statutory power to review or recall of his order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.2851 (M/S) of 2008, Arya Samaj (Lucknow) Ganeshganj through its Mantri Manmohan Tiwari & another v. Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow & another, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 956, Committee of Management, Janta Vidyalaya Singhhpur, Ballia v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia and others, 1984 UPLBEC 166 : (1984 All LJ 291) Gauri Shankar Rai and others v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, D.I.O.S. Ballia and others and 1980 UPLBEC 209, Committee of Management, Nonapur Inter College, Kanpur v. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur and another.

Refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

Rule 4 (2) of 1978 Rules, which provides the minimum qualification for the post of Headmistress of a recognized schools reads as under:

"4. Minimum qualifications. (1) The minimum qualifications for the post of assistant teacher of a recognized school shall be Intermediate Education 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 the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training.

(2) The minimum qualifications for the appointment to the post of Headmaster 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; and

(c) Three years'' Teaching experience in a recognized school.

Junior High School has been defined in Section 2 (e) of 1978 Rules to be an Institution other than High Schools or Intermediate College, imparting education to boys or girls or both from classes VI to VIII (inclusive). Recognized School as defined in Rule 2 (g) of 1978 Rules means any Junior High School, not being an Institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body, recognized by a Board as such."

Thus, a person in order to be eligible for being appointed to the post of Headmistress in a recognized school apart from qualification prescribed under Rule 4 (2) (a) and (b) must also possess three years teaching experience in a recognized school.

The Court has now to examine as to whether the petitioner is qualified for the post of Headmistress of a Junior High School or not and whether the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner along with her application form relates to Junior High School or is of primary level education. Copy of the experience certificate has been filed by the petitioner as AnnexureSRA1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. AnnexureSRA1 does not disclose whether Madarsa Tablighulquran Rudauli, Barabanki where the petitioner had worked as Assistant Teacher from 121983 to 891986 is a primary school or a Junior High School. Even in the letter of the District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki dated 7102002, copy whereof has been filed as AnnexureSRA2 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, by which the experience certificate of the petitioner has been certified by him to be true, there is no mention that Madarsa Tablighulquran Rudauli, Barabanki is a Junior High School. Hence, the approval granted to the petitioner''s appointment has been rightly revoked by the impugned order.

There is ample material on record which shows that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the post of Headmistress in the Institution on the basis of a false statement made in her affidavit submitted by her along with her application form. Rule 4 (2) of 1978 Rules provides that a candidate for the post of Headmistress in the recognized basic school apart from possessing the qualification must prescribed under Rule 4 (2) (a) and (f) of 1978 Rules possess three years teaching experience in a Junior High School. Although the petitioner stated in her affidavit that she had three years teaching experience in a Junior High School, the experience certificate submitted by her along with her application form related to primary education. Since the approval of her appointment had been obtained on the basis of a false statement made by her in the affidavit submitted by her along with her applicationform to the effect that she was fully qualified for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress although she was not eligible for being appointed as Headmistress in a Junior High School on account of lacking three years teaching experience in a recognized school, the approval granted to her appointment was liable to be revoked and has been rightly revoked and the opposite party No.4 did not commit an illegality in reviewing his earlier order by which the petitioner''s appointment had been approved and revoking the same.

The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner as in the said case the appointment had not been obtained on the basis of misrepresentation of facts. In the cases Committee of Management, Janta Vidyalaya Singhhpur, Ballia (supra), Gauri Shankar Rai and others (supra) and Committee of Management, Nonapur Inter College, Kanpur (supra) it has been held that every statutory authority exercising administrative or quasijudicial powers can, therefore, in appropriate cases, review and recall its order even in the absence of a statutory powers of review if such order has been passed on misconception of law or facts or misrepresentation and, hence, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of a statutory power of review the opposite party No.4 after approving the petitioner''s appointment become functusofficio had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order has no force and is summarily rejected.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 2452007 and 980227 passed by the opposite party No.4, as contained in Annexures1 and A4 to the writ petition, do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.