SOPHIA M. Vs. ASHA V.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy is on the qualification of the appellant to be appointed as High School Assistant [Hindi] in the respondent-School. The 1st respondent in the appeal was the writ petitioner, who challenged the order of the Government finding the appellant to be qualified to be so appointed. There was earlier a dispute as to whether the appellant had preference in the matter of appointment to the respondent-school for reason of she being a member of the family which was in management of the school; as per its bye-laws. The issue stands settled by Exhibit P3 and P4 judgments of this Court, which found the appellant to be so entitled to be appointed on a preferential claim. This Court, however, left open the consideration as to the qualification.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had the qualification as required in G.O.(MS) No. 88/1998/G.Edn. dated 17.03.1998. As per the said Government order, "Siksha Visarad", a title awarded by the Hindi Sahithya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, was recognized as an alternative training qualification for appointment as Hindi Teachers in aided Upper Primary/High Schools. On the basis of the directions in a batch of writ petitions, the same was re-considered by G.O.(MS) No. 28/2010/G.Edn. dated 09.02.2010 and the Government had reiterated and affirmed the withdrawal of such recognition. It is pointed out from Clause 6 of the G.O. dated 09.02.2010 that the withdrawal though affirmed as per Clause (i) it was only with effect from March 2006 and the appellant had acquired the Qualification prior to that. Yet again, by sub-clause (ii) of Clause 6 the title so acquired upto 31.12.2009 from N.C.T.E. approved institutions was confirmed to have recognition. Hence, the appellant's qualification has to be approved, is the contention.

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that the course underwent by the appellant was not from an institute recognized by the NCTE. The decision in Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai and Others [(2008) 3 SCC 432] was distinguished. It is the case of the appellant that there was no cause for distinguishing the decision; on the specific declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ["NCTE Act" for brevity] would only apply to teaching institutions and the appointment herein is to an ordinary educational institution, being a High School.