RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the petitioner. Sita Sharan Singh was working as Art Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Sarvodaya Shiksha Sadan Inter College, Meerapur, Allahabad. He died in harness on 14.1.1999. The petitioner is the only son of the deceased. He passed High School in 1991, Intermediate in 1993 and B.Sc. in 1996. Thereafter, he passed Intermediate examination 1998 in Drawing under Regulation 17-3, Chapter XII from Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad. In the same year, he passed Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination in 1998 conducted by Maharashtra Government. He belongs to backward class category. He moved an application on 19.5.1999 before the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (in brief D.I.O.S.) claiming appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, under the dying-in-harness rules. The District Committee constituted under Regulation 105, Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in brief Regulations) considered the petitioner's claim on 18.1.2000 and since no class-III post was vacant, recommended appointment on a class-IV post. Letter for appointing the petitioner in Ishwar Saran Inter College. Allahabad, was issued on 19.1.2000 by the D.I.O.S. The petitioner did not accept the appointment on a class-IV post and challenged the order dated 19.1.2000 by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17172 of 2000 before this Court claiming appointment on the post of Art Teacher, as per his qualification under the dying-in-harness rules. This Court on 22.4.2000 quashed the order dated 19.1.2000 for appointing the petitioner. And in view of decision of Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and others. 2000 (1) UPLBEC 634 : 2000 (1) ESC 635, disposed of the writ petition and directed the D.I.O.S. to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 1.8.2000 which has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) Sri Kuldeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that in view of decision in Sanjeev Kumar Dubey (supra), petitioner possessed the qualification to be appointed Art Teacher, therefore, the D.I.O.S. Illegally rejected the application under the dying-in-harness rules. Learned counsel further urged that even if the petitioner could not be appointed on the post of assistant teacher, the petitioner was entitled for appointment on a class-III post as per his qualification and if no post of class-III was vacant, a supernumerary post should have been created by the D.I.O.S. On the other hand. Sri M. C. Chaturvedi the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 urged that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed assistant teacher, therefore, the decision in Sanjeev Kumar Dubey (supra) was not applicable to the facts of this case. He further urged that since no class-III post was available and the petitioner did not accept his appointment on class-IV post, there is no option and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The first question is whether the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Art). The D.I.O.S. rejected the claim of the petitioner as he was not 'trained' as provided in Appendix 'A' to Chapter II of the Regulations. The relevant para 2 to Appendix 'A' is extracted below :