KALINDI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Janta Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shakkarpur, District Mau (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution') after grant of approval by the District Basic Education Officer on 6th January, 1996, has sought the quashing of the order dated 15th July, 2010 passed by the District Basic Education Officer by which a direction has been issued to the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner as she did not possess the teachers training course certificate provided for in Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "1978 Rules'). The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by the Manager of the Institution for terminating the services of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer on 15th July, 2010. It is stated that the petitioner passed the High School and Intermediate examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad in the year 1975 and 1978 respectively and thereafter graduated from Satish Chandra College, Ballia affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The petitioner also obtained the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education in 1994 from the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur. It is further stated that in view of the said qualifications possessed by the petitioner, she was considered eligible for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution and was duly appointed as such after the District Basic Education Officer granted approval to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for her appointment by the order dated 6th January, 1996 and the petitioner has since then been continuously teaching in the Institution but the District Basic Education Officer by the order dated 15th July, 2010 directed the Manager of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the teachers training course recognised by the State Government or the Board and the Committee of Management, without even providing any opportunity to the petitioner, terminated her services by the order dated 26th July, 2010 solely on account of the said direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer.

(2.) Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner possessed the requisite eligibility requirement as contained in Rule 4(1) of the 1978 Rules and she was duly appointed as an Assistant Teacher after the District Basic Education Officer had granted approval on 6th January, 1996 to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and, therefore, the District Basic Education Officer was not justified in directing the Management after a period of about 14 years to terminate the services of the petitioner for the reason that she did not possess the teachers training course certificate recognized by the State Government or the Board. It is also his submission that the petitioner was at least entitled to an opportunity from the District Basic Education Officer and the Committee of Management of the Institution before her services could be terminated for this reason. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that that the petitioner had obtained the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education in 1993-94 from the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur which is and was treated as equivalent to teachers training course recognized by the State Government or the Board and, in such circumstances, when the petitioner had continued to teach as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution from 1996 for a long period of about 14 years upto 15th July, 2010, the District Basic Education Officer could not have issued directions to the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is also his contention that even if such a direction was to be issued by the District Basic Education Officer then too the Committee of Management of the Institution was obliged to hold a proper enquiry with opportunity to the petitioner but such enquiry was not held and nor opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and the Committee of Management of the Institution merely terminated the services of the petitioner because of the direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer that the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education would not satisfy the eligibility requirement. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and another v. S.D. Halegkar and others, 1993 3 SCC 591 and the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Srivastava v. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, Now Mahrajganj, 1994 ACJ 781 and Special Appeal (Defective) No. 123 of 2009 (District Basic Education Officer, District Mau v. Jagdamba Singh), decided on 27th July, 2010.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel made submissions on behalf of respondent No. 2-District Basic Education Officer, while Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel made submissions on behalf of the Committee of Management of the Institution. Learned counsel supported the impugned orders and submitted that when the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution as she did not possess the requisite teachers training course recognized by the State Government or the Board, the District Basic Education Officer committed no illegality in directing the Committee of Management of the Institution to terminate the services of the petitioner and mere continuance of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution for 14 years will make not any difference as the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education obtained from the Poorvanchal University cannot be treated as teachers training course certificate. In support of their contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sartaj and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 2 SCC 315; Dr. M.S. Patil v. Gulbarga University and others, 2010 10 SCC 63; Shesh Mani Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, 2010 AIR(SC) 1433 and the decisions of this Court in Dr. Chandra Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 10 ADJ 746 and Ajay Singh v. State of U.P. and others,2011 3 ADJ 583 and Savita Rani v. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Lucknow and others, 2011 130 FLR 150. Learned counsel also submitted that, in such circum stances, when the petitioner did not possess the requisite eligibility requirement the initial appointment itself was void and there was no necessity of giving any opportunity before terminating the services of the petitioner and in support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and others v. Shyama Pardhi and others, 1996 7 SCC 118.