TASNEEM FATIMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal was admitted which questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.5.2009 whereby the appellant's revocation of approval to her appointment on the post of Head-mistress has been upheld, and the writ petition has been dismissed and her further claim with regard to payment of salary and other consequential benefits have been denied.

(2.) From the facts as already recorded by the learned single Judge, it appears that the appellant was appointed as a Headmistress in a Junior High School on the basis of a selection that was approved by the competent authority vide letter dated 28.7.2003. The appellant joined and started functioning as Head-mistress in the Institution known as 'National Girls Junior High School, Lala Ka Purwa, Sultanpur, which is duly recognized and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The rules applicable for such appointments are U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The appellant was not receiving salary and after making several representations, she filed Writ Petition No.111 of 2004, which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 7.5.2004 wherein directions were issued to pay salary together with arrears to the appellant. The appellant started getting salary and continued to function.

(3.) It appears that some times thereafter one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh filed a complaint against the appellant before the Lok Ayukt, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that the appellant did not possess the minimum qualification of experience as required under Rule 4 readwith Rule 5 of the 1978 Rules and thus was not eligible, hence her appointment and approval should be revoked. This complaint in the deficiency of qualification related to 3 years teaching experience in a Junior High School. The Lok Ayukt issued a letter to the Regional Assistant Director (Basic), Faizabad, to look into the matter and pursuant thereto the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, issued a notice to the appellant calling upon her to explain as to why the approval to her appointment should not be revoked as she did not possess the minimum qualification of experience as prescribed under Rule 4 of the 1978 rules.