VIJAI KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Devendra Dhama, learned Counsel for the appellant & the learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the order of Hon'ble the Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. No body has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 although name of Sri Birendra Singh is shown in the cause list.

(2.) It appears that one Sri Nepal Singh, Assistant teacher LT Grade in Kisan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Budhansi, Aligarh proceeded on leave causing a short term vacancy wherein the appellant was appointed to impart instructions in Commerce/Arts upto High School classes on 30.10.1990. The District Inspector of Schools initially accorded approval for the period from 1.11.90 to 31.3.1991. However, when the regular incumbent did not join the post the Committee of Management extended the period of service of the appellant till the return of the regular incumbent. The District Inspector of Schools, however, refused to grant financial approval, Aggrieved, the appellant preferred writ Petition No. 45790 of 1992 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 1.12.1992 with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider the case of the appellant regarding extension of his service against the leave vacancy. Pursuant thereof, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 9.6.1993 again refused to grant financial approval. The appellant preferred Writ petition No. 32935 of 1993 against the aforesaid order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9.6.1993. The Hon'ble Single Judge alter hearing learned Counsel for the appellant on merit dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not having requisite qualification as prescribed for the LT Grade Assistant teacher in Commerce/Arts since he did not possess the qualification of High School examination with Technical Art (drawing).

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the petitioner-appellant has passed Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination from Bombay and has also knowledge of Technical Drawing upto High school standard and therefore the District Inspector of Schools was not correct in refusing approval on the ground that the petitioner-appellant did not possess requisite qualification. We do not find any substance in the contention that the appellant possess minimum qualification. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner-appellant possessed the requisite qualification i.e. High School examination with Technical Drawing,