BHAHMAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school run by the Municipal Board, Etawah. She was thereafter promoted to the post of an Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School, on Aug. 24, 1974 and subsequently, confirmed. On July 25, 1970 she was promoted to officiate as a Head mistress in a Junior High School and has been acting as such. Under Section 73(2) of the Municipalities Act 1916, the State Government has framed rules known as the U.P. Municipal Board (Educational Establishments) Service Rules, 1954.

(2.) THESE rules lay down the me thod of selecting persons to the post of Head Mistresses and Head Masters: of Junior High Schools. Rule 4 of these rules requires the recruitment to be made on merit by selection from amongst perma nent assistant teachers of Junior High Schools, who have served not less than five years as Assistant teachers, and also possess Hindustani Teacher's Certificate. The petitioner has averred that she has these requisite qualifications and there is no serious dispute about it. In January, 1972 a selection was held in pursuance of these rules, for selecting a person for a permanent appointment as Head Mistress in a Junior High School. It appears that respondent No. 3 appeared at that selection, but later on the selection was not approved by the Duty Director of Education. In the year 1972 an Act, known as the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (Act No. 74 of 1972) came to be pass ed. Under Section 9 of the Act teachers and other employees serving under the Local Bodies in connection with Basic Schools stood trans ferred and became teachers and employees of the Board.

(3.) THAT rule requires that a person should be a permanent Assistant Teacher of five year standing and also have a Hindustani Teacher's certificate. Counsel for the respondent frank ly conceded that respondent No. 3 does not have a Hindustani Tea cher's Certificate. He urged that she has a certificate of an equival ent nature. That, however, would not meet the requirements of the rule which insists on a Hindustani Teacher's Certificate and none "the'' It also appears that at the time when the employees of the Municipal Board came to be transferred under Section 9 of the Basic Education Act. Respondent No. 3 did not have the other qualification requisite for being appointed as a Head Mistress for. at that time she had not been holding the post of a permanent Assistant Teacher for five years. Thus, respondert No. 3 was not qualified to be ap pointed as a Head Mistress of a Junior High School. These conside rations apart, Section 9(4) of the Basic Education Act does not con fer any jurisdiction on the State Government to promote an emplo yee of a Municipal Board who has come on transfer under Section 9 of the Act, to a Higher post than he already held. Section 9 (4) of the Act runs as under: -