LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-104

ISTEKHAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On March 21, 2007
ISTEKHAR AHMAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims that he was appointed as untrained Urdu Teacher on a fixed salary of Rs.850/- per month on temporary basis in Primary School Dubar Kalan, Lalganj, Mirzapur on 20.12.1994. Petitioner has contended that on 09.09.1994 directives were issued for Uttarakhand Region that if teachers with B.T.C. Training qualification are not available then B. Ed/L.T. Degree holders could be accommodated. Petitioner has contended that similar direction was issued on 06.01.1995. Petitioner has contended that his services were regularized on 21.12.1995. Petitioner has further contended that on 24.04.2002 Government Order has been issued providing therein that qua incumbents who had been functioning for more than five years, they be accorded trained pay scale. Petitioner submits that he has to his credit B. Ed degree and has been accorded training exemption. Petitioner has contended that he has represented on 18.11.2006, after acquiring knowledge of the judgment in the case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh v. State of U.P., 1997 (3) UPLBEC 1774, for commanding the respondents to treat him as trained teacher from the date of his appointment and accordingly salary be fixed, and all such benefits, as are admissible to trained teachers, be extended to petitioner as well, for reasons when petitioner had been appointed, he was having to his credit B. Ed. certificate.

(2.) Sri A.S. Diwekar, learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that petitioner had to his credit B. Ed. degree at the point of time when he was accorded appointment as untrained Urdu teacher, as such petitioner ought to have been treated as trained teacher from the date of his appointment and consequential benefits were liable to be extended to him. From the side of respondents, it has been contended that selection and appointment of Assistant Teachers in the schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad is to be made as per provisions as contained under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981, and as per the same B. Ed. Is not one of the recognized training qualifications, as such even if petitioner had to his credit B. Ed. training qualification, he cannot be accepted as trained teacher in the institution run by Basic Shiksha Parishad.

(3.) As to whether B. Ed. and L.T. can be considered as training qualification in the context of 1981 Rules, has already been subject matter before Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2005 (1) ESC 713, wherein precise view has been taken that B. Ed. and L.T. cannot be considered as teachers training course for the purposes of possessing minimum qualification in the context of 1978 Rules and 1981 Rules. Relevant paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment are being quoted below: