Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MANJULA SAXENA versus R.I.G.S. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Manjula Saxena v. R.I.G.S. & Others - WRIT - A No. 12691 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 9176 (14 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12691 of 1986

Smt. Manjula Saxena     Vs.      Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Agra & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1978 during the period of strike by teachers in the entire State. Thereafter when the strike was called of, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. Then U.P. Ordinance no. 22 of 1978 was promulgated whereby it was provided that the teachers who had been engaged during the period of strike would be absorbed as teachers on preferential basis. The said Ordinance was challenged in the High Court and  was quashed as unconstitutional. The judgment of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court and in the case of Prabodh Verma vs. State of U.P.  1984 A.L.J. 931 the  Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Thereafter section 21-D was inserted in U.P. Act no. 5 of 1982 providing for appointment of such reserved pool teachers on substantive vacancies. Pursuant thereto, on 2.6.1986 the Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Agra wrote to the Manager approving the appointment of the petitioner on substantive vacancy in the college of Respondent no.3. Thereafter on 24.6.1986 the Respondent no.3 issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and she joined her services in the college. Then, by the impugned order dated 24.7.1986 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualifications. Challenging the said order this writ petition has been filed.

I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

By means of an interim order dated 31.7.1986 the operation of the impugned order dated 24.7.1986 had been stayed by this  Court. Consequently the petitioner had been permitted to continue to work as Assistant Teacher and she is continuing to work as such till date.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was appointed in a different class, from amongst the reserved pool teachers, her initial appointment was perfectly justified. The petitioner submits that even at the time of initial appointment, she was duly qualified as she had passed Intermediate examination in the year 1976 whereas the essential qualification for appointment of assistant Teacher is only High school or equivalent thereto. Besides having passed Intermediate examination, during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has also passed "Sangeet Prabhakar" Examination from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, which is duly recognized by the educational authorities. Not only this, the petitioner has also passed B. Ed. Examination from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. In such facts, the submission of Sri Khare has force  that even if it is presumed that the petitioner was not initially qualified, she now has teaching experience of over two decades and has also obtained the necessary qualifications and hence should be permitted to continue to work as Assistant Teacher.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, in my view,  the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner would be highly inequitable. Accordingly, the petitioner, who has already worked for over two decades and has the essential qualification, should be permitted to continue to work as Assistant Teacher.

The impugned order dated 24.7.1986 is thus quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.

dt.  14.5.2007

dps


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.