Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUEEN KHAN & OTHERS versus ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mueen Khan & Others v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari & Others - WRIT - A No. 52117 of 1999 [2002] RD-AH 50 (18 November 2002)

 

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

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52117  of 1999

Mueen Khan and others ????????????.. Petitioners

Versus

Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and others ???????????Respondents

???..

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by Mueen Khan and 19 other persons seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to finalise the process of selection and appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.3.1999 expeditiously. By means of an amendment application the petitioners further seek a writ , order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.1.2000 by which the Advertisement dated 24.3.1999 has been cancelled by the State Government.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :

In the year 1995 several posts for Urdu Teachers in the Basic Schools and Junior High Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad were sanctioned by the State Government, out of which 85 posts were sanctioned for the district of Rampur. An advertisement was published in daily news paper Amar Ujala on 6.8.1995 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Basic Schools and Junior High Schools run by the Basik Shiksha Parishad in the rural areas and urban areas  of the district of Rampur. The petitioners made  application for appointment.

It appear that the advertisement dated 6.8.1995 was challenged by means of C.M.Writ Petition No. 23449 of 1995 before this court and the Court vide order dated 28.8.1995 stayed selection and appointment in pursuance of the said advertisement. The writ petition was dismissed subsequently vide order dated 24.2.99. After the writ petition was dismissed a fresh advertisement was issued in the daily news paper Dainik Jagran dated 24.3.99 inviting fresh applications for the post of Assistant teacher (Urdu).The petitioners once again made  the application for appointment. Admit Cards were issued  and the date for written test was fixed as 11.7.99, however, on 10.7.99 a notice was  put in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Rampur that the written test has been postponed. The test was postponed on account of some instructions issued by the President Zila Panchayat, Rampur. Vide order dated 10.1.2000 the Secretary U.P.Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad had informed the District Basic Education Officer, Rampur that the advertisement dated 24.3.99 for filling up the vacancy of assistant Teacher (Urdu) is cancelled. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

I have heard Shri S.U.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P.D.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the post of Assistant Teacher in the Basic School and Junior High School run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. is not under the control of Zila Parishad and therefore the selection cannot be postponed on the direction of Chairman, Zila Panchayat. He further submitted that the  President are duty bound to finalise the process of selection and appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of the Rules as it stood when the advertisement dated 6.8.1995 was made. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 405 wherein  the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the selection process has commenced it has to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at its commencement. He also relied upon  a decision of this Court in the case of M.Naf3ees and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (C.M.Writ Petition No. 19324 of 199 decided on 14.5.99) wherein this Court has held that Moallime-E-Urdu  certificate of training continue to be recognised equivalent to B.T.C. certificate in respect of those candidates who have obtained the same prior to 6.9.1997. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others A.JI.R. 1987 S.C. 2027 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that it would be unjust to tell the students  that though at the time of their joining the course which was recognised yet the cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificate obtained by them would be futile because during the pendency of the course  it was derecognised by the State Government.

Shri P.D.Tripathi, learned counsel submitted that the rules namely U.P.Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 was amended in 1988 which had come into force on 9.7.1998 which prescribed the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant teachers to be B.A. (Urdu). The advertisement issued in the year 1999 was not inconformity thereof and therefore it has been cancelled. He further submitted that it is incorrect to say that the Zila Panchayat had no role to play in the mater as by virtue of the U.P.Basic Education (Amendment) Act,2000 which had into force w.e.f. 21.6.99 certain regulatory powers have been given to the Zila Panchayat also. He further submitted that this court in the case of Mohallim-E-Urdu Prashikshit Berojgar Sangh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19152 of 2000) decided on 26.4.2000 had dismissed the writ petition in respect of the candidates having diploma in Moallim-E-Urdu seeking appointment on the post of Assistant teachers in the Basic Schools. He has further submitted that the petitioners do not possess the graduate degree and are therefore not entitled and eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant teacher (Urdu). He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  L.Muthukumar and another  Vs. State of Tamil Nadu JT 2000 (Suppl. 1) S.C. 85 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that  allowing  the ill- trained teachers  coming out of  derecognised or unrecognised institutes or licensing them to teach the children of impressionable age contrary to the  norms prescribed will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers and educational institutions also play vital role. In cases  like  those interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to larger public interest.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that it is not in dispute that the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to finalise the process of selection and appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.3.99. A perusal of advertisement dated 24.3.99 which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition had prescribed the minimum qualification as Intermediate whereas in the U.P.Nasic Teachers Service Rules, 1981 as amended in 1998 the minimum qualification prescribed is Graduate B.A. thus the advertisement was not inconformity with the Service Rules and therefore it has rightly been cancelled by the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Thus no exception can be taken to the cancellation of the advertisement which did not confer to the basic requirement regarding qualification as prescribed in the service rules which are statutory in nature.

The submission  that since the selection process had started and  it has to be completed according to the Rules prevailing at the time of start of the selection cannot be applied in the present case in as much as in the year 1999 the minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of Assistant teacher was graduate whereas in the advertisement the requirement mentioned was only Intermediate which was according to him was framed  prior to 9th July, 1998. It is not necessary to go into the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as it has been held that the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners have applied did not fulfil the basic requirement regarding qualification.

In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed.

Dated: 18.11.2002

Sh..


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.