Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VEG RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Veg Raj Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 238 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 408 (28 October 2003)

 

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.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 238 of  2003

Veg Raj Singh v. The State of U.P. and others

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.1138 of 2003

Sishu Pal Singh v. Regional Joint Director, Agra and others

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Both these writ petitions relate to the officiating Head Master of Punia Rumali Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ranhera, District Mathura.  They have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.238 of 2003 has been filed by Veg Raj Singh seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Advertisement No.1/2002 issued by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, respondent no.2 published in the newspaper "Hindustan" for filling up the post of Head Master in the Institution in question whereas Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1138 of 2003 has been filed by Sishu Pal Singh seeking  writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Regional Joint Director of Education, II Region, Agra to determine the seniority list of the petitioner vis-�-vis respondent no.5, namely, Veg Raj Singh (petitioner in writ petition no.238 of 2003) and Paramsukh Sharma, respondent no.6.  He further seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Secretary, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad to consider the petitioner's candidature as being the seniormost Assistant Teacher in LT Grade in the Institution and to declare the result thereafter.

I have heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition no.238 of 2003, Sri Ravindra Kumar, Sri Vashishtha Tiwari on behalf of the contesting respondents, Sri N.K. Pandey for the petitioner in writ petition no.1138 and all the other learned Advocates for the respondents.

Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Veg Raj Singh is the seniormost teacher in the Institution and, therefore, he has rightly been given the charge of officiating Head Master of the Institution.  According to him, under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as ''the 1982 Act', the seniormost teacher in LT Grade is to be given the charge of officiating Head Master in case of regular vacancy occurring in the Institution on account of retirement or otherwise.  He submitted that his client had rightly been recognized  as the officiating Head Master of the Institution.  

Sri Vashishtha Tiwari and Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, however, submitted that Veg Raj Singh is not qualified to hold the post of Head Master as he does not possess the minimum qualification as prescribed  for the Head of  the Institution in Appendix A  to the Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as ''the 1921 Act' inasmuch as he does not possess the post-graduate degree.   He is a trained graduate. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shamshul Zama v District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli and others, reported in 2001(4) AWC 2911.

Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Board also submitted that the post of officiating Head Master can be given only to the person who possess qualification as per Appendix A and not to the seniormost teacher, who does not possess the minimum qualification.

Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Serial No.1 of Appendix A, which prescribes minimum qualification for the post of the Head of the Institution, only refers to the minimum qualification required by a person to be appointed for the post of Principal of an Intermediate College and not for the post of Head Master of an institution.  He referred to Note 3 of Serial no.1 of Appendix A which  specifically provides that  the teaching experience in classes 9-12 would only be counted for the post of Principal of an Intermediate College.  He also referred to Section 2(k) of the 1982 Act, which defines the "Teacher" as a person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and includes a Principal or a Head Master.  According to him, a Teacher in LT Grade is eligible for being given officiating charge of the Head Master.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that Section 2(b) of the 1921 Act defines "Institution" to mean a recognized Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School, and includes, where the context so requires, a part of an institution, and "Head of Institution" means the Principal or Head Master as the case may be, of such institution.  Serial no.1 of the Appendix A prescribes minimum qualification for a Head of an Institution, which requires the postgraduate degree from a recognised University apart from certain other qualifications.  ''Head of the Institution' as defined in Section 2(b) of the 1921 Act shall include the Head Master of an Institution also. Thus, for giving charge of the officiating Head Master of an Institution a person should possess the minimum qualification prescribed in Serial no.1 of Appendix A.  So far as the contention that Note 3 prescribes teaching experience in class 9-12 only for the post of Principal of an Intermediate College and, therefore, the minimum qualification prescribed at Serial No.1 of Appendix A does not refer to the Head Master of an Institution is concerned is misconceived.  The teaching experience may be applicable only for the post of Principal in an Intermediate College but all other qualifications prescribed in Appendix A is also applicable for the post of Head Master of an Institution.  This Court in the case of Shamshul Zama (supra) while considering the question as who is to be given the officiating charge of the principal in an Intermediate College as per Section 18 of the 1982 Act, has held that the person who does not possess the minimum prescribed qualification cannot be appointed as an ad-hoc Principal. The same principle would be applicable in the case of officiating Head Master also.

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents  Sri Vashishtha Tiwari and Sri N.K. Pandey submitted that the matter relating to seniority is under consideration before the Joint Director of Education, II region, Agra.

In this view of the matter, both these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the Joint Director of Education, Agra to decide the seniority matter after giving opportunity of hearing to all the affected persons within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him and the person who is held to be the seniormost and otherwise qualified in terms of  Appendix A be given the charge of officiating Head Master of the Institution.  

Till the decision by the Joint Director of Education, Agra the status quo as of today shall be maintained.  In case any person does not appear before the Joint Director of Education for insufficient reasons, the Joint Director of Education will be at liberty to proceed ex parte.

28.10.2003

mt


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.