Allahabad High Court
District Basic Education ... vs Smt. Asha Pandey & Others (Inre 1267 Sers ... on 6 March, 2013
Bench: Uma Nath Singh, Virendra Kumar Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 135 of 2013 Petitioner :- District Basic Education Officer,Sitapur Respondent :- Smt. Asha Pandey & Others (Inre 1267 Sers 2012) Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Singh Chauhan Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,H.G.S. Parihar Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral) We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of special appeal.
This special appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 28.09.2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 1267 (S/S) of 2012, whereby the petition was allowed with following findings:-
"The impugned orders have been passed on the premise that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification, because the petitioner had passed intermediate from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. The said course was not recognized by the respondents. The issue raised in this petition has already been decided in Civil Writ A No.-40841 of 2009 (Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 03.7.2012. Following needs to be noted from paragraph -18 and 20 of the said judgment:-
"18-In absence of any specific condition in the Government Order dated 10.7.2007 with reference to High School or Intermediate qualification being the eligibility qualification for the purpose of admission in Special B.T.C. or under Rule 8(1) for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Teacher,no such innovation is permissible on the part of respondents on their own so as to add something which is not otherwise existing for the purpose of either admission in Special B.T.C. Course 2007 or appointment as Assistant Teacher. The respondent authorities have clearly misdirected themselves by looking to certain aspects of the matter which was not provided either in the Government Order or in the statutory Rules.
20- It the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.7.2009 and 23.7.2009 (Annexures No.- 12 & 13 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner continuing in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. He shall also be entitled to cost, which I quantify to Rs.5,000/-."
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, states that he has not been able to distinguish the said judgment in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In view of the above, impugned orders annexures -1, 2 and 3 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as continuing in service with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary. No costs".
The brief facts, giving rise to filing of this special appeal are that respondent no.1(herein)/petitioner passed the High School in 1997 and Intermediate in 1999 from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. Thereafter, the respondent/writ petitioner did her B.A in the year 2003, M.A. in the year 2005 in Hindi and B. Ed in the year 2007 from the Universities situated in the State of U.P. Thus, she being qualified vide Government Order dated 14.11.2008 applied for special B.T.C. Training course and after completing it, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School.
It appears that in the meantime, one letter dated 18.8.2010 was written by the Council of Board for School Examination in India (COBSE) to the Director, State Council of Education Research and Training, U.P. (SCERT) informing that the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi is neither established nor recognized by the Government of India for the purpose of higher study or employment in Government organizations etc. and thereafter, the Director, SCERT, U.P. wrote letter dated 20.8.2010 to the Principal of all the District Institute of Education and Training as well as to the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority enclosing the letters dated 18.8.2010 and 5.11.2009, and instructed that no candidate having obtained certificate from unrecognized Board be allowed to participate in the selection.
As per pleadings in the Appeal, the certificates of Board of Higher Secondary Education, were recognized by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board in view of Chapter-14 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act and that issue, when came up for consideration before this High Court in Writ-A No. 6089 of 2010 (Urmila Devi vs State of U.P. & others), was decided by the Coordinate Bench by allowing the matter vide order dated 5.2.2010.
It is also mentioned in the appeal records before us that respondent No.5 (herein) issued a letter dated 16.9.2010 to the appellant directing that the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi is not in existence and is unrecognized Board, as such, the appointment of the respondent /Writ petitioner be cancelled and the salary already paid to her be recovered.
So far as the letter dated 5.11.2009 written by the Deputy Educational Advisers, Ministry of Human Resource Development is concerned, it clarified that as per the department's record, no letter dated 29.6.2009 was issued in respect of status of recognition of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi and the letter was claimed to be fake. Thus the COBSE was advised to take necessary legal action against the Board for such activities. The other letter dated 28.2.1964, was found to be very old and the department was not able to trace out its reference. Thus the genuineness of the letter was also seriously doubted. Finally, it was informed that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi was neither established nor recognized by the Government of India for the purposes of higher study or employment in Government organization etc. A show cause notice dated 25.9.2010 issued in this regard was replied to by the respondent/Writ petitioner vide her reply dated 11.10.2010 while enclosing the letter dated 28.2.1964 written by Sri P.N. Dheer, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. She also contended that in view of Chapter-14 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the examination of Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi is recognized.
Since the appointment of the respondent/Writ petitioner was neither cancelled nor was her services terminated and rather she was allowed to work continuously, she claimed to be entitled for payment of salary with effect from 10.8.2010.
Learned counsel for appellant could not deny from the appeal record the fact that the certificates in controversy obtained by the respondent from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, on the date when the respondent was admitted in graduation and higher educational courses, on the date of admission in B.Ed course, and on the dates of selection and appointment as teacher, were recognised under Chapter 14 of Regulations framed under U.P.Intermediate Education Act by U.P. Intermediate Education Board. They were, however, de-recognized only in the year 2012 by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that the Government of India had de-recognized the Delhi Board in controversy way back in 1952. In this background learned counsel tried to justify the impugned orders passed on 16.9.2010, 15.5.2011 and 16.7.2011.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that admittedly on the date of admission in graduation and higher education in U.P. as well as on the date of selection and appointment as teacher the certificates of the private respondent issued by the Delhi Board were recognized by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board. As such, when the respondent had worked for about two years after her appointment, it was not open for the authority to rake-up the issue. Thus according to him there was no illegality, whatsoever, in admission to higher education as well as the appointment.
On an anxious consideration given to the back ground of the case; the impugned judgment and the rival submissions; we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference, particularly; for the reason that there is a clear admission that on the date of admission in graduation, post graduation or B.Ed course, the certificates of High School and Intermediate issued by Delhi Board, were fully recognized by the U.P. Board. Even on the date of application for appointment as teacher as well as selection and during two years period when she worked as teacher, those certificates were not in controversy.
Thus, we can see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment which appears to be well founded on factual as well as legal premises. Besides, filing of special appeal is also barred by inordinate delay of five months wherefor, there is also no plausible explanation to satisfy the Court.
Hence, the special appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.
Order Date :- 6.3.2013 Vijay