Allahabad High Court
Ambarish Sharan Gupta vs State Of U.P.Thr.Secy Education And 2 ... on 19 September, 2019
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 17 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1640 of 2007 Petitioner :- Ambarish Sharan Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Secy Education And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpila Bisht,Rajiv Dubey,Vishal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devendra Singh,S W H Rizvi Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 and 2. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no.3.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 24.01.2007, whereby the District Basic Education Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri (opposite party no.3) has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not have requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher as required under the provisions of U.P. Teachers' Service Rule, 1981. The petitioner, inter alia, has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Basic Education) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.09.2002.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher in Subhash Shiksha Sadan, Gola Gokaranath, Kheri on 01.07.1989 and when the benefits of Government Order dated 06.09.1994 read with Government Order dated 21.10.1994 have not been provided, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No.6892 (SS) of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2003 with a direction to the opposite party no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.12.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submits that in compliance of the order of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and decided. While deciding the representation of the petitioner, the District Basic Education Officer has not considered the provisions of the Government Order dated 06.09.1994 read with Government Order dated 21.10.1994 and illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has already been completed 10 years of service in teaching but the said fact has not been considered the opposite party no.3 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Government Order dated 21.10.1994 and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The District Basic Education Officer while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has recorded cogent reasons. The petitioner has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as required in the advertisement dated 06.09.2002. Therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
For ready reference, the Government Order dated 21.10.1994 is reproduced as under:
" isz"kd] vkyksd jatu] f'k{kk lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] 1- f'k{kk funs'kd ek0] mRrj izns'k] bykgkckn@y[kuÅA 2- f'k{kk funs'kd cs0 mRrj izns'k] bykgkckn@y[kuÅA f'k{kk 13 vuqHkkxA y[kuÅ% fnukad 21 vDVwcj] 1994 fo"k;% mRrj izns'k] csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds fu;a=.kk/khu izkFkfed@mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa] xSj ljdkjh ekU;rk izkIr ek/;fed@mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa] jktdh; fo|ky;ksa rFkk lgk;rk izkIr ckydksa@ckfydkvksa ds ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ls lEc) izkbejh fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr vizf'kf{kr v/;kidksa@v/;kfidkvksa dks ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k ls NwV fn;k tkuk vFkok mUgs lsokjr izf'k{k.k iznku fd;k tkukA egksn;] eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd csfld f'k{kk ls lEcfU/kr fofHkUu Js.kh ds fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr vizf'kf{kr v/;kidksa@v/;kfidkvksa dks ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k ls eqDr fd;s tkus vFkok mUgs lsokjr izf'k{k.k iznku fd;s tkus ls lEcfU/kr mijksDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k 742@15&13&95&1499 8@7 fnukad 6& flracj] 1994 }kjk lalwfpr 'kklu ds rhu fu.kZ;ksa esa ls izi= fu.kZ; ds LFkku ij iwuZfopkjksijkUr fuEuor fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%& ftu v/;kidksa@v/;kfidkvksa dh vuor lsok fnukad 1&9&94 dks 10 o"kZ gks x;h gS vFkok ftudh lsok lekfIr esa ek= nks o"kZ jg x;s gksa] mUgs izf'k{k.k ls eqfDr iznku dh tk;sxhA ,sls v/;kidksa@v/;kfidkvksa ds lEcU/k esa izf'k{k.k ls eqfDRk ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr e.Myh; lgk;d f'k{kk funs'kd cs0 rFkk e.Myh; mi f'k{kk funs'kd }kjk fuxZRk fd;s tk;saxsA 2- mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 6-9-1994 }kjk lalwfpr f}rh; rFkk r`rh; fu.kZ; ;Fkkor jgsaxsA 3- d`i;k rnuqlkj lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa ds laKku esa ykrs gq, vko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;A Hkonh;
vkyksd jatu f'k{kk lfpoAß The aforesaid Government Order dated 21.10.1994 provides that those persons, who have completed 10 years of regular teaching prior to 01.09.1994 or have two years service left prior to retirement would be entitled for exemption from undergoing training. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1989 and the cut off date for qualifying 10 years of service is 01.09.1994. Hence, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of teaching service as per the Government Order dated 21.10.1994 and, therefore, he has not been given the exemption from undergoing training. For the reasons stated above, I find force in the submissions of learned Standing Counsel that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the District Basic Education Officer has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2019 akverma