Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard Sri Anirudha Sharma, Advocate, holding brief for Sri H.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Upadhyaya and Sri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners, who are 79 in number, seek to challenge the circular dated 17.1.1996 issued by the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow and Government Order dated 18/23.3.1996 annexed as Annexure Nos. 12 and 13 to the writ petition; respectively.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers (untrained) in different recognized basic schools of District Rampur at fixed pay scale on different dates mentioned in their letters of appointment. The Institutions in which the petitioners were appointed are recognized basic schools, however, they were not receiving any aid from the U.P. Basic Education Board. The service condition of the petitioners are governed by U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.

4. Further case of the petitioners is that there was no restriction on the appointment of untrained teachers in the recognized basic schools wherever trained teachers are not available. The State Government, vide Government Order dated 6.9.1994, introduced a policy for providing training to these untrained teachers of junior and higher basic schools. Under clause 1(3) of the Government Order dated 6.9.1994, it was provided that all the untrained teachers working in the Institutions under the control of U.P. Basic Education Board would be imparted two years training through correspondence course and after completion of the said training, they would have to undergo a written examination. After being successful in the said examination, they would be provided facilities of trained teachers. Another Government Order dated 21.10.1994 was issued whereby clause 1(1) of the earlier Government Order dated 6.9.1994 was amended. However, insofar as clauses (2) and (3) of the earlier Government Order dated 6.9.1994, they remained the same. Meaning thereby that the petitioners have pleaded that by the two Government Orders dated 6.9.1994 and 21.10.1994, the State Government provided facility of training through correspondence course to the untrained teachers working in all the Institutions which are being run under the control of the U.P. Basic Education Board.

6. After having attended the practical training course, while the petitioners were undergoing the correspondence course, they were informed on 10.4.1996 about circular dated 17.1.1996 issued by the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. to the effect that they cannot be allowed to further participate in the training through correspondence course and the said facility was only meant for untrained teachers appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and Urdu Teachers in the schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board and not for other untrained teachers appointed in unaided recognized schools.