Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7-A. Recognition of an institution in any new subject or for a higher class.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (4) of Section 7---
(a) the Board may, with the prior approval of the State Government, recognise an institution in any new subject or group of subjects or for a higher class.

8. For the purposes of management of such, a recognized institution, a Scheme of Administration has to be drawn up by which the institution shall be managed as provided under Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Thus, the provision of an approved Scheme of Administration is mandatory. The aforesaid is also evident from the detailed conditions required to be fulfilled for grant of recognition by the Board contained in Chapter-VII of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Regulation 9 of Chapter-VII provides as a condition precedent that the Scheme of Administration for managing the institution should be approved by the competent authority. The most relevant regulation for the purposes of the present controversy is Regulation 11(b) of the said Chapter which provides for that the entire teaching staff of the institution, which means a recognized institution, shall be appointed in accordance with the qualifications for such Teachers as provided in Appendix-A of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Clause (c) of the said Regulation further provides that the institution shall be obliged to comply with the conditions of the education code and Clause (d) of the said Regulation indicates that the institution shall be obliged to carry out all directions by the department. The aforesaid terms and conditions, therefore, apply with immediate effect upon recognition being granted by the Board. The Act also makes provisions for penal action in the event it is found that an institution has (sic) the aforesaid terms & conditions. The provision, which is relevant to the issue, is Section 16-D(3) (II). This provision empowers the Board to with-draw recognition on the ground that the Management has failed to appoint teaching staff possessing necessary qualifications or has retained in service teaching or non-teaching staff in contravention of the provisions of 1921 Act and the Regulations framed there under. The provisions of Section 16-G make it mandatory that every person employed in a recognized institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by regulation. This is further fortified by another mandatory provision contained in Regulation 14(g) which provides that the scheme shall also provide that all the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the institution shall be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed there under. The mode of appointment of the head of the institution and Teachers is provided in Chapter III and the qualifications to be possessed for being appointed in a recognized institution either by direct recruitment or otherwise shall be as provided in Appendix-A to Chapter II of the Regulations.

21. The aforesaid Government Order became subject matter of scrutiny in 2 decisions of this Court. Clause 5 of the said Government order was found to be in consistent with the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and was held to be ultra vires in the decision of Ramesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 17422 of 2003 decided on 23.5.2003.

22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the Government Order dated 23.11.2001 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education, in respect of the dependents of Teachers, who have died-in-harness while serving in the primary section attached to an Intermediate College. This Government Order clearly recites that the primary sections attached to Intermediate Colleges are part and parcel of the institution and, as such, the dependents of such Teachers, who have died-in-harness while working in the primary section are entitled to seek appointment from the District Inspector of Schools for which Rules and Regulations are contained in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Thus, even for primary schools the State Government recognizes the applicability of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act on such Teachers. The said Government Order is only by way of an illustration, as the present case is a case of upgradation of a Junior High School to High School.

23. The Intermediate Education Act 1921 makes a provision for consideration of promotion of Teachers in JTC and BTC grade to CT grade. Since CT grade has been declared to be a dying cadre, therefore, the said benefits are available as a LT grade Teachers, This provision is contained in Regulation 7 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The regulations had been deleted but have been reintroduced through a Government Order dated 26.2.2003 and 1.12.2003 whereby the aforesaid Regulations were amended. The said amendments are subject matter of controversy before this Court in Special Appeal No. 931 of 2005 in which orders are operating in favour of such promotees in the LT grade. The reference to the aforesaid is relevant in the context of the decision of this Court in the case of Samantika haterjee v. R.I.G.S. Allahabad reported in (1990) 1 UPLBEC 289, and in the case of Smt. Aruna Ghosh reported in 1995 (3) ESC 92. The aforesaid decisions consider the impact of the amendment brought about in the word institution in Section 2(b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and qualified that the previous decisions as referred to therein including the decision in the case of Pramila Mishra by the Apex Court had not considered the aforesaid amendment brought about in the definition referred to herein above.

25. A question arose with regard to applicability of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act in respect of appointment of class 3 post in an upgraded institution. This Court clearly ruled that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act 1921 would apply and followed the ratio laid down in the case of Shiksha Prasad Samiti (supra). The decision is reported in 2000 (4) ESC 2768, R.C. Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors.

26. This issue was further raised in the case of Vishwanath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, and Ors. 1995 (1) UPLBEC 269. In para 12 of the said decision the Court clearly ruled that in case the institution is upgraded to High School then it will be governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act instead of other provisions which might have been applicable earlier to the Teachers of the Junior High School.