Allowed

Neetu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2018WRIA/7661/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dispensing with her services as Assistant Teacher due to non-recognition of her Secondary and Intermediate certificates from Madhya Bharat Board. Relying on a prior Writ Bench decision, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the ineligibility order and directing fresh consideration within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; second respondent directed to take a fresh decision on petitioner's appointment claim within six weeks.

Neetu Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7661 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Neetu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Deo Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri R.B. Yadav appears for respondent nos.2 to 5.

¶6

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the second respondent i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Agra, whereby the services of the petitioner as Asstt. Teacher has been dispensed with on the ground that the certificates submitted by the petitioner issued by the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior (MP) is not equivalent to the High School and Intermediate certificates issued by the Secondary Education Board, U.P. Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy in hand is squarely covered with the judgment dated 10.03.2017 passed in Writ-A No.11419 of 2017 (Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and in view of the said judgment the impugned order cannot sustain. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.03.2017 is quoted as under:-

¶8

"Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri S.K. Verma for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. With their consent, this writ petition is being decided finally, without inviting a formal counter affidavit.

¶9

The petitioner has appeared for selection on the post of Assistant Teacher in pursuance of a Notification dated 16 June 2016. He appeared for the counselling held on 17 August 2016 in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad. He was required to deposit his original testimonials, which the petitioner did. However, he was not issued appointment letter. On enquiry, it transpired that his name was included in the list of ineligible candidates. The ground on which the petitioner has been declared ineligible is that he has done his High School and Intermediate from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharata, Gwalior in the year 2005 and 2007 respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶10

According to the petitioner, the High School and Intermediate degree being awarded by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, was duly recognised by the Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad, up to the year 2011, when a resolution was passed in the meeting of the Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. held on 29 September 2011 to de-recognise the said Board. It is urged that the degree obtained by the petitioner prior to the said proposal is to be duly recognised as valid, as the derecognition cannot operate retrospectively. Apart from the said contention, he further submitted that on the basis of these qualifications, the petitioner has passed B.Com. from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, and had thereafter, undergone two years of Special BTC training course. The petitioner further claims that he has also passed the U.P.T.E.T. - 2015. It is urged that Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, from where he has done his graduation duly recognises the High School and Intermediate degrees awarded by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, as valid qualifications for admission to the graduation course. The B.Com. degree of the

¶11

petitioner has not been cancelled by the University, therefore, the stand taken by the respondents is wholly illegal. He has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dhanpal and others Versus State of U.P. & others, 2013 (8) ADJ 723 (FB), wherein, it has been held as under: -

¶12

"53...............Thus, in view of the law noticed herein above, providing retrospectivity to the amendment in the Regulations would be completely unjustified inasmuch as the equivalence earlier accorded to "Adhikari Pariksha", up to the year 2008, by the U.P. Board, in exercise of its power under Section 15 read with Section 7 of the Act, 1921, has conferred rights of enduring character on persons who pursued the course and obtained such certificates, and such right having vested in them cannot be extinguished by mere deletion of Entry No.30 from Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, particularly, in absence of any statutory intendment to make it applicable from retrospective effect. Providing retrospectivity to such an amendment would play havoc with the life and career of innumerable persons who, on the strength of Adhikari Pariksha certificate, have pursued and obtained higher qualifications."

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 admits that the derecognition of the degrees being awarded by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, was in pursuance of the decision taken on 29 September 2011 and that the petitioner had obtained the High School and Intermediate degrees from the said Board before the said decision. He also does not dispute that the decision relating to derecognition cannot operate retrospectively, as held by the Full Bench in Dhanpal and others (supra).

¶14

Concededly, the petitioner has obtained the High School and Intermediate qualification from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, much before the degree being awarded by the said Board were de-recognised. The petitioner has also pursued his further qualifications on the basis of the degrees awarded by the said Board. The University from which the petitioner had done his graduation duly recognises the said qualification as valid qualification for admission to the graduate course. In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned decision by the respondents declaring the petitioner ineligible is wholly illegal and is hereby quashed. The third respondent is directed to take a fresh decision in regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."

¶16

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that admittedly the petitioner has done her High School in 1998 and Intermediate in 2000. She has completed her graduation degree from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in the year 2012. She has also obtained Basic Training Certificate in the year 2014.

¶17

It is admitted that the petitioner has obtained the High School and Intermediate qualification from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, much before the degree being awarded by the said Board were de-recognised. The petitioner has also pursued her further qualifications on the basis of the degrees awarded by the said Board. The University from which the petitioner had done her graduation duly recognises the said qualification as valid qualification for admission to the graduate course. In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned decision by the respondents declaring the petitioner ineligible is wholly illegal and is hereby quashed. The second respondent is directed to

¶18

take a fresh decision in regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 13.3.2018 SP/

Neetu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kisan Education Society and Another Vs State of U.P. and 04 others

Ramashray Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Geeta Mahor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anirudha Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pammi Raghav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faujdar Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others