Dismissed

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2019SPLA/535/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal was dismissed. The Single Judge's findings were upheld that the appellant did not possess the minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher. The alleged violation of natural justice due to lack of an interim order was rejected as it had no bearing on the substantive qualification issue.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed. No order as to cost.

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 535 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nand Lal Pandey,Suyash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Sengar

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

¶6

We find that the findings recorded by learned Single Judge regarding the minimum qualification is correct.

¶7

The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School. He was aggrieved by order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 8.3.2002 whereby he had declined to grant the approval on the ground that the petitioner does not have an essential qualification as he has said to have been obtained a B.Ed decree from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth, Allahabad, which was not recognized to grant any such decree.

¶8

In view of the said fact, the Basic Shiksha Adhikhari found that the petitioner lack essential qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher under the provisions of Basic Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶9

The said order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition wherein no interim order was passed by this Court. Thus, the petitioner was not paid any salary from the salary payment account after the impugned order has been passed in the year 2002.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has very clearly submitted that since no interim order was passed in the writ petition, the appellant has not received any salary from the salary payment account.

¶11

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Suyash Pandey, learned standing counsel and perused the material on record.

¶12

Learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner does not have qualification in terms of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.

¶13

Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1978 reads as under:

¶14

"4. Minimum Qualifications.- (1) The minimum qualifications for the post of assistant teacher of recognised school shall be Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination (with Hindi and teacher's training course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as (Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training).

¶15

(2) The minimum qualification for the appointment to the post of Headmaster of a recognised school shall be as follows:

¶16

(a) A degree from a recognised University or an equivalent examination recognised as such:

¶17

(b) A teacher's training course recognised by the State Government or the Board, such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate; and

¶18

(c) Three years teaching experience in a recognised schools.

¶19

5. Eligibility for appointment.- No person shall be appointed as Headmaster or assistant teacher in any recognised school unless-

¶20

(a) he possesses the minimum qualification prescribed for such post;

¶21

(b) he is recommended for such appointment by the Selection Committee."

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy us that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in respect of the essential qualification suffers from any illegality.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Even if this fact is correct, that opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. There are some exception to the principal of natural justice.

¶24

The Supreme Court in the case of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 and Aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529 has held that doctrine of useless formalities can be invoked in some of the cases as an exception to the natural justice.

¶25

The judgment of the Aligarh University has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that if no difference can be found even after giving opportunity the petitioner can be given the opportunity by the Court itself.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court that, if opportunity had been given to him, he would have satisfied the authority concerned that his B.Ed. degree is a valid

¶27

degree.

¶28

In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there is a violation of natural justice, has no force.

¶29

In view of the above, we find that order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition does not warrant any interference in instant Special Appeal.

¶30

Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed.

¶31

No order as to cost.

¶32

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 AKJ

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Singh and Another Vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

Nagar Nigam Bareilly and Another Vs Guru Prasad Saxena

Rajkumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

siyawati Vs state of u.p. and 3 others

C/M Babu Singh Vidhyalaya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others