Allowed

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Directorate of School Education and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022WRIA/13257/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the selection of a private respondent for a Trained Graduate Teacher (Agriculture) post without a B.Ed. degree. The Court held that B.Ed. was an essential qualification from the advertisement and quashed the appointment, directing the respondent to revisit selection based on eligible candidates within three months.

What did the court decide?

Appointment quashed; directed respondent to revisit selection and offer appointment to eligible candidates within three months.

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Directorate of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13257 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Respondent :- Directorate Of School Education And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Upadhyay, Tapendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Shashank Shekhar Singh, A.B.N. Tripathi, T. Islam

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the University; Shri T. Islam, learned counsel for the private respondent no.5 and, learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

Present petition has been filed to challenge the selection of private respondent no.5 for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Agriculture) under Advertisement No. Local 03/2022/DSE dated 20.05.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Advertisement) at AMU School for the Session 2022-23.

¶9

In short, it is the objection of the petitioner that the private respondent no.5 does not possess essential eligibility qualification namely, B.Ed. degree from a recognized University.

¶10

Having heard learned learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, Clause F of the Advertisement reads as below:

¶11

"F. Qualifications for Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) & Trained Graduate Part Time Teacher TGT-PTT (AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES):

¶12

Age Limit: 35 years. No upper age bar in the case of employees of the AMU Schools. Age relaxation as applicable under the Govt. of India rules.

¶13

Educational Qualification:

¶14

Essential:

¶15

1. Bachelor's Degree in Agricultural or equivalent from a recognized University with atleast 50% marks.

¶16

2. B.Ed. Degree or equivalent from a recognized University.

¶17

3. Proficiency in teaching in English Hindi and Urdu languages.

¶18

Desirable:

¶19

1. Post Graduate degree with atleast 50% marks

¶20

2. Working knowledge of computer application."

¶21

Therefore, there can be no quarrel to the fact submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that B.Ed. degree was an essential qualification for the purpose of appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher, at AMU School.

¶22

Submission of learned counsel for private respondent no.5 that there is no B.Ed. degree in Agricultural Sciences awarded by any University and therefore prescription of that qualification is an impossible condition to fulfill, carries no weight. Plain reading of the eligibility condition requires possession of B.Ed. degree. The branch in which such degree may have been obtained was not specified in the Advertisement. Therefore, it is not the eligibility condition prescribed that the candidate must have obtained B.Ed. degree in the subject/field Agricultural Sciences.

¶23

It is sufficient to note, the B.Ed. degree in any stream would establish eligibility. The fact that there may have been certain subjects with respect to which such degree may be awarded by various Universities would not lead to an extension sought to be made by learned counsel for private respondent that unless the B.Ed. degree in Agricultural Sciences is seen awarded by any University, that qualification would be impossible to fulfill.

¶24

For the present purposes, it has to be accepted, B.Ed. degree in any subject would suffice, subject to fulfillment of other

¶25

eligibility conditions.

¶26

Upon query, learned counsel for the University has fairly stated, there is nothing on record of the University to establish, either that the eligibility condition had been relaxed generally or that any exemption could have been granted or was granted to respondent no.5 (by virtue of his having status of internal candidate). The said respondent does not hold a B.Ed. degree. Once the eligibility qualification was clearly specified under the Advertisement, that must be shown to exist or else no selection could have arisen, contrary to that.

¶27

Also, submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that the selection made is wholly temporary, carries no weight. Once the selection was required to be made in accordance with law, irrespective of the term for which it may have been made, that law must be seen to be fully applied. In any case, it is apparent that the respondent no.5 has continued on temporary basis for some time i.e. since 2020 against annual renewal/re-appointment.

¶28

In view of the above, present petition succeeds. It is allowed . The appointment is quashed with a direction to respondent no.2 to revisit the selection pursuant to the Advertisement and offer appointment to such eligible person as may be available keeping in mind the relative merit position of all candidates. Only, in case, no such candidate is available, it may remain open to the respondent University to issue fresh advertisement to make fresh appointment. The aforesaid exercise may be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.12.2022 Prakhar

¶30

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.09 09:55:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Directorate of School Education and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Directorate of School Education and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithilesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Udaivir Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ram Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rupak kumar jain Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Narayan Pandey Vs State of U P and 5 Others