Dismissed

Dr. Sushila v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022WRIA/209/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's claim for officiating charge as a school principal. The Court held that the petitioner lacked the mandatory B.Ed. degree on the date of the vacancy and refused to interfere with the authority's factual findings regarding the respondent's eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.12.2019 rejecting the petitioner's claim for officiating charge is upheld.

Dr. Sushila Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 209 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Sushila Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Sr. Advocate,Dhirendra Singh,Hanuman Prasad Dube,Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi,Rakesh Kumar Gupta,Vipul Dube,Yogesh Kumar Saxena

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Kumar Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel and, Shri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶7

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by respondent no.2/Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh. By that order, the objection raised by the present petitioner to officiating charge of Principal Soni Dhapa Khandelwar Balika Inter College, Mau made over to respondent no.3/District Inspector of Schools, Mau has been rejected.

¶8

Perusal of the impugned order reveals, the post of Principal of the above described institution fell vacant on 31.03.2016 upon retirement of Smt. Rizwana Bano, the earlier Principal of the institution. Vacancy having arisen on that date, it was found, the present petitioner who is senior to respondent no.5 had been appointed Lecturer (Civics) on 01.08.2012 was ineligible as she did not possess B.Ed. degree on the date of vacancy having arisen. Then, the claim of respondent no.5 was accepted that despite the fact that she was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) later than the petitioner, on 03.06.2013, as she was found to have adequate teaching experience of Classes IX to XII.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner did not hold B.Ed. degree on 31.03.2016. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner acquired that qualification in the year 2018. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to be given officiating charge of the Principal of the institution could never have been accepted as she was lacking essential qualification on the

¶10

date of vacancy having arisen.

¶11

Insofar as learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged, respondent no.5 was also not qualified, it is seen, the Joint Director of Education has recorded specific finding that the said respondent not only held the necessary educational qualification namely B.Ed. degree on the date of vacancy but that she had teaching experience of Classes IX to XII for very long time. That period is mentioned as 20 years. Whether that later part of finding as to teaching experience is correct or not is not for the Court to speculate. If the petitioner was seeking to challenge the existence of that eligibility, it was for the petitioner to lay specific challenge to the correctness of the fact finding. To that extent, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the pleading made in paragraph 24 of the writ petition. Perusal of paragraph 24 of the writ petition only indicates, the petitioner has referred to the case of the respondent as had been found by the Joint Director. No challenge whatsoever has been laid to the correctness of the finding so recorded.

¶12

Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, she had acquired the eligibility on the date of order being passed is extraneous to the dispute since eligibility has to be established on the date of the vacancy not on the date of the order.

¶13

In the context of dispute brought to the Court with respect to the officiating charge which is an interim arrangement made pending appointing of the duly selected candidate and considering the scope of judicial review, no further consideration is required to be made by this Court. No case is made out to offer interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 15.12.2022 Prakhar

¶16

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.16 10:06:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Sushila v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sushila 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampyari @ Budhrani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pushpendra Kumar Nim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kaushal Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramlala Singh Shastri Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others