Disposed

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge Principal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022WRIA/4918/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged her attachment to the Directorate due to alleged non-possession of a B.Ed. degree, which impacted her eligibility to officiate as Principal. The court did not finally decide the issue but directed the District Magistrate to consider arguments on the mandatory nature of the qualification within two months. Pending the outcome, the court remitted the

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was permitted to raise an objection before the District Magistrate regarding the mandatory nature of B.Ed. qualification for officiating as Principal; the matter was to be decided withi

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4918 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ In-Charge Principal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh,Phool Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Phool Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.2.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Agra and the further order dated 23.2.2021 passed by District Social Welfare Officer (Development), Agra. In short, the petitioner has been transferred/attached at the Directorate of Social Welfare.

¶7

Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (History) at the Government Ashram Padhati Vidyalaya, Itarua, Agra consequent to her selection through UPPSC on 7.8.2019. While working on that post, the petitioner made a complaint alleging sexual harassment against the then District Social Welfare Officer (Development), Agra. That complaint was examined and found to be false. Petitioner has not challenged the correctness of that order rejecting her complaint.

¶8

Grievance of the petitioner is, occasioned by the rejection of her complaint, District Magistrate and the District Social Welfare Officer (Development) acted with vindictiveness. Consequently, they constituted an enquiry against the petitioner which has remained pending and attached the petitioner to the Directorate. Again, as to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, no challenge has been raised

¶9

in the present petition. Therefore, no further observation is required to be made in that regard.

¶10

Confined to the issue of attachment of the petitioner at the Directorate, the impugned communication records only one reason, namely, the petitioner does not hold B.Ed. degree. Therefore, she cannot be allowed to continue at Government Ashram Padhati Vidyalaya, Itarua, Agra. If allowed to continue at that institution, the petitioner being senior most Lecturer, she would have to be given officiating charge of Principal as that post is lying vacant at that institution.

¶11

At present, according to the objection being raised by the petitioner there is nothing in the Government Order dated 6.10.2015 to indicate that B.Ed. qualification is an essential qualification to be held by senior most Lecturer to officiate as Principal at Government Ashram Padhati Vidyalaya, Itarua, Agra.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit, the terms and conditions of the services of the petitioner are governed by U.P. Social Welfare Teacher Service Rules 2009.

¶13

In view of the facts noted above, it may be observed, at present, no punitive action may have been taken against the petitioner pending domestic enquiry proceedings. As to what survives for consideration is, whether B.Ed. qualification was essential to be held by the petitioner to officiate as Principal of the Government Ashram Padhati Vidyalaya, Itarua, Agra. In that regard, it would be desirable, the petitioner may be permitted to raise such objection before the District Magistrate, Agra who may consider the same on the strength of relevant rule and law and pass appropriate reasoned order.

¶14

Further, in case, such eligibility is found to be mandatory, then, in that case, alternatively, District Magistrate, Agra may consider to retain the petitioner at Government Ashram Padhati Vidyalaya, Itarua, Agra on the post of Lecturer, allowing such other eligible Lecturer to officiate as the Principal of that institution. The last observation has been made keeping in mind the fact that no transfer order may have been made by way of punishment. Second, if the petitioner is found to be ineligible, there would be no difficulty in law in allowing the eligible to officiate as Principal though such person is may be junior to the petitioner. The above exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 Prakhar

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.11 09:55:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge Principal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge Principal v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Neetu Singhal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vidyawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri Krishna Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Uma Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another