Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary-Basic Education and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024SPLA/349/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a special appeal challenging a writ order that upheld the removal of a teacher appointed based on an unrecognised degree. The court found no palpable infirmity in the lower court's ruling following Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed without interference with the impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge.

Dinesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124422-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 349 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary-Basic Education And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Mohan Singh,Ratnesh Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent.

¶7

Present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 is preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 04.03.2024 in Writ-A No. 12534 of 2023 (Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.), the operative portion of which, for ready reference, is quoted as under:-

¶8

"11. Heard learned Advocates for parties and perused the record.

¶9

12. Facts of present case are not disputed that the petitioner has passed Shiksha Alankar (Bachelor of Education, B.Ed.) from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur which was not recognised. This Court in the year 2011, in Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya (supra) has passed mandamus to remove all such persons who got appointment on basis of such degree.

¶10

13. The judgement relied upon by the petitioners are based on individual facts of case whereas in the present case, there are judgements which are specific on the issue against the petitioners. As referred above, in Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya (supra), a general mandamus was issued.

¶11

14. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Surya Prakash Pandey (supra) has held that if no recognition is ever granted to qualification of Shiksha Alankar (Bachelor of Education, B.Ed.) from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur equivalent to Bachelors Degree in education, then there is no question of recognition of same.

¶12

15. Above referred order was upheld by the Supreme Court in Surya Prakash Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25551 of 2018 decided on 02.09.2022.

¶13

16. In view of above referred legal position, undisputedly the petitioner's degree of Shiksha Alankar (Bachelor of Education, B.Ed.) from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is not a recognised degree, therefore, he is not qualified to become an Assistant Teacher, therefore, no circumstance exists to take a different view.

¶14

17. Therefore, impugned order cannot be interfered.

¶15

18. So far as prayer in regard to recovery of salary is concerned, there is no such direction in the impugned order, therefore, at this stage, no relief could be granted to petitioner.

¶16

19. However, in case any action is taken for recovery of salary, petitioner will be at liberty to avail a legally permissible remedy.

¶17

20. With above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. "

¶18

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant vehemently contended that merely on the basis of a report of Special Task Force without conducting any disciplinary proceedings, dispensation of services of the appellant by an exparte order after more than 30 years of initial appointment with utmost satisfaction of the employer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the objection taken against the initial appointment of the appellant/petitioner was after almost 30 years and at no point of time, any fraud or misrepresentation had been exercised by the appellant while obtaining appointment. The appellant had obtained 'Shiksha Alankar' degree from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur on the basis of which the respondents granted appointment to the appellant. He lastly submits that even otherwise appointment of teachers in Junior High School have also been made as untrained teacher, such untrained teachers are sanctioned trained pay scale after completion of 10 years.

¶19

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that the appellant's initial engagement/appointment is per se unsustainable as he had acquired 'Shiksha Alankar' degree from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur and claimed the said degree as equivalent to B.Ed degree. The question as to whether 'Shiksha Alankar' is a degree equivalent to B.Ed. was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.29888 of 2011 (Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya vs. State of UP and other) vide judgment dated 19.7.2011, wherein, this Court has held no such equivalence could be accorded and even directed Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P. to forward a copy of the order along with the copies of the judgment in the case of Gulam Rasul Warsi (supra) to all the DIOS, Regional Director of Education through out the State of Uttar Pradesh with a specific direction that all teachers appointed in a recognized and aided Intermediate College with a degree of 'Shiksha Alankar' granted by Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur shall immediately be removed from service. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs whereof are quoted as under:-

¶20

"This Court in Gulam Rasul Warsi v. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 26807 of 2004 vide judgment and order dated 2.11.2004 has held that the degree of Shiksha Alankar from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur which is an un-recognized institution is

¶21

not equivalent to B.Ed. qualification. A further direction was issued to the Chief Standing Counsel to take immediate steps to prosecute the Sansthan and other persons engaged by the Sansthan. Reference may also be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Public Interest No. 56676 of 2007 Vidyawasini Upadhyay v . State of U.P. and others wherein the degree granted by Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan has been held to be a bogus qualification. It appears that the judgments which are delivered by this Court in respect of such fraudulent institutions are treated to be waste paper by the State as no action appears to be taken against such institution and the persons like the petitioner who obtain appointment on such bogus qualification. The Secretary shall hold an enquiry in the matter of appointment of Raj Nath Ram and his continuance in accordance with law.

¶22

The Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P. is directed to forward a copy of this order along with the copies of the judgment in the case of Gulam Rasul Warsi (supra) to all the DIOS, Regional Director of Education through out the State of Uttar Pradesh with a specific direction that all teachers appointed in a recognized and aided Intermediate College with a degree of 'Shiksha Alankar' granted by Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur shall immediately be removed from service and it shall be ensured that no further payment of salary is made to them.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/which may be recovered by the State from the petitioner."

¶24

(Emphasis supplied)

¶25

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgement was assailed in appeal and the same has also attained finality upto Apex Court. Later on, identical issue has also been considered in Surya Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ A No. 22097 of 2012) and vide judgment and order dated 3.3.2016, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The said order has also been approved upto Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 25551/2018 vide order dated 2.9.2022. He submits that the controversy in hand is no more res integra and learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded to non-suit claim of the appellant/petitioner.

¶26

Heard rival submissions and perused the record in question.

¶27

The record reveals that challenging the judgment dated 19.7.2011 passed by this Court in Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya (supra), one Surya Prakash Pandey who had instituted Writ A No. 22097 of 2012, earlier filed Special Appeal No. 938 of 2012, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 17.12.2012. Later on Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur has filed a Writ-C No. 39004 of 2009 (Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan vs. State of UP and another), which was dismissed by Hon'ble Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2009, which is quoted as under:-

¶28

"Petitioner runs an organization in the name and style of Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan at Saket Nagar in District Kanpur. According to petitioner, it is running

¶29

educational courses namely Shiskhaalankar which is equivalent to B.Ed. degree and Shiksha Praveshika which is equivalent to P.T.C. course.

¶30

It may be mentioned here that the petitioner has not got the aforesaid courses recognized either from National Council for Teachers Education which is the statutory body to give recognition to such courses or the petitioner is affiliated to any University for grant of such degrees. Petitioner's institution has rightly closed down. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.

¶31

The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly dismissed."

¶32

(Emphasis supplied)

¶33

A reference may also be made to an order dated 17.4.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 19056 of 2012 (C/M Kisan Inter College Rasoolpur Tareta Thru' Manager vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Secondary Education & Others), whereby it has been noticed that against the judgment in Vinod Kumar's case (supra), a Special Appeal No. 1875 of 2011 has been filed. Order dated 17.4.2012 passed Writ Petition No. 19056 of 2012 is quoted as under:-

¶34

"This petition has been received at High Court at Allahabad after transfer from Lucknow Bench of this Court. Appearance has been put in by Shri Uma Nath Pandey on behalf of the petitioner and it is stated that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶36

However, it is clarified that the Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the Special Appeal No. 1875 of 2011 against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2011 passed by Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29888 of 2011; Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. & others has not stayed the part of the direction issued asking the Secretary, Secondary Education to forward a copy of the judgment in the case of Gulam Rasool Warsi vs. State of U.P. being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26807 of 2004 to all subordinate authorities decided on 02.11.2004 so that all such teachers/ persons appointed/working in recognized Intermediate Colleges who have been appointed on the basis of Shiksha Alankar Degree granted by the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur are removed.

¶37

The Secretary (Secondary Education) must ensure strict compliance of the judgment and there should be no leniency in the matter. Standing Counsel may communicate the order passed today to the Secretary."

¶38

(Emphasis supplied)

¶39

For ready reference order dated 27.9.2011 passed in Special Appeal No. 1875 of 2011 (Vinod Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of UP and others), which is also quoted as under:-

¶40

"Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant

¶41

vehemently contended that the appointment of the appellant was the subject matter to challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No. 26120 of 1997 wherein the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.2.2001 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 24.7.1997 cancelling the appointment of the appellant as L.T. Grade Teacher. He further submitted that the aforesaid order was also affirmed in Special Appeal No. (192) of 2001 vide order dated 11.4.2001 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error in again going into the issue of his appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher.

¶42

Admit.

¶43

No notice is required to be issued to the respondents as respondent nos. 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel and respondent no. 4 is represented by Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N.C. Tripathi. They are granted six weeks' time to give reply to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in the appeal.

¶44

Considering the submissions made and looking to the facts of the case, in the meanwhile, it is provided that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.7.2011 commanding the respondents to recover the salary from the appellant for the period he had already worked and also to lodge the First Information Report, shall be kept in abeyance until further orders of this Court. It is further provided that the imposition of cost shall also remain stayed."

¶45

We find that the Division Bench in the aforementioned matter had intervened in the order dated 19.7.2011 only to the extent not to recover the salary from the appellant for the period he had already worked and also not to lodge the First Information Report, until further orders of this Court. It is, therefore, very much clear that although the Special Appeal No. 1875 of 2011 is pending but the direction has been given in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) directing the State Authorities to remove all the persons having 'Shiksha Alankar' degree has not been stayed.

¶46

In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶47

In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶48

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 NLY

¶49

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary-Basic Education and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary-Basic Education 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Sonkar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravis Babu and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Kamal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others

Anamika Devi @ Rani and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt Urmila Devi vs State of Up and 7 Others

Jahanara @ Jahanara Ahmed vs State of Up and 3 Others