Dismissed

Jagdamba Devi Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Nov 2022WPSS/618/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court Bench dismissed a writ petition wherein a petitioner, serving as a Siksha Mitra, challenged the rejection of her application for appointment as a Provisional Assistant Teacher due to lack of TET-1 qualification, rejecting her claim for salary parity with regular teachers.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were failed and dismissed, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment and salary.

Jagdamba Devi Joshi Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ K. TIWARI Writ Petition (S/S) No.618 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Jagdamba Devi Joshi

… Petitioner

AND:

State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Petitioners

¶11

(By Mr. Ganesh Kandpal and Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocates)

¶12

Respondents

¶13

(By Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, learned Additional C.S.C.)

¶14

With

¶15

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 619 of 2020 Writ Petition (S/S) No.1787 of 2020 Writ Petition (S/S) No.270 of 2021

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all the petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 618 of 2020 alone are being considered.

¶18

2. Petitioner was engaged as Shiksha Acharya in Education Guarantee Centre, Baishali, Sanda, District Nainital on 4.2.2005. As per the government policy, the said Education Guarantee Centre was subsequently upgraded as Government Primary School. Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 2547 (S/S) of 2019, which

¶19

¶20

was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2019 with a direction to the Director, Elementary Education to look into her grievance and pass appropriate order as per law within ten weeks. The representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Director, Elementary Education vide order dated 29.1.2020. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶21

“1. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the order dated 29.01.2020 contained in Annexure no.11 to the writ petition.

¶22

2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the provisional appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School like other Siksha Mitra.

¶23

3. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the same pay as is being paid other Siksha Mitra i.e. Rs.40425=00 from the date it was granted to the counter part to the petitioner.

¶24

4. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

5. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

¶26

3. In her representation, petitioner had claimed appointment as provisional teacher with the contention that in the past, Siksha Mitra were appointed as provisional teacher in regular pay-scale. The claim made by the petitioner was rejected by Director, Elementary Education vide order dated 29.1.2020. Director has held that vide order dated 4.3.2014, the relaxation from requirement of passing TET (Teachers Eligibility Test) was given to serving Siksha Mitra, who had passed two years D.El.Ed. course and Siksha Mitra

¶27

¶28

who had not passed TET were also appointed in terms of the said order dated 4.3.2014. However, the said letter was subsequently quashed by the writ court vide the judgment dated 15.7.2014. However, in the appeal filed against the said judgment, Division Bench permitted appointment of Siksha Mitra in terms of letter dated 4.3.2014. However, the Division Bench provided that in the order of appointment passed in favour of Siksha Mitra, it shall be mentioned that their appointment is purely provisional and shall remain subject to outcome of the appeal.

¶29

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is discharging same duties as other provisional teachers and she was appointed as Siksha Mitra in 2012, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for appointment as provisional teacher.

¶30

5. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that petitioner obtained Diploma in Elementary Education from Indira Gandhi National Open University in June, 2017. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that although petitioner passed Diploma in Elementary Education in the year 2017, but she could not pass TET-1 till 31.3.2019, therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School. Relevant paragraphs of the said counter affidavit are reproduced below:

¶31

“5. That the petitioner is presently posted as Siksha Mitra in Government Primary School Aghariya, Block Dhari, District Nainital. Petitioner has passed two years D.El.Ed (Diploma in Elementary Education) in 2017 but she has not passed the TET-1 (Teacher Elegibility Test) till 31.3.2019.

¶32

¶33

6. That since the petitioner has not passed the TET-1 till 31.03.2019, therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher of Government Primary School, moreover, it is also not possible to appoint the petitioner as Provisional Assistant Teacher under the provisions of Uttarakhand Elementary Education (Teachers) service Rules 2012 as amended from time to time.

¶34

8. That in said order dated 29.01.2020 it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher of Government Primary School under the rule 9(Two) of Uttarakhand Elementary Education (Teachers) service Rules 2012. The petitioner has compared herself with the provisional Assistant Teachers, who have passed the D.El.Ed. before 18.12.2014 and appointed as provisional Assistant Teachers of Government Primary Schools in compliance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Whereas the petitioner has passed the D.El.Ed. in the year 2017, as such, the petitioner and other provisional Assistant Teachers cannot be compared or equated in any matter.

¶35

9. That by way of the instant writ petition on one hand the petitioner is claiming the benefit of Government Order dated 27.11.2017 while on other hand she herself not passed TET-1 till 31.03.2019 as per the provisions of the said Government Order.

¶36

10. That the petitioner has stated that she is similar to the provisionally appointed Assistant Teachers and also entitled to be appointed as Provisional Assistant Teacher. In this regard it is relevant to mention here that those working Provisional Assistant Teachers, who have not passed their TET-1 till 31.03.2019 are also not remained entitle to be appointed as Regular Assistant Teacher of Government Primary Schools under the prevailing service rules.”

¶37

6. It is thus apparent that the petitioner is seeking parity with Siksha Mitra, who were given regular appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools, however, due to challenge thrown to their appointment before this Court, they were called provisional teacher. Petitioner was not given regular appointment as Assistant Teacher, as she was not meeting the eligibility requirement for regular appointment. Petitioner has claimed appointment as provisional teacher, while the rules do not recognize a separate class of provisional teachers. One can claim appointment to a post as per rules. Admittedly, petitioner does not meet the

¶38

¶39

requirement for appointment as regular teacher. Director, Elementary Education has considered and discussed petitioner’s claim for appointment as provisional teacher in detail and has given valid reasons for rejecting her representation. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with Director’s order, impugned in this writ petition.

¶40

7. Petitioner has also claimed salary as is being paid to other Siksha Mitra, who were given regular appointment. Since petitioner belongs to a different class of teachers and they are yet to be regularly appointed, therefore, their claim for salary, as is being paid to other regular teachers, is unsustainable. Unequals cannot be treated equally. Since petitioners are not appointed on regular basis, therefore, they cannot claim parity with those who are appointed as per rules on the post of Assistant Teacher.

¶41

8. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

¶42

(Manoj KumarTiwari, J.)

¶43

Ravi

Jagdamba Devi Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdamba Devi Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Praveen Salera Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abdul Baneez Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rishipal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Datta Vs Registrar of Companies Uttarakhand

Rahiba Iqbal Vs Secretary Excise Uttarakhand Sashan Dehradun

State of Uttarakhand through Collector Vs Shri Kunwar Singh