Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21146 of 2010 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S. K. S. Kushwaha Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.
Under the impugned order dated 7th April, 2010 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, Bijnor, claim of the petitioner for promotion on
the post of Lecturer (Physics) has been rejected on various grounds.
It is not necessary for the Court to enter into the merits of the grounds,
which have been so recorded under the impugned order, inasmuch as
petitioner is liable to be non-suited only on short ground that he was
not possessed of the requisite teaching experience as L.T. grade
teacher of five years on the first day of year of recruitment and
therefore, in accordance with Rule-14 of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Rules, 1998”), he is ineligible to be considered for promotion. For the
purpose, this Court may record that the District Inspector of Schools
has recorded that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in
Hindu Intermediate College, Nagina, Bijnor, which is a recognised and
aided institution only on 1st September, 2006, while the vacancy on
the post of Lecturer (Physics) has been caused on 30th June, 2009.
On the first day of year of recruitment, petitioner had a teaching
experience of two years and nine months only. So far as the services
rendered by the petitioner in Devta Intermediate College, Morna, Bijnor
and Ram Gopal Ram Chandra Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Nagina
Dhampur, Bijnor (hereinafter referred to as the “institutions”) are
concerned, it has been recorded that the said institutions are not on
the grant-in-aid list and further services rendered therein were not
regular services.
In order to examine the correctness of the findings so recorded by the
District Inspector of Schools, this Court insisted upon the petitioner to
explain as to how he was appointed in the aforesaid institutions and
after following what procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
reply stated that the said institutions are recognised intermediate
colleges, however, they are not on grant-in-aid list. Appointment was
offered to the petitioner by the Management of the institutions after
making advertisement, in accordance with Section 16 E read with
Section 16 F of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The contention has only been raised to be rejected, inasmuch as on
pointed query made by this Court as to whether any Selection
Committee as required under Section 16 F (7) with three nominees of
the Regional Joint Director of Education was constituted before
selecting the petitioner or not, the answer given is in negative. This
Court may further clarify that Section 16 E read with Section 16 F (5) of
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that applications
are to be made before the District Inspector of Schools and the same
are to be processed and thereafter forwarded to the Committee of
Management. The Selection Committee is to make its
recommendation to the Committee of Management from the
candidates who have so applied.
In the facts of the present case, none of the provisions of Section 16 E
read with Section 16 F appear to be satisfied. Appointment offered to
the petitioner being de hors the statutory provisions, would therefore,
confer no right in favour of the petitioner to contend that the
experience gained because of such illegal appointment to be taken
into consideration for satisfying the requirement of Rule 14 of Rules,
1998.
In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the District Inspector of
Schools is affirmed.
The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 10.5.2010
Sushil/-