Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Ayaz Ahmad & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 29 January, 2010
Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4137 of 2010

Petitioner :- Ayaz Ahmad & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Tej Bhan Singh
 Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though the appointment of the
petitioners have been made in the Primary School governed by U.P. Basic
Education Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “1981 Rules”) after
the enforcement of the said Rules but the petitioners, admittedly, are
untrained. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
appointments are covered by some executive orders issued by State
Government though he could not show that there is any provision in 1981
Rules which permits relaxation of training qualification for making
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Primary Schools. He also
could not dispute that Rule 10 of 1981 Rules, which empowers the
Government to relax training qualification is not applicable in the case in
hand since none of the petitioners is covered by the various categories
prescribed therein. This Court has already held in its judgment dated
17.12.2008 passed in Special Appeal No. 10 of of 2007 that the provisions for
providing training subsequently to those Teachers who were appointed as
untrained Teachers shall apply only to such teachers who were appointed
before the enforcement of rules providing training qualification but those who
were appointed after the enforcement of recruitment rules in violation thereof,
having not possessed training qualification, they cannot be required to sent for
training as the appointment itself was illegal. It may be pointed out that
against the order dated 17.12.2008 a recall application was also filed which
was rejected by Division Bench of this Court by a detailed judgement dated
4.9.2009. It further appears that against the judgment dated 17.12.2008 in
Special Appeal No. 10 of 2007, Special Leave Petition No. 20691 of 2009
was filed which has also been dismissed by the Apex Court on 17.12.2009.
In my view, the law laid down therein fully apply to this case also though
there the matter relates to U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 and U.P.
Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions
of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and the present case is governed by 1981
Rules but the exposition of law is fully applicable to this case also and,
therefore, I find no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner in the case in
hand. The Government Orders which provide for limited benefit for the
teachers getting appointment on compassionate basis are admittedly covered
by the provisions of rule 10 of 1981 Rules. In absence of any provision of
relaxation for categories other than those covered by Rule 10, no relief can be
granted to the petitioners. Dismissed.

Dt. 29.1.2010
PS-4137/2010


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

12 queries in 0.618 seconds.