Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1707 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abushad Shamsi Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Muqeem Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal,Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking relief in the nature of quo-warranto and for restraining respondent no.5 from functioning as Assistant Teacher (Art) in Shibli National Inter College, Azamgarh. This petition has been filed questioning the appointment of respondent no.5 made on 2.7.1990. It is after about 29 years that a challenge has been made to appointment of respondent no.5 on the ground that he has misrepresented facts and the B.Sc. mark sheet issued to him in the year 1985 vide roll no.68488 contains interpolation. Submission is that name of the father of respondent no.5 is actually 'Mohd. Isha' whereas in the tabulation chart of the University the name of father of respondent no.5 is shown as Idrish. It is on this ground that the appointment itself has been assailed by respondent no.5.
One of the objections raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of respondent no.5, as also the University is that the qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, Drawing in L.T. Grade as per Appendix 'A' to the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is intermediate in Drawing with Bombay Arts. It is submitted that B.Sc. is not an essential qualification for appointment to the post in question. Submission is that the correctness or otherwise of the name of father of the respondent no.5 in the B.Sc. certificate, therefore, has no concern so far as his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher is concerned. Reliance has also been placed upon a letter sent by the District Inspector of Schools wherein also the officer concerned has stated that the qualification for the post is intermediate and the dispute with regard to correctness or otherwise of B.Sc. certificate would not be material.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, places reliance upon a Govt. Order dated 28.2.1999 as per which additional qualification of graduation/post-graduation has been prescribed for Assistant Teachers engaged in L.T. Grade. Learned counsel further submits that in view of such Govt. Order the graduation qualification assumes significance and the matter is required to be examined.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gajendra Prata, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S. K. Paliwal for the respondent no.5, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh & Sri B. D. Pandey, learned counsels for the respective Universities and learned Standing Counsel for the State, and have perused the materials brought on record.
The institution in question is recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the qualification warranted for a teacher stands clearly prescribed in the Appendix attached to the Act itself. It is not in issue that the qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher is intermediate in drawing with Bombay Art. No subsequent amendment has been placed before the Court which may show that the prescription of qualification as per the statutory scheme has since been amended so as to include a higher qualification of graduation. It is otherwise settled that in hierarchy of law a Govt. Order would be subservient to the statutory regulations or the Appendix attached to the Act itself. The Govt. Order dated 28.2.1999 appears to have been issued sanctioning a higher pay scale after completion of 10 years in the Lecturer scale of pay. It is in that context that qualification of graduation/post- graduation appears to have been insisted upon inasmuch as the qualification for appointment in Lectures grade would be a post-graduation. It is admitted that respondent no.5 has neither been appointed as Lecturer nor he is being paid salary in the Lecturer grade. In such view of the matter the Govt. Order dated 28.2.1999 has no applicability in the facts of the present case.
It may otherwise be noticed that in the certificate which has been issued for B.Sc. to respondent no.5 his name is correctly recorded as Afaq Ahmad and his parentage is not recorded in the degree issued to him by the University concerned. The tabulation chart or other records, therefore, need not be examined by this Court in order to establish the identity of the petitioner or to ascertain as to whether such degree has been issued to respondent no.5, particularly when the qualification itself is not shown to be an essential qualification for appointment to the post in question. This petition, therefore, filed after 29 years of appointment of respondent no.5 is not liable to be entertained.
Writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Ashok Kr.