Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10485 of 2021 Petitioner :- Anupma Yadav Respondent :- District Basic Education And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Respondent No.1-District Basic Education Officer, Budaun (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) so far as renewal of the engagement of the petitioner on the post of teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya, Wajirganj, Budaun has been declined."
The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the nonrenewal of her contract as a full-time teacher in the K.G.B.V. The record reflects that the petitioner was engaged as a full time teacher in the subject of Art and Music. By the impugned order, the fifth respondent, who was initially engaged as a part time teacher to instruct classes in the subject of Home Science, has been absorbed in that capacity to teach the subject of Music and Art.
The Court in its decision rendered in Suneeta Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ-A No.4845 of 2021 decided on 12 August 2021] had an occasion to elaborately notice and deal with the relevant Government orders and policy directives which have come to be issued from time to time by the Union Government, State of U.P. as well as UPEFA and it was found that the subject of Art, Craft and Music was never envisaged or contemplated to be taught by a full time teacher. The prayer of the petitioner, consequently for the renewal of her contract cannot possibly be countenanced.
It would be relevant to extract the following paragraphs from the decision of the Court rendered in Suneeta Singh:-
"It also becomes relevant to note that the executive orders and circulars which came to be issued from inception provided for the appointment of full time and part time teachers for individual subjects. The subjects which are considered to be primary and compulsory were to be taught by full time teachers while secondary subjects were to be taught by part time teachers. In order to ensure that instructions in compulsory subjects were imparted by trained and qualified teachers, essential qualifications were prescribed accordingly. These qualifications have been duly spelt out in the Government Orders of 14 July 2020 and 11 December 2020. As these two orders would establish, full time teachers were to be engaged to teach the subjects of Maths, Science, Language (Hindi and Sanskrit), Social Studies and English. The subjects of Physical Education, Computers and Art/Craft/Music and Woodcraft (a consolidated subject) were to be taught by part time teachers. The essential qualifications for teachers to be engaged to teach compulsory subjects required them to possess a Graduate Training qualification in the concerned stream together with a TET certificate recognised for upper primary classes. These orders further ordained that no separate teacher for a compulsory subject may be hired where the selection of a Warden had come to be made based on her credentials establishing her to be competent to impart instructions in that field. The subject of Home Science came to be merged in "Art/Craft/Music and Woodcraft" and persons who had been initially engaged as full-time teachers based on a qualification held in the subject of Home Science were to be adjusted accordingly.
A major review of the selections and appointments made in KGBV came to be undertaken pursuant to the issuance of the Government Order of 14 July 2020. Upon noticing the various irregularities which had sullied the selection and appointment process, the respondents initiated an in depth review and for placement of existing teachers based on the qualifications held by them. The Court fails to find that action to be tainted either by arbitrariness or any illegality. A teacher who otherwise does not possess the qualification prescribed for a full-time teacher and is ineligible to teach a compulsory subject cannot possibly assert a right to be retained full time. If the Court were to uphold such a claim or recognise such a right it would have a debilitating impact on the economics and effectiveness of a significant scheme formulated by the respondents aimed at providing educational opportunities of an appropriate standard and quality to the girl child. Additionally, the Court holds that assertion of claims like the present must be balanced against the paramount objective of providing qualitative education to girls. The right of employment as asserted by the petitioners if not subordinate must at least give way to the right of education conferred on the child under our Constitution.
In any case, the Court fails to recognise an inherent right in the petitioners to be continued as full time teachers even though their initial engagement was on the basis of their educational qualifications to teach a subject which is no longer earmarked or treated as a compulsory or primary topic "
The challenge to the appointment of fifth respondent also must consequently fail since firstly the petitioner has failed to establish that her absorption was contrary to the government orders which govern the selection and appointment of a teacher under the KGBV. Additionally and in any case since no justification has been established by the petitioner before the Court to invalidate the decision of the respondents not to renew the contract of the petitioner, the Court finds no ground to entertain a challenge to the absorption of the fifth respondent at her behest.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Rakesh