JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Devendra Dahma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. It is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No. 1 or call for counter affidavit from the respondents, in view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court in the present writ petition.
2. Petitioner, Smt. Rajni Sharma, has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2, namely District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, respondent No. 2 to accord approval to appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Church City Junior High School, Undercoat, District Meerut.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the petitioner has obtained a degree of post graduation i.e. MA. (English) and is also Br.Ed. (reference Para No. 3 of the writ petition). It is further submitted that since there was a shortage of teachers in the institution and permanent appointment against the vacancy could not be made, the Committee or Management decided to make appointment under Rule 20 of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is claimed that on the basis of the selection made by the Committee of Management the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the institution managed by the respondent No. 1. The relevant papers in that regard have been transmitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut respondent No. 2, who is under obligation to communicate the decision, after approving or disapproving the appointment made by the Committee of Management. However, the District Basic Education Officer has failed to consider the matter of appointment of the petitioner made by the Committee of Management. Hence the present writ petition.
4. From the facts are borne out from the record of the writ petition it is apparently clear that the petitioner is possessed of following qualifications, namely, (a) M.A. (English), (b) B.Ed. Under Rule 4 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as Assistant Teacher of a recognized Junior High School, reads as follows :-
"4. Minimum Qualifications.-(1) The minimum qualifications for the post of assistant teacher of recognized school snail be Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination (with Hindi) and teacher's training course recognized by the State Government or the Board such as (Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training)."
5. From the aforesaid Rules it is apparent that the candidate concerned must have been passed Intermediate Examination or equivalent examination with Hindi as one of the subject and must have also obtained Teacher's Training Certificate recognized by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching. Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate or Certificate of Training.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is not possessed of any such certificate of training. The B.Ed, degree possessed by the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of said Teacher's Training Certificate.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 423, P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., has specifically held that Degree of B.Ed, cannot be treated to be equivalent to that of Teacher's Training Certificate required for teaching in schools.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it cannot be said that the petitioner is possessed of necessary Teachers Training Certificate for teaching in a Junior High School.
9. In such circumstances, since the petitioner is not possessed of the requisite minimum qualification for appointment in a Junior High School as Assistant Teacher, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out nor the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.
10. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.