Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27551 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Chandra Mishra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Shambhal dated 7.12.2018, whereby the signatures of respondent no. 6 have been attested as Principal of the Institution concerned. The order is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that he has been continuing as Principal on officiating basis since 2013, and previous attempt on part of respondent no. 6 to claim officiation on the post of Principal was turned down by the institution itself which has attained finality. Submission is that by an ex-parte order, signatures of respondent no. 6 have been attested.
Petition is opposed on behalf of respondent no. 6 by contending that petitioner does not possess requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Principal and, therefore, in the absence of qualification, he would not be eligible to officiate on the post of Principal.
It is not in issue that the petitioner possess the Post Graduation qualification alongwith Bachelor Degree in Physical Education. The question as to whether a person possessing Post Graduation qualification alongwith Bachelor Degree in Physical Education would be eligible to be appointed as Principal of the Institution has been examined by a Larger Bench of this Court in Amal Kishore Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (10) ADJ, 529 (FB). The Full Bench after noticing the NCTE Regulation, which prescribes the minimum qualification, has observed as under in Paras-46 to 48:-
"46.In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the stand of the State Government on the issue, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by Division Bench in Vindhyachal Yadav that B.P.Ed. could not be equated with other teaching qualifications prescribed under Appendix-A of Regulation 1 of Chapter-II of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and accordingly, we overrule the same as well as all other judgements of this Court taking a contrary view.
47. We, thus, answer question (i) in affirmative and question (iii) by holding that Vindhyachal Yadav does not lay down the correct law. However, question (ii) has to be answered, subject to certain riders. A B.P.Ed. degree being a post graduate training qualification, would entitle a person to hold post of Headmaster of a recognised High School but not that of Principal of an Intermediate college. The reason is that under Regulations, 2001 as well as under Minimum Qualification Regulations, 2014 framed by NCTE, B.P.Ed. is recognised as eligibility qualification for teaching Classes IX - X (Secondary/ High School) but not for Classes XI - XII (Senior Secondary/Intermediate). For teaching Intermediate classes, the person should possess M.P.Ed. degree of at least two years duration from any National Council for Teacher Education recognised institution. These regulations do not prescribe any separate qualification for Head of institution and thus the qualification prescribed for a teacher of Intermediate classes (Senior-Secondary) would also apply to Head of such an institution. We have already held above that the qualifications prescribed by NCTE would be binding on the State, therefore, the qualifications prescribed by Minimum Qualification Regulations, 2014 have to be read alongwith Appendix-A and thus, a teacher possessing B.P.Ed. degree, would not be eligible to hold post of Principal of an Intermediate College.
48. We, thus, reply to question (ii) by holding that a teacher in physical education having B.P.Ed. degree is eligible to be appointed as Headmaster of a High School, but not as Principal of an Intermediate college".
The Full Bench has clearly held that a person holding Bachelor's qualification in Physical Education would not be eligible to hold the post of Principal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are alternative qualifications prescribed in Appendix-A and, therefore, claim of petitioner for continuance on the post of Principal is liable to be examined with reference to other alternative qualifications specified in Appendix-A to Chapter-I of the Act of 1921.
The submission raised in that regard is not liable to be accepted in view of the fact that the qualification in the Appendix-A would not be determinative inasmuch as once the NCTE Regulations step in and the Minimum Qualification Regulation of 2014 gets attracted, the qualification required would be read accordingly. Once this aspect has already been examined by the Full Bench, there would be no occasion for this Court to re-visit the issue. Petitioner having not been found eligible for the post of Principal, the authorities would be justified in attesting the signatures of respondent no. 6, who possess the requisite qualification for the post in question and is otherwise senior.
Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 n.u.