Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17305 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Kant Verma
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shantanu Khare, for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by respondent no.5-District Basic Education Officer, Sonbhadra, terminating the services of the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case are that the State Government by means of a Government Order dated 13.07.2000 notified a scheme for appointment of Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis against payment of consolidated salary. Pursuant to the said scheme, petitioner being fully eligible and qualified also applied for consideration in the selection held by Gram Shiksha Samiti. The petitioner was selected and recommended for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. The recommendation in favour of petitioner was approved by the District Level Committee and in pursuance thereto, petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 at Prathmik Vidyalaya Karji falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Agori, Kalan. After completion of successful training as Shiksha Mitra, petitioner was issued a certificate and subsequent thereto petitioner joined his duties in Prathamik Vidyalaya Karji.
It appears that on complaint of some persons namely, Rambali Singh, Kripa Singh and Ramkesh Verma etc. with regard to qualification of petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Block Education Officer, Chopan with respect to verification of documents of educational qualification of petitioner. The Block Education Officer, Chopan submitted his report on 22.02.2019 in which it is stated that petitioner has passed Prathma Examination equivalent to High School in the year 2001 and Madhyama Examination equivalent to Intermediate in the year 2005 from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad. The said report further recites that in view of letter dated 12.05.2019 of Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, the Prathma and Madhyama of Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad are not equivalent to High School and Intermedate and thus, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra. Since, petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, therefore, his services was terminated by respondent no.5.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the petitioner has been working for the last 14 years and there was no concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner at the time of selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra and thus, as there was no fault on the part of petitioner, therefore, order impugned is not sustainable in law. He further contends that respondent no.5 has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the order impugned being in violation of principle of natural justice deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner in the writ petition has not disputed the fact that he has passed the Prathma and Madhyama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad and this Court in the case of Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2012 (1) UPLBEC 65 have held that the Prathma and Madhyama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by U.P. High School and Intermediate Board, Allahabad. Thus, the petitioner is not qualified and could not have been selected as Shiksha Mitra. Thus, even if there was no misrepresentation or concealment of fact on the part of petitioner, the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue as he lacks basic qualification for being selected as Shiksha Mitra.
He further submits that where the facts are admitted and only one conclusion can be arrived, in such circumstances, no opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the petitioner. Thus, the submission is that this Court may not interfere with the order impugned on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice as it has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner in the writ petition has not disputed the fact that he has passed Prathma and Madhyama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad. This Court in the case of Urmila Devi (supra) has held that Prathma and Madhyama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by U.P. High School and Intermediate Board, Allahabad. Paragraph 15 and 16 of the said judgement are extracted hereinbelow:-
"15. There is another aspect to the matter namely that if the qualification conducted by private societies, in respect of language are treated as equivalent to the statutory boards, the candidates passing the examination from the statutory board will be seriously discriminated in appointments in Government Service, which is regulated by the statutory rules. The Court cannot permit the equivalence to be considered so casually. In Rajsthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. (Supra) the Supreme Court considered the legal status of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and found that it is neither university/ deemed university nor an educational board. It is society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is not an educational institutions imparting education in any subject. There is no school/ college imparting education in any subject affiliated to it. It also does not have any recognition from any statutory authority, even in respect of medical qualifications after 1967.
16. In the aforesaid circumstances, we fully agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment cited as above and reiterate that the Prathama and Madhyama (Visharad) examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not equivalent to the High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. The petitioner's qualification of Madhyama (Vishrad) is thus not equivalent to Intermediate Examination, and thus the petitioner was not qualified and eligible to be appointed as a clerk."
Since admittedly, petitioner has passed Prathma and Madhyma examination, which are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination, the petitioner lacks basic qualification and, therefore, even if, there was no misrepresentation or concealment on the part of petitioner as petitioner lacks basic qualification for being selected as Shiksha Mitra, he cannot be permitted to continue as Shiksha Mitra.
So far as the contention of learned Senior Counsel with regard to violation of principal of natural justice is concerned, the same has no merit inasmuch as the fact that petitioner has certificate of Prathma and Madhyama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination is not disputed. Hence, the notice to the petitioner would have been an empty formality as there was nothing on record which suggest that petitioner could have demonstrated that he possess requisite qualification for being selected as Shiksha Mitra.
Thus, in the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any good ground to exercise its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
For the reasons give above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019/Sattyarth