- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this peti tion is whether B. Ed. teachers training certificate could be treated to be minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Head Master of a recognised Junior High School as envisaged by Rule-4 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruit ment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (in brief Rules 1978 ).
(2.) ADARSH Janta Junior High School, Krishna Nagar, Ganga Khadar, Hastinapur, Meerut (In brief institution) is a recognised and aided institution. It is not owned or maintained by Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education (in brief Board) or any local body recognised by the Board. A put'-HO managing committee manages, the institution. Service conditions of Teachers are governed by Rules 1978. The petitioner was appointed on post of assistant teacher by committee of management on 1-11- 1975 on probation of one year. He joined on 7-11-1975. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut (in brief BSA) approved his appointment by order dated 21-6-1980 with effect from 7-11-1975. In June 1997 the head master of the institution Shri Dhara Singh retired and charge of officiating head master was given to Shri Daya Nand. In November 1997 new management was elected. Shri Satya Prakash Tyagi was elected its manager. On 20-12-1997 the management directed the petitioner to officiate as head master of the institution. He is working since then. In 1998 the management held selection for the post of head master. It issued interview letter to the petitioner on 20-3-1998. The letter sent by registered post for ap pearance on 22-3-1998 was received by the petitioner on 28-3-1998. Therefore, he could not appear. The selection commit tee selected Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, the respondent No. 4. The management ac cepted the recommendation and passed a resolution on 24-3-1998 appointing him on the post of head master. The BSA granted approval on 26-3-1998. The ap pointment letter was issued on 27-3- 1998. The respondent joined on the same day. The petitioner challenged the approval by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13969 of 1998. It was claimed that the management without properly advertising the post made selection of respondent. Further, respondent was not qualified for being appointed on the post of head master. This court disposed of this peti tion on 27-4-1998, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation, which was to be decided by BSA after af fording opportunity of hearing to the par ties, within two months by a reasoned order. The petitioner made a repre sentation on 18-5-1998. The BSA after hearing petitioner, management and respondent No. 4 by order dated 23-5-1998 rejected the representation. It was held that the management on 6-3-1998 publish ed the advertisement in newspaper 'dainik Chamakta Bharat' printed from Meerut. And if the petitioner received the registered letter sent by the management on 28-3-1998, after the selection was over, it was the responsibility of the postal department. It was further held that under Rules 1978 minimum qualification prescribed for the post of head master was B. A. , B. T. C. , but there was no bar for ap pointing a candidate who possessed higher qualification of M. Sc. B. Ed, by means of this writ petition the petitioner has chal lenged the orders of BSA dated 23-5-1998, approval dated 26-3-1998 and appoint ment letter dated 27-3-1998 issued by the management in favour of respondent No. 4. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to make appointment on the post of head master of the institution in accordance with Rules 1978. I have heard Shri P. R. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Khare, leaned senior counsel as sisted by Shri Vinod Kumar Singh for respondents No. 3 and 4, Shri Sudhakar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
(3.) SHRI Ganguly the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Rule 4 (2) prescribes the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of head master of a recognised Junior High School. It provides that the candidate must possess a degree from the recognised university or an equivalent examination recognised as such and a teacher's training course recog nised by the State Government or the Board and three years teaching experience in recognised schools. He urged that the respondent No. 4 possessed B. Ed, teachers training certificate which is not a recognised teachers training certificate prescribed under the Rule, therefore, the respondent did not possess the minimum qualification as provided by Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules 1978. And he was not eligible to be appointed head master of the institu tion. He further urged that the appoint ment of respondent No. 4 was made without issuing any proper advertisement of vacancy in newspaper having wide cir culation as provided by Rule 7. The learned counsel lastly urged that the com mittee of management which appointed respondent No. 4 having been found to be fictitious and signatures of its manager having been cancelled the appointment made by the management was illegal and it must be held invalid. Shri Khare the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 urged that teacher's training courses mentioned in Rule 4 (2) (bx of the Rules 1978 is illustra tive and not exhaustive, therefore, B. Ed, which is also a teachers training course has to be treated equivalent to the courses mentioned in the Rule. He relied on the decision of apex court in State of Maharashtra and others v, VS. Naik and others, AIR 1980 SC 1095. The learned counsel urged in any case if it was found that B. Ed, is not an equivalent qualifica tion for appointment of a head master of a Junior High School, in that case since respondent possessed a B. Ed, teachers training certificate which was higher than the B. T. C. teachers training course and there being no bar in Rules 1978 for not considering a higher teachers training cer tificate, the B. Ed, training qualification of respondent had to be treated to be a qualification presciibed by Rules 1978, The learned counsel urged that advertise ment was issued in accordance with Rule7, in a newspaper having adequate circula tion in the locality. He urged that Rule 7 (1) of Rules 1978 has been amended by notification dated 20-9-1999 and now it has been provided that no vacancy shall be filed except after its advertisement in at least two newspapers, one of which must have adequate circulation all over the State and the other in the locality the School is situated. But when appointment was made in 1998 the unamended Rules were applicable, which were complied by the management. And there was no il legality in the advertisement. The learned counsel further urged that, if sub sequently, the management which had ap pointed the respondent was held to be an invalid committee, it would not amount to nullifying his appointment.;