K.N.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed Principal of Ram Dei Devi Kanya Higher Secondary School, Alinagar, Goraphpur, on 12-12-1974 on two years probation. It was stipulated that the petitioner shall qualify herself in High School Examination with Hindi or any equivalent examination recognised by the Board within the probationary period. The petitioner passed Prathama Examination conduct by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, in 1976. By an order dated 15-12-1976 the period of probation was extended for one year more. On 12-12-1977 the management passed a resolution to the effect that since the petitioner had not been able to pass the High School Examination in Hindi or any equivalent examination recognised by the Board, it was not possible to confirm her on the post. However, since it was not desirable to terminate her services in railed term. the period of probation may be extended up to 30th June, 1978. A copy of the resolution was sent to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools under a covering letter dated 9-1-1978 requesting for approval to extend the period of probation up to 30th June, 1978. The Director of education, U.P. by his letter dated 13-11-1978 informed the Manager of the Institution that continuance of the petitioner in services was not in accordance with law as she had failed to acquire the requisite qualification and after the probationary period of two years her service should have been treated to have terminated and, consequently, there was no question of extending the period of probation up to 30th June, 1978. A similar letter dated 25-11-1-78 was sent to the Manager by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and it was directed that if any salary had been paid to her from the joint account the amount should be credited to the joint account by transferring an equal amount from the individual account of the institution. The Manager in his letter dated 29-11-1978 pointed out that the petitioner had passed the First Year Examination of Visharad conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, and bad appeared at the Second Year Examination of which the result was awaited. It was prayed that the petitioner maybe permitted to continue on her post in the interest of the institution. The Manager also addressed a letter dated 16-12-1978 to the Regional In pec-tress of Girls Schools pointing out that no reply had been received from her regarding the extension of the period of probation of the petitioner and consequently she was paid from the joint account and there was no question of refund of that amount. Thereafter on 9-1-1977 the Manager wrote to the petitioner that she has ceased to be the Principal with effect from 1-7-1978 and was not entitled to any salary. She was asked to cease functioning as Principal with effect from 18-1-1979 and hard over the charge of the office to Km. Kalpana Sinha. The petitioner had challenged the legality of this order terminating her service.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after expiry of the period of probation the petitioner become a confirmed Principal under Regulation12 framed under Section 16 G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. We find no merit in the contention. When the petitioner was appointed on a probation of two years and a condition was attached to her appointment that she must within the probationary period qualify in High School with Hindi or any equivalent examination recognised by the Board. Admittedly the petitioner failed to acquire the requisite qualification within the initial probationary period of two years. The probationary period was first extended by one year and thereafter for another six months. Under Regulation 12 of Chapter III the probationary period could be extended by a maximum period of 12 months. The probationary period could not validly be extended after 12-12-1977. Unless it is established that she satisfied the stipulated condition she could not get automatically confirmed on the expiry of the period of probation as without that qualification the petitioner would not be qualified for being confirmed as a Principal.
(3.) It was contended that since the petitioner passed the Prathama Examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. Prayag, which was equivalent to High School Examination in Hindi, the condition attached to her appointment stood satisfied and she was entitled to be treated as a confirmed Principal. The contention has no merit. Regulation 9 provides that no teacher as Head of an institution will be confirmed in his appointment until he has passed the High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as one of his subjects, or an equivalent examination with Hindi (Regular not Elementary) of an examining body situated within a State where Hindi is the regional language or any one of the examinations enumerated therein. Prathama Examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. Prayag, is not are of the examinations which is recognised by the Board as an equivalent examination. Clause (d) of Regulation 9 of Chapter III recognises the Visharad Examination with Hindi Literature or the Sahitya Ratna Examination with Hindi Literature conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to the High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as one of the subjects. In fact with a view to satisfy the condition attached to her appointment the petitioner passed first year Examination of Vashurad conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and appeared at the second year Examination of Visharad in 1977-78 but apparently failed to succeed at the Examination. The Education Department was justified in taking the stand that the petitioner had not satisfied the condition attached to her appointment and could not be validly confirmed as a Principal. Regulation 10 provides that a person placed on probation shall be confirmed, if he fulfils the requirements of Relation 9. Since the petitioner had not fulfilled the requirements of Regulation 9 she could not e confirmed or treated as automatically confirmed on expiry of the period o probation.;