BACHCHU PRASAD PAL Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
LAWS(ALL)-1991-5-94
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 17,1991

Bachchu Prasad Pal Appellant
VERSUS
DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.M.Lal, J. - (1.) BY this petition, Bachchu Prasad Pal is claiming the scale of L.T. Grade teachers on the ground that he fulfils all the requirements of Government order dated 3 -10 -1974 and 4 -12 -1974 (Annexure Nos. 2 & 3 respectively), which made him eligible to get the L.T. grade. The case of the petitioner is that he is Intermediate and C.P. Ed. which is the minimum qualification required for a teacher to impart physical instructions to the students of "High School classes. This qualification he possessed at the time of joining the service in the year 1970 when he was appointed in C.T. grade.
(2.) THE petitioner made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools on 3 -8 -1985 claiming the benefits of the two Government -Orders referred to above. The said representation was forwarded by the D.I.O.S. to Deputy Director of Education. The representation of the petitioner was turned down by the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification on the relevant date. While rejecting it, the Deputy Director observed that the petitioner was not a graduate and he did not possess a diploma in Physical education on the relevant date. The requisite qualifications for physical instructors for Intermediate to have been laid down in Appendix -A of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. It prescribes the minimum qualification. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification as prescribed in Appendix -A of the Act. However, the petitioner was not granted the benefits of those two Government Orders dated 3 -10 -1974 and 4 -12 -1974 ignoring his qualifications.
(3.) AFTER rejection of his claim, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, and by order dated 25 -2 -1987 directions were issued to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner. However, the representation of the petitioner was again turned down, against which the present writ petition has been filed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.