N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1981, affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1981 in Original Suit No. 162 of 1980 passed by the Munsif, Shadohi at Gyanpur. A civil suit for declaration was filed by respondent Jata Shanker for a declaration that the plaintiff, being the seniormost qualified and trained teacher in the Basic Primary Pathshala Samiti, Aurai, run by the Aurai Chini Mill be declared to be the legally eligible and only competent person in the institution to be given promotion as Headmaster of the said Primary Pathshala. It was also prayed that the promotion given to Sri Amarnath Misra, defendant -appellant as Headmaster of the said Pathshala was wholly illegal and unwarranted on the ground that he was not a trained teacher eligible to be appointed as Headmaster by promotion.
(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent Jata Shanker Misra was appointed on 15.11.1973 with the educational qualification of B.A., and J.T.C. (training qualification recognised in U.P.). The appellant, Amarnath Misra, admittedly was appointed on 1.9.1971 having a Certification of Calcutta Corporation allegedly showing to be qualification. It is also concurrently found, as pleaded by the plaintiff, that the certificate of Calcutta Corporation certifying teaching qualification was not to be recognised nor teaching qualification approved and recognised in Uttar Pradesh under the Basic Education Act. There is no dispute about the fact that Amarnath, deft -appellant had no teaching diploma or qualification with him except that certificate of the Calcutta Corporation, which was not recognised in Uttar Pradesh. The dispute arose when the Management of the Pathshala proceeded to give promotion to the defendant -appellant Amarnath Misra as Headmaster of the Pathshala ignoring the claim of the plaintiff Jata Shanker Misra, who was the senior most trained and educationally qualified teacher entitled for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The Committee of Management wrote to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for approving the promotion proposed by the Committee of Management in favour of Amarnath Misra.
(3.) AT the relevant time when the question of giving promotion to the senior most teacher qualified for being promoted the institution was temporarily recognised from year to year basis. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari declined to grant sanction for promotion to Amarnath Misra appellant on the ground that he was not a trained teacher and the Certification of the Calcutta Corporation was not recognised in Uttar Pradesh. The Committee of Management wrote to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to reconsider his opinion about the grant of approval for promotion to the appellant Amarnath Misra. It appears that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari referred the matter for opinion by his letter dated 23.3.1979 to the U.P. Basic Education Board. Sri Awdhesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Assistant Deputy Director, Madhyamik Shiksha Nideshalaya, U.P. sent a reply to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari stating that the Primary Pathshala concerned was temporarily recognised and that institution was being managed by the Committee of Management, who was free to promote and determine the seniority of teachers. On receipt of the said letter from the Assistant Dy. Director, Madhyamik Shiksha Nideshalaya, U.P., the Basic Shiksha Adhikari informed the Manager of the Primary Pathshala Aurai Chini Mill Samiti accordingly. Thereafter the Committee of the Pathshala appointed defendant -appellant Amarnath Misra as Headmaster of the School on 21.2.1980.;