REKHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1996-10-1
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 29,1996

REKHA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned circular of the Director of Education (Basic), U. P., dated 17.1.96 Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
(2.) A large number of writ petitions have been filed on the same point and this judgment will cover all these petitions of similar nature whether they are listed today or not. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare for the petitioners and Sri K. S. Shukla for the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The petitioners in the present petition are Assistant Teachers in privately managed Junior High School and Primary Schools recognised by the Board of Basic Education, U. P. It is alleged In paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner's institution is an unaided educational institution and payment of salary to the petitioners are being made by the management through its own private funds. It is further alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the appointment of the petitioners have been made with the approval of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur and all the petitioners are functioning for several years. The names of the petitioners were mentioned in the application of the institution for recognition made to the Board of Basic Education. The details of the petitioners are given in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioners did not possess B.T.C. Training Certificate and were untrained teachers. The appointments of untrained teachers were made in view of the fact that no trained teachers were available for appointment in the recognised unaided educational institutions.
(3.) THE State Government by Government Order dated 6.9.94, true copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, directed that such untrained teachers may be permitted to join the two years B.T.C. correspondence course and after they pass, they can be given the trained teacher's grade. This Government Order was followed by an other Government Order dated 21.10.94 which repeats the same direction. However, subsequently by a circular of the Director of Education (Basic) U. P., dated 17.1.96, true copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, it was directed that this benefit will be given only to the untrained teachers in institutions directly run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. In my opinion, the Director of Education is subordinate to the Secretary, Education, U. P. Government, hence he cannot override the Government Order dated 6.9.94 Annexure-2 to the writ petition issued by the Secretary, Education. The Secretary to the Government is a higher authority than the Director and hence the Director cannot supersede the order of the Secretary, Education, U. P. Government.;


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