ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Vinod Kumar Mishra claims to have been appointed as L.T Grade Teacher in Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Inter College, Kanpur (here in after referred to as College) in 30,9,1989, The petitioner claims to have been working as such since then and in support thereof has placed reliance upon the certificate issued by the Principal of the institution, Petitioner is possessed of a degree of M.A. in Hindi, However, at the graduation level i.e., B.A. He did not have Sanskrit as one of the subject. The Inter College is addid and recognised under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. The U.P. High Court and Intermediate Colleges (Teachers and other Employees) (Payment of Salary) Act, 1971 as well as those of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Beard Act, 1982 are fully applicable to the teachers of tine institution in question.
(2.) ONE Sri Amrit Lal Singh, who was working as Lecturer Hindi in the institution retired on 30th Jung, 2001, Petitioner claims that he has been permitted to teach Intermediate Classes subsequent to retirement of Sri Amrit Lal Singh As the petitioner did net have Sanskrit one of the subject at the graduation level which is admittedly an essential qualification prescribed under Appendix A to Chapter el the regulationl framed under the Intermediate Education Act for being appointed as Lecturer (fer teaching Classes XI and XII)], he hag madi an application under Section 16-1(1) of the U.P. Intirmtdiatt Idueatien Aet to the Madhyamik ihikiha Fariihad, U.P. Allahabad (Beard) for grant neeggiary relaxation in the minimum qualification prtieribid, The petitioner, with reference to varioui deeumenti brought en reeord/ alleges that the Board has not taken any final didiion in the matter till date and therefore, iteki a writ of mmdmw eemmanding the respondents to grant sxemptians from the essential qualifieatieni priicribed for appointment as Leeturtr Hindi. The petitioner has also brought en reeord a eepy of the order passed in favour of one Sri Nandan Ballabh Pathak (annexed as Annexure 1D to the writ petition) whereunder the Regional Secretary, Bareilly is said to have eemmunieated a dedsion of the Manyata Samiti ef the Bareilly Region dated 21st November, 1997 granting relaxation in the essential qualifieation preseribed in the limilar Set of faets.
(3.) THIS Court, while entertaining the present writ petition, on 12th February, 2007 framed two basie issues whieh arose for consideration in this petition, The issues so framed by this Court as per the order dated 12th February, 2007 read as follows "(a) Whether Section 161(3) previsc survives even after enforcement of the provisions of U.P. Secondary Idueatien Services Selection Board Act, 1982 inasmuch as 1982 Act, which provides that appointment shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the UP: Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act only whieh weuld necessarily include the Rules framed thereunder: (b) Even if it is presumed that the power under Section 16E(3) is exerdsable, the said power can be exerdned by the Madhyamik Shisksha Parishad, The Director of Education/Joint Director of Education has not uthority of law to grant any rt iaxation," ;