- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, CJ, R. A. Sharma, J. Heard Sri O. K. Singh for appellant, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri R. K. Jain for respondent No. 3.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by dismissal of its writ petition Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24337 of 1993, the Committee of Manage ment, Tarun Inter College, Kunda Kuchai, District Mau through its Manager Sri Markandey Singh has filed this appeal chal lenging the judgment/order dated 25-8-1993. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciating the points raised may be stated thus. A requisition was sent by the Manager of the Institution to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission for appointment of a L. T Grade Teacher in Hindi for High School. Since the Commis sion failed to make the appointment with in the specified period of the District Inspec tor of Schools appointed respondent No. 3 as ad hoc L. T. Grade Teacher in Hindi under Section 18 of the Act as amended by U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1992. The Committee-of Management challenged the said appoint ment mainly on the ground that respondent No. 3 does not fulfil the minimum educa tional qualification prescribed for the post. Undisputedly, the qualification prescribed for High School (Classes 9 and 10) under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act is (i) B. A. with Hindi and Sanskrit subject and L. T. or B. T or B. Ed or other equivalent degree or diploma in education teaching or (ii) Sahitya Ratna (2) years course) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in which Sanskrit subject should have been taken as ancient language and refresher course training. Concededly, respondent No. 3 is an Arts graduate (B. A.) with Hindi as a subject and Sanskrit as a subject upto Intermediate level only. Therefore, he does not fulfil the required qualification of having Sanskrit as a subject in B. A. The case of respondent No. 3 is that he may not be qualified to teach in classes 9 and 10 but he does not lack qualification for teaching in lower classes i. e. 6, 7 and 8. This case seems to have been accepted by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) IT was not disputed before us that under the relevant statutory provisions, as they stand now, there is no' distinction be tween teaching of classes 6 to 8 and classes 9 and 10. L. T. Grade teachers are competent and may be required to teach in all these classes. Indeed, C. T Grade which comprises of teachers for teaching in classes 6 to 8 has been declared as dying cadre and L. T Grade is specified cadre for teaching upto High School level. The position is also not dis puted that under the statutory provisions framed under the Act, there is no power vested in any authority to either grant ex emption from minimum educational qualification prescribed or to make any dis tinction amongst L. T. Grade teachers in relation to the classes they may be required to teach. In that view of the matter the case pleaded by respondent No. 3 that though he is not qualified to teach in classes 9 and 10 he may be retained in service for teaching the subject in classes 6 to 8 is unacceptable. The learned single Judge in the im pugned judgment/order has merely noticed the case of the parties and the contention raised by the learned counsel on their behalf but has not recorded any finding nor given any specific reasons for not accepting the case of the petitioner-Committee of Management.;