# Nasreen Fatima v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 1005
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6713 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nasreen-fatima-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48707
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

C.S.C., Maqsood Ahmad Beg, Sri B.P. Singh
Somwanshi

Recommendation
of
the
Committee
of
Management -to accord financial approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner -on the post of
Principal -refused-without affording opportunity
of hearing-on the basis-that experience in
recognized
but
unaided
institution
-not
considered-wrong.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,939 of 45,700. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39939 for what follows._

7 All. Nasreen Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1005
light of the 2014 Rules read alongwith 2001
Rules, same are not found to be tenable."

14. We also notice that under Rules 2001
the definition of Ministerial Group 'C' post of
the Lowest grade is given in Rule 4(f), which is
extracted below:-

"(f) 'Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of
the Lowest Grade' shall refer to the Ministerial
group 'C' posts of the lowest scale of pay,
excluding
the
posts
belonging
to
the
Stenographer cadre, Accounts cadre or the posts
of technical nature in the subordinate offices
which are filled both by direct recruitment and
by promotion and which are outside the
purview of the Public Service Commission,
Uttar Pradesh;"

15. According to the aforesaid definition
in Rules 2001,the Ministerial Group 'C' post of
the lowest grade excludes the posts belonging
to the Stenographer cadre, Accounts cadre or
the posts of technical nature in the subordinate
offices. However, under the Rules 2014
Ministerial Group 'C' post of the Lowest Grade
has not been defined and the definition of
'Service' has been given under Rule 5 ((i),
according to which 'Service' means the Uttar
Pradesh Government Department Ministerial
Cadre Service. The same is extracted below:-

"(i) 'service' means the Uttar Pradesh
Government Department Ministerial Cadre
Service;"

16. In view of above, Rules 2014 does not
have any such classification of Group 'C' posts
and Stenographer etc. as was in Rules 2001. In
this view also the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellants-petitioners that the
"knowledge of typewriting" is required for the
post of Stenographer or the post for which
Hindi typing is essential only, is misconceived
and not tenable and now the "knowledge of
typewriting" is essential for promotion from
Group 'D' employees.

17. After considering the Rules, learned
Single Judge has categorically held that the
Rule 7 of the Promotion Rules 2014 provides
that typing is essential qualification mandated
for promotion and the criteria/speed as
prescribed in Rules 2001 has been incorporated
in promotion Rules 2014 only to the extent of
Hindi typewriting, therefore, the reference of
promotion Rules 2001 is for a limited purpose
i.e. typing speed and in so far as the essential
qualification for promotion is concerned the
promotion Rules 2014 is unambiguous by
mandatorily providing that typing knowledge is
an essential qualification.

18. We are in agreement with the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge for the
reasons stated above. We do not find any
illegality or error in the judgment and order
dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in the Bunch of writ petitions, leading
being writ -A No.24026 of 2018. The Special
Appeal is misconceived and lacks merit.

19. The Special Appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)07ILR A1005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 6713 of 2017

Nasreen Fatima ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Niyaz Ahmad Khan, Sri Mansoor Ahmad,
Sri Mohd. Abrar Khan, Sri Radha Kant Ojha
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Maqsood Ahmad Beg, Sri B.P. Singh
Somwanshi

Recommendation
of
the
Committee
of
Management -to accord financial approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner -on the post of
Principal -refused-without affording opportunity
of hearing-on the basis-that experience in
recognized
but
unaided
institution
-not
considered-wrong.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Altaf (1) & ors. Vs U.P. Public Service
Commission & anr. reported in (2008) 14 SCC
139

2. Writ-A No. 11100 of 2014 (Dr. Sanjay Kumar
Singh & anr. Vs St. Of U.P. Thru Secy. & anr.)

3. Writ-A NO. 14349 of 2014 (Dr. Om Prakash
Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Supplementary counter affidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
respondentCommittee of Management in Court today
is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Radha Kant Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Mansoor Ahmad, Mr. Maqsood Ahmad Beg
and Mr. B.P. Singh Somwashi, learned
counsel for the respondent-Committee of
Management and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing the order dated 4th September,
2015 passed by the Joint Director of
Education, Allahabad Division, Allahabad
(now Prayagraj) i.e. respondent no.3 as
well as for quashing the communication
letter of the District Inspector of Schools,
Fatehpur
dated
7th
January,
2016.
Petitioner has also prayed that a direction
be issued to the respondents to make
payment of salary of the petitioner w.e.f.
12th August, 2015 to till date including the
arrears and also pay the salary regularly as
and when it becomes due.

4. By means of the letter-cum-order
dated 4th September, 2015, respondent no.3
has informed the Manager of Inter College
Dhauli, Fatehpur that the recommendation
of the Committee of Management to accord
financial approval to the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Principal of the
said institution has been refused by the
Regional Level Committee. In the said
letter/order, it has been mentioned that on
an opinion being obtained, it has been
informed by the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board, Allahabad vide
his letter dated 11th August, 2015 that the
teachers working in recognized unaided
institutions are treated to be part-time
teachers due to which their experience is
not accepted to be valid. Therefore, it is not
possible for the Regional Level Committee
to accord financial approval to the
appointment of the petitioner on the post of
Principal of the institution, as she possesses
teaching experience certificate from an
unaided institution. The same information
has been sent by the District Inspector of
Schools, Fatehpur to the Manager of the
Inter College, Pauli, District Fatehpur vide
his letter dated 7th January, 2016, which is
also under challenge in the present writ
petition.
7 All. Nasreen Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1007

5. Relevant facts as borne out from
the records of the present writ petition, are
as follows:

Intermediate
College,
Pauli,
District Fatehpur is an institution duly
recognized by the Board of secondary
Education of the State of Uttar Pradesh. As
the said institution is in the grand-in-aid list
of the State Government, the teachers and
other employees of the said institution
including the Principal are getting their
salary from State exchequer under the
provisions of U.P. High School and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary
to the Teachers and Other Employees) Act,
1971. As the vacancy of the post of
Principal occurred in the institution, the
Committee of Management of the said
institution
applied
for
permission
to
advertise the said post. However, the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution was informed that as the
institution has been conferred the minority
status, no prior permission for publication
of the post of Principal of the institution is
required. Therefore, an advertisement was
accordingly made in two daily news papers,
namely, one in Hindi, namely, Amar Ujala
and second in English, namely, Northern
Indian Patrika on 25th March, 2015, which
were
having
adequate
circulations.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, various
prospective
candidates
sent
their
applications forms through registered post.
Petitioner, who possessed the degrees of
High
School
(in
the
year
1994),
Intermediate (in the year 1996), B.A. (in
the year 1999), M.A. (in the year 2004 and
B.Ed. (in the year 2011) examinations and
also teaching experience of six years, six
months and nine days w.e.f. 2nd July, 2008
to that date, from Ganesh Shanker
Vidyarthee Balika Intermediate College,
Sultanpur Gosh, Fatehpur, also applied in
pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement
through registered post. The photo copies
of the degrees and teaching experience
certificate of the petitioner have been
enclosed along with the supplementary
counter affidavit filed in the Court today.
After receipt of the application forms of
various
prospective
candidates,
the
Committee of Management sent a letter to
the Regional Joint Director of Education on
5th May, 2015 to nominate an Expert for
holding the selections of the post of
Principal of the institution, the Regional
Joint Director of Education inturn vide
letter dated 4th June, 2015 nominated two
retired officers, namely, Shyam Narain Rai
and Ramesh Mishra as an expert. The
Committee of Management opted Mr.
Shaym Narain Rai, retired Joint Director of
Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad as
an Expert for selection of the principal of
the
institution.
The
Committee
of
Management issued letters dated 5th June,
2015 by registered post to all the
prospective candidates requiring them to
appear in the interview, which was to be
held on 28th June, 2015 in the campus of
the institution. The petitioner appeared in
the said interview. In the interview which
was held on 28th June, 2015, total 13
persons
participated
including
the
petitioner. The result of the said interview
was declared by the Selection Committee
on the same day i.e. 28th June, 2015 in
which the petitioner was placed at serial
no.1. On the said result, the signatures of
the expert appointed by the Regional Joint
Director of Education, namely, Shyam
Narain Rai along with other members of
the
Selection
Committee
was
also
appended, a copy of which has been
enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
On 29th June, 2015, a meeting was
convened
by
the
Committee
of
Management, wherein the said result
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
declared by the selection committee was
accepted and on the basis of same, the
petitioner was selected for the post of
Principal of the institution. Accordingly, the
Committee of Management submitted the
relevant papers, on 1st July, 2015 before
the Regional Joint Director of Education,
Allahabad for financial approval to the
appointment of the petitioner as principal
of the institution. As no objection was
raised by the concerned authority, in view
of provisions of Chapter-I, Rule 17 (2) (g)
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921, the Committee of Management
offered appointment letter to the petitioner
on 2nd August, 2015 for the post of
Principal of the institution. Pursuant to the
said appointment letter, the petitioner
joined on 12th August, 2015 as principal of
the institution, a copy of the joining letter
has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the
writ
petition.
The
petitioner
was
discharging her duties as principal of the
institution continuously to the utmost
satisfaction of the education authorities.
After some time, pursuant to the letter of
the Regional Joint Director of Education,
Allahabad Region, Allahabad dated 4th
September, 2015, the District Inspector of
Schools vide letter dated 7th January, 2016
communicated
the
Committee
of
Management of the Institution that relying
on the opinion given by the Secretary, U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board, Allahabad, the Regional Level
Committee has refused to accord financial
approval to the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Principal of the
institution. It is against these letters/orders,
that the present writ petition has been filed.

6.

Questioning
the
aforesaid
orders/letters of the Regional Joint Director
of Education and the District Inspector of
Schools, following submissions have been
advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner:

(i)
The
order
dated
4th
September, 2015 has been passed by the
Regional Level Committee on the basis of
opinion given by the Secretary, U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board, Allahabad, when as a matter of fact,
the provisions of U.P. Education Services
Selection Board Act, 1982 is not applicable
to the petitioner's institution, which is a
minority institution.

(ii) The order impugned dated 4th
September, 2015 has been passed by the
Regional Level Committee without giving
any notice well as without affording any
opportunity of hearing either to the
petitioner or the manager of the institution,
hence, the same hits Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India, as the same has
been made in violation of principles of
natural justice.

(iii)
The
Committee
of
Management has preferred appeal against
the order of the Regional Level Committee
dated 4th September, 2015 but the
petitioner has no concern with the same,
after
expiry
of
one
month of
the
submissions of the relevant papers qua the
appointment of the petitioner as required
under Chapter-II Rule 17 (2) (g) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the
financial approval is deemed to be given in
favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Appendix-A as referred in
Regulation-1
of
Chapter-II
of
the
Regulations
framed
under
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 does not
speak about the experience from "aided"
institution, it only speaks of experience
from "recognized" institution. It is not
disputed by the learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents any where that
the petitioner is having teaching experience
7 All. Nasreen Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1009
of "unaided" institution but the same is
"recognized"
institution.
Hence,
the
petitioner possesses correct and valid
teaching experience, as per the aforesaid
provisions and nothing is wrong in the
same. Neither the word "aided" nor
"unaided" is mentioned in the aforesaid
provisions.

(v) While passing the order
impugned, the Regional Joint Director of
Education has erred in law in obtaining
opinion
of
the
Secretary,
Secondary
Education Services Selection Board, who
has no authority to give any opinion to a
principal
of
a
minority
institution
recognized under the provisions of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

(vi)
The
State
education
authorities are habitual to harass the
minoirity institutions like the petitioner's
institution for the reasons best known to
them.

On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order impugned dated 4th
September, 2015 passed by the Regional
Level
Committee,
Allahabad
Region,
Allahabad refusing to accord financial
approval to the appointment of the
petitioner for the post of principal cannot
be legally sustained and is liable to be
quashed.

7. On the other-hand, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
and the learned counsel for the respondentCommittee of Management submit that on
the opinion given by the Secretary, U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board that as in the unaided institutions,
only short term post of assistant teachers
are sanctioned, therefore, the experience
gained by such teachers from the said
institutions cannot be counted or admitted,
the Regional Level Committee has taken a
decision not to accord financial approval to
the appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Principal of the institution, as the
petitioner has gained teaching experience
from Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthee Balika
Intermediate College, Sultanpur Ghos,
which is a recognized but not aided
institution, hence the same is legal and
valid.

Learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and the learned counsel
for
the
respondent-Committee
of
Management further submit that Pauli
Intermediate College, Pauli is a recognized
minority institution and is an aided
institution taking grant-in-aid from the
State Government, therefore the provisions
of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 of U.P. Act No.
24 of 1071 are fully applicable over the
institution. The experience of teachers
working
under
privately
managed
recognized
institution
cannot
be
counted/admitted, inasmuch as in such
institutions, only short terms posts have
been sanctioned. As the petitioner has
possessed teaching experience certificate of
a private managed institution, therefore, the
Regional Level Committee has rightly not
accorded
financial
approval
to
the
appointment of the petitioner as Principal
for payment of salaries from the State
exchequer.

Lastly, it has been submitted by
the learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents that after retirement of Sri
Surendra
Prakash
Mishra,
who
was
working as officiating principal of the
institution on 30th June, 2014, Mohd.
Aafan is working as officiating principal of
the said institution from 1st July, 2014.

In
view
of
the
aforesaid
submissions, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents submits that there is
no illegality or infirmity in the decision
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken by the Regional Level Committee
dated 4th September, 2015, which has been
communicated
to
the
Committee
of
Management by the Regional Joint Director
of
Education
vide
letter
dated
4th
September, 2015 as well as by the District
Inspector of Schools, vide letter dated 7th
January, 2016.

8. This Court has considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
records of the present writ petition
including
the
counter
affidavits,
supplementary
counter
affidavit
and
rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the
State-respondents,
respondent-Committee
of
Management
and
the
petitioner
respectively.

9.
 Article
30
of
the
Indian
Constitution gives right of minorities to
establish
and
administer
educational
institutions, which consists of provisions
that safeguard various rights of the
minority community in the country keeping
in mind the principle of equality as well.
Article 30(1) says that all minorities,
whether based on religion or language,
shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their
choice. Article 30(1A) deals with the
fixation of the amount for acquisition of
property of any educational institution
established by minority groups. Article
30(2) states that the government, which
gives aid, should not discriminate against
any educational institution on the ground
that it is under the management of a
minority, whether based on religion or
language.

10. Judged in the aforesaid legal
background, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that Section 16E (1) (2) and Section
16FF and Regulations 17 to 19 of Chapter
II of the Regulations framed under the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which
lay down the procedure for selection of
principal
and
teachers
in
minority
institutions are basically provisions for
furtherance of fair administration of the
minority institution and not to its detriment.
These provisions have stood the test of time
for decades together.

11. For ready reference, Section
Section 16 E (1) and (2) and Section 16FF
and Regulations-17 to 19 are quoted below:

"[16-E. Procedure for selection of
teachers and heads of institutions.----
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Head of institution and teachers of an
institution shall be appointed by the
Committee of Management in the manner
hereinafter provided.

(2) Every post of Head of
institution or teacher of an institution shall
except to the extent prescribed for being
filled by promotion, be filled by direct
recruitment after intimation of the vacancy
to the Inspector and advertisement of the
vacancy containing such particulars as
may be prescribed, in at least two
newspapers having adequate circulation in
the State.

.....................

Section 16 FF:- Saving as to
minority institutions (1) Notwithstanding
anything in Sub-section (4) of Section i6-E
and Section 16-P, the Selection Committee
for the appointment of a Head of Institution
or a teacher of an institution established
and administered by a minority referred to
in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the
Constitution of shall consist of five
members
(including
its
Chairman)
nominated
by
the
Committee
of
Management:
7 All. Nasreen Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1011

Provided that one of the members
of the Selection Committee shall- (a) In the
case of appointment of an Institution, be an
expert selected by the Committee of
Management from a panel of experts
prepared by the Director; (b) in the case of
appointment of a teacher, be the Head of
the institution concerned.

(2) The procedure to be followed
by the Selection Committee referred to in
Sub-section (1) shall be such as may be
prescribed.

(3) No person selected under this
section shall be appointed unless-

(a) in the case of the Head of an
institution the proposal or appointment has
been approved by the Regional Deputy
Director of Education; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such
proposal has been approved by the
Inspector.

(4) The Regional Deputy Director
of Education or the Inspector, as the case
may be, shall not withhold approval for the
selection made under this section where the
person selected possesses the minimum
qualifications prescribed and k otherwise
eligible.

(5) Where the Regional Deputy
Director of Education or the Inspector, as
the case may be, does not approve of
candidate selected under, this section, the
Committee o Management may, within
three weeks from the date of receipt of such
disapproval, make a representation to the
Director it the case of Head of Institution,
and to the' Regional Deputy Director of
Education in the case of a teacher.

(6) Every, order passed by the
Director or the Regional Deputy Director
of Education on a representation under
Sub-section (5 shall be final.

Chapter II of the Regulations
Framed under U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921.

Regulation 17: The procedure for
filling up the vacancy of the head of the
Institution
and
teachers
by
direct
recruitment in any recognized institution
referred to in Section 16-FF shall be as
follows;

(a) After the management has
determined the number of vacancies to be
filled up by direct recruitment, the posts
shah be advertised by the manager of the
institution in at least one-Hindi and one
English
newspaper
having
adequate
circulation in the State giving particulars
as
to
the
nature
(i.e.
whether
temporary/permanent)
and
number
of
vacancies,
descriptions
of
post
(i.e.
Principle or Headmaster, Lecture or L.T.,
C.T,
or
J.T.C.B.T.C.
grade
teacher
including the subject or subjects in which
the lecturer or teacher is required), scale of
pay and other allowances, experience
required, minimum qualification and age
prescribed, if any for the post and
prescribing a date which should ordinarily
be less than two 'weeks form the date of
advertisement by which the applications
shall be received by the Manager. A copy of
the advertisement shall be simultaneously
sent to the Inspector concerned.

Notes:- (1) All vacancies in the
posts of teachers and the head of institution
existing at the time of advertisement shall
be advertised. (2) No new post shall be
advertised
unless
sanction
of
the
appropriate authority for the creation
thereof
has
been
received
by
the
management.

(a) All applications shall be made
in the form prescribed by the management
and shall contain all necessary particulars
about qualifications, teaching experience
and other activities and be accompanied by
certified copies, of all the necessary
certificates
and
testimonials.
The
management may charge cost of tl a
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application form not exceeding the amount
referred 10 in Clause (2) of the Regulation
10.

(b) An application by a person
employed in an institution and applying for
a post elsewhere or in tie same institution
shall not be withheld by his employer but
shall be forwarded to the authority
concerned immediately.

(c) All applications received form
the candidates shell be serially numbered
and entered in a register and particulars of
the candidates noted under appropriate
columns, The Candidates to be called for
interview shall be sever for each post (with
the prior permission of the head of the
institution). The Manager shall intimate by
registered post all the members of the
Selection Committee as well as such
candidates as are called fir interview, the
date, time and place of selection at lea-it
ten days before it is held. The Selection
Committee
will
hold
the
selection
accordingly.

If on account of any unavoidable
reason
the
expert
selected
by
the
Committee of Management under Clause
(a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of
Section 16-FF is unable to attend the
selection on the date fixed, the meeting of
the
Selection
Committee
shall
,
a
postponed.

(d) The provisions of Clauses (e)
and (f) of Regulation 10 and those of
Regulations 11, 12, and 16 shall mutatis
mutandis apply to selections made under
this regulation.

(e) A panel of experts consisting
of fifteen or more persons selected form
category (a) referred to in Regulation 14
shall be drawn by the Director for each
region and be sent to the Regional Deputy
Director of Education concerned. The
Regional Deputy Director of Education
shall out of the said panel communicate the
names of three experts in sealed cover to
the management through its manager as
soon as he receives any request for supply
of names of experts from him. The regional
panel of experts shall, however, remain
valid until it is replaced by a new one.

(f) Chairman of the Selection
Committee after conducting interview of all
the candidates for any post will get a note
prepared in two copies on the proceedings
of the selection which will mention the
names of the selected candidates and
names of two more candidates of waiting
list. Chairman and other members of
Selection Committee will sign on notes, so
prepared, and mention their full name,
designation arid address. Chairman would
immediately forward a copy of this note
and a copy of statement referred to in
Clause (f) of Regulation 10 to the Regional
Dy. Director of the Inspector, as the case
may be, for approval as required under
Selection 16FF.Regional Dy. Director or
Inspector, as the case may be, within one
month of the date of receipt of concerned
records, will give his. decision thereon and,
failing to do so, it will be deemed to be
approved].

Regulation 18: (1) Within fifteen
days of the receipt of-the recommendation
of the Selection Committee constituted
under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 16F, and in case of an institution referred to
iii Section 16-FF, the approval of the
authority specified therein, the Manager
shall, on authorization under resolution of
the Committee of Management, issue an
order of appointment by registered post to
the candidate in the form given in Appendix
'B' requiring the candidate to join duty
within ten days of the receipt of such order
failing which the appointment of the
candidate will be liable to cancellation.

(2) In case of promotions and ad
hoc appointments also forma-order of
7 All. Nasreen Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1013
promotion or appointment in the form as
near a possible to the form referred to in
Clause (1) shall be issued to the person
concerned under the signature of the
Manager.

(3) A copy of every order referred
to in Clauses (1) aid (2 shall be sent to the
Inspector and in case of appointment of the
head of institution a copy thereof shall also
be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of
Education.

Regulation 19: Where any person
is appointed as, or any promotion is made
on any post of head of institution or ;
teacher in contravention of the provisions
of this chapter or against any post other
Khan a sanctioned post the Inspector shall
decline to pay salary and other allowance,
if any, to such person where the institution
is covered by the provisions of the V.P. High
Schools
and
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other
Employees) Act 1971, and in other cases
shall decline to give any grant for the
salary and allowances in respect of such
person."

12. From bare reading of the aforesaid
provisions as well as the records of the
present writ petition, it is an admitted
position that the selection of the petitioner
for appointment on the post of Principal in
the institution has been made after
following all procedures, which have been
quoted herein above.

13. The only question, which arises
for consideration before this Court as to
whether the petitioner has possessed the
teaching
experience
certificate,
as
prescribed under the relevant provisions or
not.

14. For appreciating the said question,
it is worthwhile to reproduce Appendix-A
of Chapter II of the Regulations framed
under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921, as qualification for the post of
Principal or head of non-Government
recognized Higher Secondary Schools, has
been prescribed in aforesaid Appendix A,
which reads as follows:

"APPENDIX A

(In reference to Regulation 1
of Chapter II)

Minimum eligibilities for appointment
of Heads and teachers in non-Government
recognised Higher Secondary Schools.

1.
Degree
and
diploma
in
concerned
subject
of
any
University
established or regulated by or under any
Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act,
which is considered to be a University
under Section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, or of any such
institution specially empowered by any Act
of Parliament shall be recognised for the
purpose
of
minimum
qualifications
prescribed under it.

2. Under it in reference to
prescribed
qualifications
the
word
"trained" means post graduate training
qualification such as L.T., B.T., B. Ed., B.
Ed. Sc. or M. Ed. of any University or
institution as specified in the earlier para
or any equivalent (Degree or Diploma). It
also includes departmental A.T.C. and C.T.
with minimum teaching experience of 5
years'. J.T.C./B.T.C. Grae teacher shall
also be considered to be. C.T. if he has
worked in C.T. Grade at least for 5 years'.

Essential Qualifications
Sl
.
N
o.
Name of the
post
Essential
Training
Experience
Age
Desirabl
e
qualficia
tions

2
3
4
5
1
Head of the (1) trained M.A. Minimu
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
institution
or
M.Sc.
or
M.Com
or
M.Sc. (Ag) or
any equivalent
Post-graduate
or
any
other
degree which is
awarded
by
corporate body
specified
in
abovementioned para
one and should
have
at
least
teaching
experience
of
four years in
classes 9-12 in
any
training
institute or in
any
institution
or
university
specified
in
abovementioned para
one or in any
degree
college
affiliated
to
such university
or
institution,
recognized
by
board or any
institution
affiliated
from
Boards of other
State or such
other
institutions
whose
examinations
recognised
by
the board, or
should
the
conditions
is
also that he/she
should not be
below 30 years
of age.
or
(2)
First
or
second
class
postgraduate
degree
along
with
teaching
experience
of
ten
years
in
intermediate
classes of any
recognized
institutions
or
third class postgraduate degree
m
30
years
with
teaching
experience
of
fifteen years,
or
(3) Trained postgraduate
diploma-holder
in science. The
condition is that
he has passed
this
diploma
course in first or
second class and
have efficiently
worked for 15 or
20
years
respectively
after
passing
such
diploma
course.

Notes: (1) Assistant teachers
having at least second class postgraduate
degree and specified teaching experience of
ten years in intermediate classes of a
recognised institution may be exempted
from training qualifications, (as per the
provisions contained in the Act.)

(2)Teaching experience includes
teaching prior to or after teaching or both.

(3)Higher classes means classes
from 9 to 12 and experience of teaching
these classes is admissible for the post of
Headmaster of intermediate college."

15. The aforesaid Appendix provides
three alternative qualifications. The first
being Trained M.A. or M. Sc. or M. Com.
or M. Sc. (Ag) or any equivalent post
graduate or any other degree which is
awarded by corporate body specified in
above mentioned para one and should have
at least teaching experience of four years in
class 9 to 12 in any training institute or in
any institution. The second qualification
which has been provided for is that the
candidate should have 10 years teaching
experience of Intermediate classes of any
recognized institution with first or second
class Postgraduate degree or third class
7 All. Nasreen Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1015
Postgraduate degree with 15 years teaching
experience. Third qualification, which has
been provided for is Postgraduate Diploma
holders in Science with the condition that
he has passed diploma course in first or
second class and has served meritoriously
for 15 years or 20 years respectively in any
recognized institution after passing such
diploma course. These are three alternative
qualifications provided for being appointed
on the post of Principal under Appendix-A
of Chapter- II of U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921

16. Therefore, whatever qualifications
are prescribed under Appendix-A for the
post of Principal apply equally for ad hoc
appointment
as
well
as
for
regular
appointment. Merely because a teacher
imparts education in one of the recognized
but unaided institution (self financed
institution), after he satisfies statutorily
prescribed qualifications, it cannot be said
that he is not a member of the cadre of
teacher to be considered for appointment
on the post of Principal/Headmaster. From
perusal of entire Appendix-A, it is clear
that the words "unaided or aided" have
not been mentioned any where. Only the
word "recognized" has been mentioned
therein. Neither in the impugned decision
made by the Regional Level Committee nor
in the counter affidavits and supplementary
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
State-respondents
and
respondentCommittee of Management nor it has been
placed before this Court, by learned
counsel for the respondents, as to in which
provisions of law, it has been prescribed for
appointment on the post of head of the
institution/principal of a non-government
higher
secondary
school
that
the
candidate concerned must possess the
teaching experience certificate of a
recognized and aided institution, when as
a matter of fact, in Appendix-A, it has only
been
prescribed
that
the
candidate
concerned
must
possess
teaching
experience certificate of any recognized
institution.

17. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court is of the considered opinion that as
per Clause (1) of the Appendix-A as
referred to in Regulation-1 of Chapter II of
the Regulations framed under the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the
petitioner has possessed the requisite
qualification of trained M.A. i.e. M.A.
B.Ed.
and
teaching
certificate
of
a
"recognized" institution of more than six
years. Therefore, the impugned decision
taken by the Regional Level Committee
appears to be bad in eyes of law and the
same is liable to be quashed on this ground
alone.

18. Apart from the above, this Court
will also examine the issue which has been
taken in the impugned decision of the
Regional Level Committee, which has been
taken in light of the opinion given by the
Secretary,
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services Selection Board, Allahabad that as
the
petitioner
has
obtained
teaching
experience certificate from Ganesh Shankar
Vidyarthi Balika Intermediate College,
Sultanpur Ghosh, Fatehpur, which is a
recognized but a self-financed institution,
in which posts of part time teachers are
sanctioned, therefore, on the basis of said
certificate,
the
appointment
of
the
petitioner for the post of Principal of the
institution cannot be approved of.

19. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in
the case of Mohd. Altaf (1) & Others Vs.
U.P. Public Service Commission &
Another reported in (2008) 14 SCC 139,
has held that apparently there being no
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
restriction in the statutory rules to the effect
that teaching experience must be that of a
recognized institution of the U.P. Board of
High School and Intermediate Education,
without prejudice to the contentions, list of
such candidatures also should be prepared
and submitted to the Supreme Court.
Paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment of the
Apex Court, which is relevant, are being
quoted herein below:

"6. It is to be stated that the
aforesaid Rules nowhere prescribe that
teaching experience should be that of a
teacher
in
government
college
or
government-aided or unaided college or
institution. Teaching experience may be
from any Higher Secondary School or
High School or from an institute having
Intermediate or higher classes. Further, a
Lecturer having three years' teaching
experience in CT/LT training college is
also eligible."

20. A learned Single Judge of this
Court vide judgment and order dated 24th
February, 2014 passed in Writ-A No. 11100
of 2014 (Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh And
Another Vs.State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And
Another) has opined as follows:

"As per the eligibility criteria
the experience could be as Head of a
Higher Secondary or normal School or in
teaching Intermediate or higher classes
or as a lecturer in CT or LT training
college. It is also the case of the
petitioner that she had appended a
certificate duly issued by the College and
counter signed by Deputy Registrar,
Chaudhary Charan Singh University,
Meerut to which the Degree College was
affiliated. It is also case of the petitioner
that her application form was also duly
signed by the Secretary of the institution
and
also
Deputy
Registrar
of
the
University.

According to the counsel for the
petitioner experience as required under
the Rules is for teaching Intermediate or
higher classes in a recognised institution.
There is no requirement of teaching in an
aided
institution
or
government
institution. Reliance has been placed
upon number of decisions of this Court
and also the Apex Court in the case of-

1. Mohd. Altaf (1) and others vs.
U.P. Public Service Commission and
another, reported in (2008)14 Supreme
Court Cases 139,

2. Mohd. Altaf (3) and others vs.
U.P. Public Service Commission and
another, reported in (2008) 14 Supreme
Court Cases 146, and

3. Dr. Deepak Bhatiya and
others vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2010(1) AWC 48,

to the effect that teachers who
have
experience
in
an
unaided
institution
or
non
governmental
institution, but have been regularly
teaching, cannot be excluded as the
qualifications no where prescribes that
experience should be in aided institution
or government institution."

21. The same learned Single Judge
vide judgment and order dated 7th March,
2014 passed in Writ-A NO. 14349 of 2014
(Dr. Om Prakash Pandey Vs. State of U.P.
& Another, has noticed as follows:

"The learned Single Judge has
found that the Apex Court in the case of
Mohd. Altaf & Ors. vs. Public Service
Commission & Anr. In Civil Appeal
No.961- 962 of 1999 as also in Contempt
Petition (c) No.372/2002 in Civil Appeal
No.962/1999, Shamim Khanam vs. K.B.
Pandey and another, had taken a view that
7 All. Nasreen Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
teachers
working
in
self-financed
institution cannot, as a class, be excluded
from consideration. The judgment of the
Apex Court was followed by this Court in
the case of Dr. Deepak Bhatia vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2010(5) ESC 3498 and
this Court has held that no distinction can
be made in respect of the education
recognised by U.P. Board of Secondary
Education or the institutions recognised
by the C.B.S.E. Or the I.C.S.E. Boards
and experience earned by the candidates
in self-financed institution are to be taken
into consideration."

Another Single Judge while
deciding Writ Petition No. 29000 of 2013
Dr. Madhulika Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others has held as under: