The Allahabad High Court has held that a teacher appointed by a Committee of Management without prior approval of the post and without the qualification prescribed for it can only claim his salary from the Committee of Management which appointed him.

Petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management on 23^rd November 1999, when he held the degree of 'Shiksha Alankar'. Unpaid, he moved the High Court in 2000 and obtained an interim order, and the State's special appeal against it was dismissed in 2009. After a post of Assistant Teacher fell vacant on 30^th June 2010, the Committee requisitioned a teacher in the Hindi subject.

No appointment followed. An order was passed for payment of salary to the petitioner from July 2010 until a regularly appointed Hindi teacher took over. He said he was paid till 14^th August 2013, after which his salary stopped.

His claim for salary and regularisation was rejected on 22.10.2020 on grounds that no post had been sanctioned, and he did not hold the qualification prescribed in Appendix-A. It was stated that the certificate issued to him by Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was neither the prescribed degree nor equivalent to it.

Petitioner argued that the State had itself treated 'Shiksha Alankar' as equivalent to B.Ed. in a communication dated 6^th September 2000 and in a letter of the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag dated 25^th June 2002. He submitted that he held a B.Sc. in Mathematics along with 'Shiksha Alankar', and having served since 1999 while being paid for only three years, his experience entitled him to salary and regularisation.

Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner never held the prescribed qualification and the post was never sanctioned. It was argued that the Court had held 'Shiksha Alankar' to be unrecognised and not equivalent to B.Ed. in Gulam Rasul Warsi v. State of U.P., and the amended Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 allows regularisation only of a person holding the qualification prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 bars an institution from creating a new post of teacher or other employee except with the previous approval of the Director or such other officer as the Director may empower. Appendix-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 prescribes the qualification for a Mathematics teacher for Classes 11 and 12 as MA or M.Sc. in Mathematics, BA (Hons) with a three year course in Mathematics, or B.Sc. (Hons), and requires in addition that the teacher be 'trained'.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,

“In the light of the said statutory provisions as extracted above, it is essential to notice that for any person to be appointed for teaching intermediate classes, the requisite qualification must be fulfilled. It is essential that the approval of the post, for teaching in an institution is to be created with the approval of the Director or any other officer as may be empowered in that behalf by the Director.”

Rejecting the plea of equivalence, the Court held that neither communication relied on by the petitioner treated 'Shiksha Alankar' as equivalent to a Bachelor of Education degree.

“Thus, this court has no hesitation in holding that the appointment of the petitioner was made without any approval of the post and without the petitioner having the requisite qualification.”

On the plea of experience, the Court held that the years put in by the petitioner would not create any equity in his favour. It relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Court and on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shesh Mani Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, where it was held that an appointment made in contravention of a statutory provision is void from the beginning and that length of service cannot make up for the absence of statutory approval.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that no interference was called for, but that the petitioner would be entitled to claim salary from the Committee of Management.

A second writ petition, seeking to restrain the respondents from requisitioning or filling the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade Mathematics until his regularisation claim was decided, was dismissed as well. “As, the petitioner has been found to be ineligible to be appointed from the first day itself, such a relief, as claimed, cannot be granted.”

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 others

Click Here To Read/Download Order