Smt. Alpana Chaudhary vs District Education Officer & another

writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08.03.2006 by which a 3 direction to the Secretary Education, Uttarakhand to conduct an enquiry into the entire selection process and take appropriate action thereon. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:- (cid:147)In view of above, and as per the agreement of both the parities, it is proper and expedient that the Secretary Education Uttaranchal will enquire into the entire selection process after examining the record. The interim order passed on 19-4-2005 will continue to operate and three posts shall be kept reserved for the petitioners. in pursuant However, it is made clear that the entire appointments made advertisement shall be subject matter of the final decision taken by the Secretary Education. The record kept under sealed cover be sent to the Secretary Education for compliance of the order immediately. The Secretary Education will also give opportunity for hearing to the petitioners while enquiring into the matter. It is being made clear that independent enquiry shall be made by the Secretary. The respondents thereafter shall consider and pass appropriate order regarding the appointment of the petitioners against the vacant posts. Subject to the observations made above, petition is disposed off. No order as to cost.(cid:148)

5. Subsequently an enquiry was conducted by Secretary Education and in the enquiry it was found that there were certain anomalies in the selection process and some of the candidates, who have selected, were not having requisite qualification as contained in the Rules as it stood after 1998 amendment. Primarily a candidate had to fulfill the requisite qualification, firstly, he must be a graduate from the recognised University with Urdu as one of the subject and secondly, he must be trained to teach in Urdu Language. Apart from this fact there was another qualification of a candidate must qualify the written examination with at least 50% marks. The Secretary Education in order to conduct an enquiry constitute a 4 committee to enquire into the matter as directed by the Hon(cid:146)ble Court which was consisted of following persons:-

1. Sri N.S. Rana, District Education Officer, Chairman

2. Sri J.P. Yadav, Assistant District Education Officer, Secretary

3. Ms. Geeta Nautiyal, Assistant District Education, Member

4. Sri K.S. Bisht, Finance and Accounts Officer, Member.

6. In their enquiry an opportunity of hearing was given to all the persons who were appointed and against whom an anomaly was discovered. The petitioner in his reply was heard and thereafter committee came to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner is wrong for the following reasons:- a) She has got less than 50% marks in his written examination, hence he is not qualified. b) She is not a graduate with Urdu as a language and he does not even have a training in Urdu from the recognised Institute/University as given in the advertisement.

7. Therefore, on all account, it was held that petitioner is not qualified and the appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter a notice was served on petitioner on

21.09.2007 issued by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Dehradun. The petitioner filed his reply and subsequently, the termination order was passed on

22.10.2007. This order has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has fairly admitted that the petitioner was not having 5 qualification as per the Rules 1981 as amended by 8th Amendment, incorporated in 1998. The petitioner was neither graduate in Urdu nor he has a training in Urdu Language teachers, yet he has relied upon the Government Order dated 13.09.1994 passed in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh in which it is provided that even a person who is not having Urdu as one of the essential language in graduation and who is not having training in Urdu language can be considered for appointment on untrained scale, in a given contingency where candidate with such qualification are not available. This argument of the petitioner though is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that in the advertisement dated 19.09.2004 published by the Government, it was nowhere stipulated in a given contingency where trained candidates appointment of Urdu teachers are not available, the candidate having passed intermediate with Urdu as a subject and also possessed Bachelor(cid:146)s degree in any discipline could be appointed as untrained Urdu teacher. Moreover if that contention of the petitioner before this Court is accepted the same opportunity was also liable to be given to all such candidates which has not been done, as they never applied in view of the Government Order dated 13.09.1994. Since this condition was not given in the advertisement it is quite strange as to what motivated the petitioner to move application in the first instance in spite of knowing this that he was not qualified for the appointment.

9. This fact has also been brought before this Court that petitioner has less than 50% marks in his written examination, therefore, in any case she is not qualified for the said post. This Court is of the view that the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the rules. 6 Moreover, before terminating the services of the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, there is hence no violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, there is no occasion for interference in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

10. No order as to costs. ASWAL (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

23.08.2012