High Court · 2025
Case Details
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for following reliefs:- "i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI calling for record and quashing the order dated:05.04.2022 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS directing the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to consider the claim of the petitioner over the post of Lecturer (Hindi), forthwith and to ensure that the payment of salary on the post of lecturer Hindi be paid to the petitioner." It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade on 29.3.2010. A vacancy arose on the post of Lecturer in Hindi on 31.3.2019 and the petitioner claim for promotion on the post of Lecturer has been rejected by the impugned order. The ground on which the same has been rejected is to the effect that the petitioner has not taken permission for obtaining the degree of B.A. in Sanskrit as a regular student from the management prior to taking admission in the aforesaid course. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure 3 to the writ petition to submit that the Principal of the institution has forwarded the same to the Authorized Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vishwesh Rajratnam Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (5) ADJ 800 to submit that the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief as has been granted in the aforesaid judgment. It has been held in the aforesaid case that the failure on the part of the Principal to take permission from the management could not effect the degree of the petitioner as the aforesaid was not within the domain of the petitioner and it was for the Principal to have completed the formalities once he has forwarded the same. In this respect, paragraph 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:- "16. The next question is whether the failure to take permission from the Manager of the Institution would invalidate the effect of such degree. The question in a similar factual matrix was posed to a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, reported at 2004 (4) ESC (ALL) 2492. In the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey (supra), the petitioner had obtained the M.Ed. degree as a regular student without taking leave from the college where she was working as a teacher. It was contended that M.Ed. degree could not be considered for the purposes of promotion. A stand to this effect was also taken by the Committee of Management before this Court. Negating the stand taken by the Committee of Management, this Court held: "In our opinion, the M.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be over looked merely on the ground that the said degree was obtained without taking leave from the College where he was working. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Judge in the case of Ikramul Haq(supra). A degree obtained by a candidate from a recognised Institution cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the candidate, who was also a teacher in the College had not taken leave. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 did not possess the requisite qualification for being considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Education in the College."
17. The case of the petitioner is on a better footing. The petitioner had obtained permission from the Principal of the Institution who is the competent authority to grant permission. The petitioner appeared as a private candidate and not a regular candidate. The degree of M.A. (Political Science) so obtained by the petitioner was also entered in the service record of the petitioner on the directions of the Principal of the Institution. The Committee of Management was thus alerted to the aforesaid qualifications obtained by the petitioner. It is consequently estopped from challenging the degree obtained by the petitioner or questioning its validity for the purposes of promotion." Learned Standing Counsel do not dispute the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishwesh Rajratnam (supra) and submit that the only objection against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner has passed the B.A. in Sanskrit degree as a regular student without the permission of the management. In the present case, it is to be seen that the petitioner has applied for B.A. in Sanskrit after applying for permission to the Manager through the Principal by application dated 12.1.2012, which was duly forwarded by the Principal on 12.1.2012. The effect of the aforesaid forwarding was that the petitioner has participated in the B.A. in Sanskrit and have passed the same. Till date it has not been shown that the aforesaid application was rejected by the competent authority. Once the same has been forwarded and it was not within the reach of the petitioner to have get it sanctioned from the appropriate authority as the Principal has already forwarded the same. Further, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishwesh Rajratnam (supra), the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.4.2022 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Hindi in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and may forward the papers to the Regional Level Committee in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Bhaskar BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for following reliefs:- "i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI calling for record and quashing the order dated:05.04.2022 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS directing the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to consider the claim of the petitioner over the post of Lecturer (Hindi), forthwith and to ensure that the payment of salary on the post of lecturer Hindi be paid to the petitioner." It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade on 29.3.2010. A vacancy arose on the post of Lecturer in Hindi on 31.3.2019 and the petitioner claim for promotion on the post of Lecturer has been rejected by the impugned order. The ground on which the same has been rejected is to the effect that the petitioner has not taken permission for obtaining the degree of B.A. in Sanskrit as a regular student from the management prior to taking admission in the aforesaid course. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure 3 to the writ petition to submit that the Principal of the institution has forwarded the same to the Authorized Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vishwesh Rajratnam Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (5) ADJ 800 to submit that the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief as has been granted in the aforesaid judgment. It has been held in the aforesaid case that the failure on the part of the Principal to take permission from the management could not effect the degree of the petitioner as the aforesaid was not within the domain of the petitioner and it was for the Principal to have completed the formalities once he has forwarded the same. In this respect, paragraph 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:- "16. The next question is whether the failure to take permission from the Manager of the Institution would invalidate the effect of such degree. The question in a similar factual matrix was posed to a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, reported at 2004 (4) ESC (ALL) 2492. In the case of Dr. Vibha Pandey (supra), the petitioner had obtained the M.Ed. degree as a regular student without taking leave from the college where she was working as a teacher. It was contended that M.Ed. degree could not be considered for the purposes of promotion. A stand to this effect was also taken by the Committee of Management before this Court. Negating the stand taken by the Committee of Management, this Court held: "In our opinion, the M.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be over looked merely on the ground that the said degree was obtained without taking leave from the College where he was working. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Judge in the case of Ikramul Haq(supra). A degree obtained by a candidate from a recognised Institution cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the candidate, who was also a teacher in the College had not taken leave. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 did not possess the requisite qualification for being considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Education in the College."
17. The case of the petitioner is on a better footing. The petitioner had obtained permission from the Principal of the Institution who is the competent authority to grant permission. The petitioner appeared as a private candidate and not a regular candidate. The degree of M.A. (Political Science) so obtained by the petitioner was also entered in the service record of the petitioner on the directions of the Principal of the Institution. The Committee of Management was thus alerted to the aforesaid qualifications obtained by the petitioner. It is consequently estopped from challenging the degree obtained by the petitioner or questioning its validity for the purposes of promotion." Learned Standing Counsel do not dispute the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishwesh Rajratnam (supra) and submit that the only objection against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner has passed the B.A. in Sanskrit degree as a regular student without the permission of the management. In the present case, it is to be seen that the petitioner has applied for B.A. in Sanskrit after applying for permission to the Manager through the Principal by application dated 12.1.2012, which was duly forwarded by the Principal on 12.1.2012. The effect of the aforesaid forwarding was that the petitioner has participated in the B.A. in Sanskrit and have passed the same. Till date it has not been shown that the aforesaid application was rejected by the competent authority. Once the same has been forwarded and it was not within the reach of the petitioner to have get it sanctioned from the appropriate authority as the Principal has already forwarded the same. Further, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishwesh Rajratnam (supra), the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.4.2022 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Hindi in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and may forward the papers to the Regional Level Committee in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Bhaskar BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad