Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and others), wherein this Court came to the conclusion that Shiksha

1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 5th December, 2024 in Writ-A No. 16748 of 2021. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 14.9.2021; whereby his salary on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher was stooped. A further prayer was made to command the respondents to release salary to the appellant. The writ petition was pending wherein afÏdavits were exchanged. The reason for salary to be denied to the appellant was the fact that his qualification of B.Ed. was of Shiksha Alankar from an institution which was not duly recognized.

2. The issue as to whether such qualification could constitute the basis for appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher fell for consideration before a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29888 of 2011 (Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein this Court came to the conclusion that Shiksha Alankar was not a valid qualification and could not be treated as equivalent to B.Ed. for appointment to the post. A direction was issued to stop payment of salary to such persons who had obtained appointment on the strength of such qualification. The judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of V.K. Upadhyay was challenged in Special Appeal No. 1875 of 2011 and was confined to the direction issued for recovery to be made from such teacher. It is to such limited extent that interference was made by the division bench with the direction of learned Single Judge.

3. It appears that the fact that the appellant's qualification was treated as B.Ed. on the strength of his having obtained Shiksha Alankar was noticed later, whereafter his salary was stopped. Notices were also issued to the appellant under Section 16-E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for having falsely represented himself to be possessed of B.Ed. Degree.

4. During pendency of the writ petition, it transpires that proceedings under Section 16(E)10 of the Act of 1921 were ultimately concluded and an order came to be passed by the Director of Education, dated 11.11.2024. In this order the Director has noticed that the appointment of appellant was on compassionate ground as his father was a Principal and had died. The qualification of appellant was examined on the date of his initial appointment, dated 23rd March, 1998. The Director was of the view that though the appellant could not have been appointed on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher, but he was eligible and qualified to be appointed as Arts Teacher and, therefore, his appointment could be protected as such. The Director, in such circumstances, concluded the proceedings vide order dated 11.11.2024.

5. The order of the Director has been placed before the learned Single Judge, who has made observations questioning the rationale to extend compassionate appointment to the appellant. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant was otherwise out of touch with Arts as a subject for 26 years and, therefore, it would be difÏcult for him to teach such subject. A direction, therefore, has been issued to the Director to revisit the matter.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Director, dated 11.11.2024, was not under challenge before the learned Single Judge. It is also submitted that this order of the Director had substantially done justice to the appellant, inasmuch as, the appellant has been adjusted against a post for which he had requisite qualification and was otherwise entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is also submitted that result of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is that the appellant virtually goes out of employment after having worked in the institution for 26 years which would be doing grave injustice to him.

7. Learned State Counsel argues that the Director has resolved the controversy by a reasoned order and since same was not under challenge, therefore, learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the order dated 11.11.2024.

8. From the facts placed on record, it is apparent that the appellant was offered compassionate appointment in 1998. His entitlement to be offered such appointment had to be examined in 1998. There was nothing on record before the learned Single Judge to doubt the credentials of appellant for consideration for compassionate appointment in 1998. After passing of 26 years, it would not be proper to direct the authorities to examine as to whether the appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment in 1998, or not. This is particularly so, as the authorities themselves have not cancelled the appointment of the appellant and have only adjusted him to a post for which the appellant had qualification.

9. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant since was not possessed of B.Ed. qualification, his continuance from 1998, ought to be treated as a teacher in Arts, for which the appellant had the qualification. He would be entitled to continuity of service and other benefits treating his appointment as that of an Arts Teacher.

10. The salary which has already been paid to the appellant for the post of L.T. Grade Teacher, however, shall not be recovered from him, but his future entitlement would be in terms of his initial appointment as that of an Arts Teacher.

11. In light of the observations and directions issued above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is set aside.

12. Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ranjeet Sahu RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 5th December, 2024 in Writ-A No. 16748 of 2021. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 14.9.2021; whereby his salary on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher was stooped. A further prayer was made to command the respondents to release salary to the appellant. The writ petition was pending wherein afÏdavits were exchanged. The reason for salary to be denied to the appellant was the fact that his qualification of B.Ed. was of Shiksha Alankar from an institution which was not duly recognized.

2. The issue as to whether such qualification could constitute the basis for appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher fell for consideration before a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29888 of 2011 (Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein this Court came to the conclusion that Shiksha Alankar was not a valid qualification and could not be treated as equivalent to B.Ed. for appointment to the post. A direction was issued to stop payment of salary to such persons who had obtained appointment on the strength of such qualification. The judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of V.K. Upadhyay was challenged in Special Appeal No. 1875 of 2011 and was confined to the direction issued for recovery to be made from such teacher. It is to such limited extent that interference was made by the division bench with the direction of learned Single Judge.

3. It appears that the fact that the appellant's qualification was treated as B.Ed. on the strength of his having obtained Shiksha Alankar was noticed later, whereafter his salary was stopped. Notices were also issued to the appellant under Section 16-E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for having falsely represented himself to be possessed of B.Ed. Degree.

4. During pendency of the writ petition, it transpires that proceedings under Section 16(E)10 of the Act of 1921 were ultimately concluded and an order came to be passed by the Director of Education, dated 11.11.2024. In this order the Director has noticed that the appointment of appellant was on compassionate ground as his father was a Principal and had died. The qualification of appellant was examined on the date of his initial appointment, dated 23rd March, 1998. The Director was of the view that though the appellant could not have been appointed on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher, but he was eligible and qualified to be appointed as Arts Teacher and, therefore, his appointment could be protected as such. The Director, in such circumstances, concluded the proceedings vide order dated 11.11.2024.

5. The order of the Director has been placed before the learned Single Judge, who has made observations questioning the rationale to extend compassionate appointment to the appellant. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant was otherwise out of touch with Arts as a subject for 26 years and, therefore, it would be difÏcult for him to teach such subject. A direction, therefore, has been issued to the Director to revisit the matter.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Director, dated 11.11.2024, was not under challenge before the learned Single Judge. It is also submitted that this order of the Director had substantially done justice to the appellant, inasmuch as, the appellant has been adjusted against a post for which he had requisite qualification and was otherwise entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is also submitted that result of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is that the appellant virtually goes out of employment after having worked in the institution for 26 years which would be doing grave injustice to him.

7. Learned State Counsel argues that the Director has resolved the controversy by a reasoned order and since same was not under challenge, therefore, learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the order dated 11.11.2024.

8. From the facts placed on record, it is apparent that the appellant was offered compassionate appointment in 1998. His entitlement to be offered such appointment had to be examined in 1998. There was nothing on record before the learned Single Judge to doubt the credentials of appellant for consideration for compassionate appointment in 1998. After passing of 26 years, it would not be proper to direct the authorities to examine as to whether the appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment in 1998, or not. This is particularly so, as the authorities themselves have not cancelled the appointment of the appellant and have only adjusted him to a post for which the appellant had qualification.

9. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant since was not possessed of B.Ed. qualification, his continuance from 1998, ought to be treated as a teacher in Arts, for which the appellant had the qualification. He would be entitled to continuity of service and other benefits treating his appointment as that of an Arts Teacher.

10. The salary which has already been paid to the appellant for the post of L.T. Grade Teacher, however, shall not be recovered from him, but his future entitlement would be in terms of his initial appointment as that of an Arts Teacher.

11. In light of the observations and directions issued above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is set aside.

12. Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ranjeet Sahu RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad