VASHISHT DHAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                             WRIT - A No. - 50676 of 2015

Vashisht Dhar Mishra
                                                                         .....Petitioner(s)
                                          Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)             : Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Anil Singh
                                        Bishen
Counsel for Respondent(s)             : Awadhesh Kumar, C.S.C.

Court No. - 52
               HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and
to quash the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 passed by respondent no.1.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of regular salary from 2006, from the
date, the other Assistant Teachers appointed with the petitioner are getting that
benefit.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from 2006 upto till date on the
basis of the regular salary from which the petitioner is entitled from 2006."

Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was appointed by the Selection
Committee which met on 03.04.1999. The selection took place in the
presence of the observer as sent by the District Basic Education
Officer. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the
District Basic Education Officer on 31.12.1999, after which the
appointment letter was issued by the Committee of Management of
Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay, Katari,
Tilakpur, Basti, respondent no.4. The said institution was thereafter
                                                    WRIA No. 50676 of 2015
                             2


brought under grant in aid list in the year 2006. The name of
petitioner was also sent along with name of other teaching and non
teaching staff for getting the benefit of grant-in-aid. The teachers
who were appointed along with the petitioner and held the
qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim were also granted the
benefit of grant-in-aid and, accordingly, the salary was paid. The
petitioner was denied the benefit as he has education qualification of
B.A., B.P.Ed, therefore, he filed Writ A No.22587 of 2014 (Vashisht
Dhar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others), which was disposed of
vide order dated 21.04.2014 whereby the Court directed the
Secretary, Basic Education, to take appropriate decision on the
representation of the petitioner regarding payment of salary.

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the impugned order has been
passed rejecting the application of the petitioner. The aforesaid order
has been challenged on the following grounds:-

After coming of the institution in grant-in-aid list, the other teaching
and non teaching staff were getting the benefit of grant-in-aid except
the petitioner. The teachers who were appointed along with the
petitioner and had the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim were
granted the benefit of grant-in-aid and salary was being paid
accordingly. The petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of
getting the proper salary on the presumption that he is a certificate
holder of B.P.Ed. The petitioner claims parity with the other teachers
who were having B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim Certificate for the benefit
of being paid the salary. Therefore, the order impugned is arbitrary,
illegal and bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. In
support of his submission, regarding entitlement of payment of
salary, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement
passed in Special Appeal No.258 of 2015 (Nand Lal vs. State of
U.P.), as decided on 25.02.2020.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner is claiming parity
with the persons holding the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim
but the qualification of the petitioner is B.P.Ed, which is not covered
under the Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
                                                                                       WRIA No. 50676 of 2015
                                                                 3


                                    High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers)
                                    Rules, 1978, (in short 'Rules of 1978'). He further submits that the
                                    judgement as relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the
                                    facts of the present case as it refers to selection on the post of
                                    Assistant Teacher (Games), wherein relying upon the qualification
                                    for physical teachers as given under the National Council for
                                    Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for
                                    Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001, the
                                    petitioner therein has been treated as qualified for being appointed as
                                    Assistant Teachers (Games).

                                    In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is,
                                    accordingly, dismissed.




                                                                            (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
                                    March 25, 2026
                                    Rahul.




Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad