9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appointment of Urdu teachers. 2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Equivalence of the Moallim-e-Urdu degree with the Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Appointment of Urdu Teachers: The Government of U.P. decided to appoint Urdu teachers in 1984, setting specific qualifications and training requirements. The advertisement for the positions required candidates to have passed Higher Secondary or equivalent with Urdu as a subject and possess a B.T.C., Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, or equivalent. The appellants possessed High School and Intermediate Degrees with Urdu and Urdu Training Certificates from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. They were selected and appointed but their appointments were canceled shortly after due to the lack of a B.T.C. The appellants argued their qualifications were higher than required and that their subsequent acquisition of B.T.C. should validate their appointments. However, the High Court ruled their appointments were invalid as they did not meet the minimum qualifications at the time of appointment, relying on precedents such as Dr. Prit Singh vs. S.K. Mangal and State of Mizoram vs. Biakchhawna. 2. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice: The appellants contended that their appointments were canceled without notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that since the appellants did not meet the minimum qualifications, their appointments were void ab initio, and thus, natural justice did not apply. The High Court supported this view, referencing State of M.P. vs. Shyama Pardhi, which stated that non-compliance with natural justice does not arise when the fundamental qualification requirements are unmet. The Court also noted that the cancellation order provided an opportunity for the appellants to present their qualifications, which they failed to do. 3. Equivalence of the Moallim-e-Urdu Degree with the Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.): The appellants argued that various government orders equated the Moallim-e-Urdu degree with the B.T.C., making their qualifications valid. However, the Court found that prior to 1994, government orders only recognized Moallim-e-Urdu for state service appointments without equating it to B.T.C. It was only in 1994 that the Moallim-e-Urdu degree was officially granted equivalence to the B.T.C. The Court ruled that qualifications must be met at the time of appointment, not retrospectively. Since the appellants did not possess the required training qualifications at the time of their appointment, their appointments were invalid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the appellants' appointments were invalid as they did not meet the required qualifications at the time of appointment. The principle of natural justice was not violated as the appellants were given an opportunity to present their qualifications. The 1994 government order equating Moallim-e-Urdu with B.T.C. did not retroactively validate their appointments. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
