2019 (4) TMI 2157 - HC - Indian Laws

Termination order - resolution for termination of the service of the petitioner was approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Mahoba - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2003 (3) TMI 766 - SUPREME COURT has taken view that B.Ed. degree holder cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary School and there is sufficient logic and justification in the study prescribing qualification of Teacher Training Certificate and no B.Ed. for appointment of teachers in Primary Schools. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that since the petitioner does not possess necessary qualification as prescribed under Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules, 1978 his appointment is itself void ab initio and as such the decision taken by the authorities does not call for any interference by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is true that in the present case before cancelling the candidature of the petitioner no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to him, however, breach of principles of natural justice is no more a straight jacket. The Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University and others v. Mansoor Ali Khan 2000 (8) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT pleased to held that it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice - since nothing has been brought in record by the petitioner that what prejudiced has been caused to the petitioner in absence of opportunity of hearing, the order impugned cannot be set aside only on the ground that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner. Thus, no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this Writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to dismissed. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointment and termination of the petitioner as Headmaster.
2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Applicability of amended qualifications and government notifications.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the appointment and termination of the petitioner as Headmaster
The petitioner challenged the resolution dated 14.11.2018 by the Committee of Management, the approval by the District Basic Education Officer dated 1.12.2018, and the termination order dated 3.12.2018. The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in 2005, but his salary was stayed by the Court due to a writ petition by respondent No. 5, Raghunandan Prasad, who questioned the petitioner's qualifications. The Court dismissed Raghunandan Prasad's petition in 2018, but the Committee of Management terminated the petitioner's services, citing the absence of a training certificate at the time of appointment. The Court held that the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualifications prescribed u/s 4 and 5 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, as B.Ed. was not a recognized teacher training qualification for the post of Headmaster.

Issue 2: Compliance with the principles of natural justice
The petitioner argued that the termination was done without an opportunity for a hearing. The Court acknowledged the violation of natural justice but emphasized that such a breach does not automatically invalidate the decision unless prejudice is proven. Citing various judgments, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the lack of a hearing.

Issue 3: Applicability of amended qualifications and government notifications
The petitioner relied on amendments and notifications, including the 2008 amendment recognizing B.Ed. as a qualification and the 2010 NCTE notification. However, the Court noted that these amendments were effective from their respective dates of notification and did not apply retroactively to the petitioner's 2005 appointment. The Court also referenced previous judgments affirming that B.Ed. is not equivalent to the required teacher training qualifications for primary and junior high school teachers.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications at the time of his appointment, and the termination was valid. The breach of natural justice did not warrant setting aside the termination, as no prejudice was demonstrated. The amendments and notifications cited by the petitioner were not applicable retroactively.