Sheetal Prakash Pastor vs Director of Education and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. P. Singh and Sri Mohan Yadav, learned Standing Counsels for the State respondents.

In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. Director of Education, Lucknow; Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi and District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi, to appoint the, petitioner to the post of General Teacher in Tyagmurit Atmaram Govind Khair Inter College, Gurusarai Jhansi (hereinafter in short called as ''College'') in place of respondent No. 5 and also for further direction to the respondents to cancel the appointment of the respondent No. 5. Further direction has been sought to the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, several vacancies of teachers were available in the above ''College'', therefore, respondent No. 5 filed a Writ Petition No. 7454 of 1988 (Jagmohan Salele v. District Inspector of Schools and Anr.) for mandamus for his appointment as a P. T. Teacher in C. T. Grade and this Court on 15.4.1988 passed an order with the direction to the authorities to dispose of representation of the respondent No. 5. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 was given appointment as P. T. Teacher/C.T. Grade/General Teacher. Some other candidate had filed Civil Suit No. 506 of 1986 before the Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi for declaration of merit list of the selected candidates and the Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi directed the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi to declare the merit list and if the plaintiff in the suit is found in the merit list then he may be appointed respondent No. 5 Jagmohan Salele was also found selected and was in the merit list therefore, the direction dated 15.4.1988 was given for his appointment, However, the petitioner claiming himself to be in possession of minimum qualification and eligible for being appointed as a General Teacher has come to this Court seeking above direction.

Counter affidavit has been filed, which indicates that the respondent No. 5 was appointed in compliance to the order of this Court dated 15.4.1988 and there is no vacancy, where the petitioner could be given appointment, more so, according to the respondents, the petitioner has not challenged the appointment order of the respondent No. 5 and merely by virtue of having minimum qualification no direction could be issued to the respondents for giving appointment as General Teacher.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 595 (Nagraj v. State of Karnataka) the possession of the minimum statutory qualifications by a candidate does not automatically entitle him to the appointment to a post.

I have heard learned Counsels for the parties. I find force in the contentions of learned Counsel for the respondents. By merely possessing minimum required qualification for appointment the respondents can not be directed to appoint the petitioner as a teacher unless the petitioner has participated in the selection conducted for recruitment against the existing vacancy and he is declared successful and the respondent is willing to give appointment from the selection.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.