U.P. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus HARI DEO MANI TRIPATHI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 07-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
B 
v. 
HARi DEO MANI TRIPATHI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
DECEMBER 7, 1992 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972-Section 9-Uttar Pradesh Basic 
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981-Rule 22:-Education Rules in 
C Chapter XI of Boards Manual--R.r. 13-A, 14(iii),(e),(f),(g), 15 to 18, 24-A 
and 24-B-Appointment as Headmasters-Untrained teachers appointed on 
temporary basis as Assistant Teachers, obtaining certificate of training at later 
dates-Held, date of their training and not date of initial appointment to be 
taken as the date of their substantive appointment as Assistant Teachers-Un-
trained teachers of different class from trained teachers-United Provinces 
D District Boards Act 1922-Antarim Zila ParishadAct 1958-Ksltetra Samitis 
and Zi/a Parishad Adhiniyam 1961. Section 270. 
The respondents were temporarily appointed as untrained Assistant 
Teachers in the Junior Basic Schools in U.P. (Primary Schools) between 
the years 1959 and 1966. They acquired training between 1972 and 1976, 
E and in 2 cases between 1968-69 and in 1970. 
The writ petitioners contended before the High Court that the initial 
date of appointment as Assistant Teachers and not the date of their 
training should be taken as the date of their appointment in the substan-
F 
tive 'capacity as Assistant Teachers. They contended that trained and 
untrained teachers were in the s~me class, i.e., Assistant Teachers; that 
after they had received training any disparity between them had come to 
an end, and that there being no rules governing seniority, the date of initial 
appointment was relevant to determine seniority. 
G 
The case of the respondents in the High Court (appellants in the 
Supreme Court) was that the eligibility of primary school teachers was the 
training certificate. On non-availability of trained teachers, untrained · 
· teachers could be appointed, but their scale of pay was less and it was a 
fixed pay till they were trained and hence they could not be equated with 
H -trained teachers. 
384 
J 
-) 
.. 
U.P.SHIKSHAPARISHAD v. H.D.M. TRIPATHI 
385 
The High Court relied on Jagdish Narain Shastri v. Basic Shiksha A 
Parishad, Etowah & Ors., and held that there was no difference between 
trained and untrained teachers, and in the absence of any rule or govern-
ment order, seniority could not have been determined with effect from the 
date of training but of the initial appointment. The High Court observed 
that the writ petitioners had long uninterrupted and continuous service, 
and had taken the training before the Uttar Pfadesh Basic Education 
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 came into force. It recorded the concession 
of the writ petitioners that they ·did not want to disturb the Headmasters 
already selected, and who were likely to be affected by the refixation of 
seniority. Consequently the High Court directed that seniority of the writ 
petitioners be fixed afresh and thereafter be considered for promotion, 
while not disturbing the selections/promotions already made. 
The relevant enactments are the United Provinces District Boards 
B 
c 
Act 1922 under which the Education Rules contained in Chapter XI of the 
Board's Manual were framed. These Rules survived the enactment of the 
Antarim Zila Parishads Act 1958, the Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads D 
Adhiniyam 1961 and the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, till they were 
finally replaced by the 1981 Rules. 
. 
In the Supreme Court the respondents submitted that the provisions 
of the 1922 Education Manual stood repealed in view of Section 274 of the 
1961 Act. 
The undisputed facts noticed by the Supreme Court were that the 
respondents were untrained and temporary Assistant Teachers when they 
were initially appointed; they received a lower pay than the trained 
teachers till they acquired the requisite qualification; they did not chal-
lenge the seniority or promotions of those appointed as trained teachers 
till 1987; no relief was ~laimed against the seniority list filed by Harideo 
Mani Tripathi in 1987; and separate lists were maintained of those ap-
pointed on substantive basis as trained teachers and untrained teachers. 
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. It is the trained Assistant Teacher alone who was eligible for 
promotion to the post of Headmaster. There were three scales of pay even for 
trained Assistant Teachers, and it was a trained Assistant Teach

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.