HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW) ******************* Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44435 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13103 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hina Qadeer And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zubair Hasan,Abhijeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. (ORAL) 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 3 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2, 4 and 5. 3. The petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :- "Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by opposite party no.01 contained as Annexure No.01 to this writ petition. ii). Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 31.12.2016 passed by opposite party no.04 contained as Annexure No.02 to this writ petition. iii). Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 03.09.2016 passed by opposite party no.04 contained as Annexure No.03 to this writ petition and all its consequential orders if any. iv). Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by opposite party no.05 contained as Annexure No.04 to this writ petition. v). Issue a writ, direction or order in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to work on the post of Assistant Teacher Urdu in their respective Schools as they were working prior to passing of impugned orders and pay them salary regularly as and when it false. vi). Issue a writ, direction or order in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary if any. vii). Issue a writ, direction or order in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to complete the enquiry as directed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.7173 (S/S) of 2015." 4. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the petitioners were eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). A notification dated 11.01.2016 was issued for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). The petitioners, finding themselves perfectly eligible for the same, applied, and a final select list was issued, and thereafter they were appointed as Assistant Teacher (Urdu), to which there is no dispute by the respondents. 5. The controversy appears to have arisen when two teachers, who had appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 2013-2014, approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 7363 of 2015 in re: Man Singh Gautam and another vs. State of U.P. and others, praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the original mark sheet of the petitioners of the said examination, and they had relied upon a certificate of training in Urdu by All India Taleem Ghar to hold that the said degree is equivalent to BTC Training. 6. The Writ Court, vide judgment and order dated 22.04.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-13 to the petition, dismissed the said petition on the ground that no material had been shown to indicate that the State Government recognizes the aforesaid degree issued by the All India Taleem Ghar as equivalent to BTC. 7. Being aggrieved, the said petitioners filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 166 of 2016 in re: Man Singh Gautam and another vs. State of U.P. and others. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 29.02.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-14 to the petition, did not interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court, and the Special Appeal was dismissed with certain observations pertaining to the said petitioners. 8. The respondents initially issued an order dated 10.03.2016, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, wherein, giving reference to an order passed by the High Court dated 29.02.2016, all the Basic Shiksha Adhikaris in the State were required to take action. 9. Subsequently thereto, the order impugned dated 31.12.2016, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the petition, was issued by the Office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura, indicating that, in pursuance of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 56662 of 2016 dated 29.02.2016, the teachers who are holding an Urdu Training Certificate (UTC) from All India Taleem Ghar should be kept away from work. 10. Thereafter, an order dated 03.09.2016, a copy of which is annexure-3 to the petition, was issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura, directing that no salary should be paid until further orders to all the Assistant Teachers, in pursuance of the order dated 20.02.2016 passed by the High Court. 11. Further, an order dated 18.01.2017, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, was issued by the Block Education Officer, whereby the services of petitioner No. 3 were dispensed with. The said order again refers to the order dated 29.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 56662 of 2016. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also states that similar termination orders had been passed with respect to petitioner No.1 and 2 also. 13. At this stage, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 4, and 5, clarifies that Writ Petition No. 56662 of 2016 has been erroneously indicated in the aforesaid orders; rather, it should be Special Appeal (Defective) No. 166 of 2016, decided on 29.02.2016. 14. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.02.2016 nowhere requires the termination of the services of the petitioners, which order is the sheet anchor of the respondents while passing the orders impugned. 15. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the aforesaid judgment can only be treated to be in personam, inasmuch as two litigants had approached the Writ Court while placing reliance on a certificate of training purportedly issued by the All India Taleem Ghar to claim that the said certificate is equivalent to BTC Training, but the Writ Court had dismissed their petition, and in turn, upon a Special Appeal being filed, the same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29.02.2016; and thus, the said judgment at most can only be treated to be a judgment in personam and not in rem to have prevailed on the respondents in issuing the impugned orders and for having initially stopped the salary of the petitioners and to thereafter have dispensed with their services. 16. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that it was always open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law but taking shelter of the Division Bench judgment of this Court while passing the orders impugned, which does not even pertain to the petitioners, and terminating their substantive services after they had validly been appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) and had acquired a substantive right to hold the said post, the said right could only have been taken away in accordance with law and not under the shelter of an order that may have been passed with respect to certain persons who had their own grievance; and consequently, the respondents have patently erred in treating the Division Bench judgment of this Court to be a judgment in rem and in terminating their services. 17. On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2, 4, and 5, has supported the orders impugned by contending that once a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 29.02.2016, had gone into the validity of a degree issued by the All India Taleem Ghar to hold that the Hon'ble Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that there is no basis to hold that the course undergone by the appellants was treated by the State Government as equivalent to BTC; as such, the said judgment has been treated to be a judgment in rem so as to prevail on the respondents to initially stop the salary of the petitioners and thereafter dispense with their services, and thus no error has been occasioned in the respondents passing the impugned orders. 18. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that undisputedly all the petitioners had been appointed after due selection process on the post of Assistant Teachers (Urdu). They were also working on the said post when, by means of the orders impugned, initially the salary was stopped and thereafter their services have been dispensed with. 19. Perusal of the orders impugned would indicate that the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.02.2016 has been made the basis for initially stopping the salary of the petitioners and thereafter dispensing with their services. 20. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were not validly appointed. With their appointment after due selection process, they acquired a substantive right to hold the post and consequently their services could only have been dispensed with, if at all, in accordance with law and by following the Service Rules. However, the respondents have adopted a shortcut in dispensing with the services of the petitioners by placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.02.2016, which incidentally does not pertain to the petitioners; rather, it pertains to two litigants who had initially approached the Writ Court praying for the issue of the original mark sheet of the petitioners of the TET examination and, in this regard, had placed reliance on a certificate of training in Urdu by the All India Taleem Ghar to hold that the said degree is equivalent to BTC Training. The Writ Court did not find any merit in the argument and had accordingly dismissed the petition vide judgment and order dated 22.04.2015. Upon the challenge being raised, the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 166 of 2016 dismissed the Special Appeal vide judgment and order dated 29.02.2016, but with certain observations. 21. By no stretch of imagination can the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court be held to be a general mandamus for dispensing with the services of validly and legally appointed Assistant Teachers (Urdu) as in the instant case, inasmuch as the Division Bench did not direct the respondents to either dispense with the services of those teachers who could fall within the realm of the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016. Even otherwise, as already indicated above, the petitioners had been appointed after a valid selection process and had acquired a substantive right to hold the said post, which could only be taken away from them in accordance with law and not on the basis of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court, which did not even pertain to the petitioners. 22. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the orders impugned dated 10.03.2016, 13.12.2016, 03.09.2016 and 18.01.2017, copies of which are annexures-1, 2, 3 and 4 to the petition, respectively, are quashed. 23. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu), i.e., the post on which they were working prior to their services being dispensed with. 24. Consequences to follow. 25. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 31.7.2025 cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench