Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 1110 - SC - Indian LawsPrimary School - Advertisement inviting application for the posts of an Assistant Teacher - Appointment was in contravention of the statutory provisions Bombay Primary Education (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act) - Termination of Service - deprived of legitimate dues - Education and particularly that of elementary/basic education has to be qualitative and for that the trained teachers are required. The Legislature in its wisdom after consultation with the expert body fixes the eligibility for a particular discipline taught in a school. Thus, the eligibility so fixed require very strict compliance and any appointment made in contravention thereof must be held to be void. However, the Division Bench of the High Court has given full details of the teachers who had been appointed alongwith the respondent No.1 in pursuance of the same advertisement and possessing the same qualification of B.Sc.;B.Ed./B.A.;B.Ed. A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum, what to talk of a Writ Court, as explained by the legal maxim ‘allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus'. If a party has committed a wrong, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong. HELD THAT:- Apex court do not warrant review of the orders passed by the High Court as well as by the Tribunal. Appellant has insisted that this Court should not permit an illegality to perpetrate as the respondent No.1 had been appointed illegally and he did not possess the eligibility for the post. The Primary School children have to be taught by qualified persons and this Court has consistently held that B.Sc.; B.Ed./B.A.;B.Ed. is not equivalent to PTC which is the required qualification in clause (6) of Schedule F attached to the Act. the instant case could be decided in the light of the aforesaid backdrop. It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. Thus, it is evident that the appellant has acted with malice alongwith respondent and held that it was not merely a case of discrimination rather it is a clear case of victimisation of respondent No.1 by School Management for raising his voice against exploitation. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
|