Laltesh Kumar & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 6000 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

							Reserved on 3.9.2013
 
							Delivered on 23.9.2013
 
 
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24365 of 1999
 
Petitioner :- Laltesh Kumar & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- N.C. Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

Petitioners have obtained their B.Ed. degree  from  Mahatma Gandhi Gramodai Vishwavidhyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.) in the year  1995 and  1996; respectively. They applied for  Special B.T.C. Training pursuant to the  advertisement  dated 8.3.1998 issued in  Dainik  Jagaran.  By  the  advertisement  dated 8.3.1998, the  Director of  the Institute of  Cooperative and  Corporate  Management,  Research  and  Training (U.P.) invited applications  for selection to the training of BTC course of six months. All the formalities  were completed and the application forms were submitted by the petitioners. However, they were not allowed to participate  in the training programme for the reason  that they did not obtain their B.Ed. degree  from the college/universities within the  State of  U.P. in pursuance of the Government Order dated 9.1.1998 and the condition mentioned in the  advertisement  pursuant thereto. The writ petition came up for admission on 11.6.1999 and an interim order was passed  which is  quoted as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.  The course  commenced from 1st June, 1999. In the fitness of things, I direct the respondents to provisionally permit the petitioners to join the course.  This, however,  will not create any right in favour of the petitioners and the same will be subject to  the result of the writ petition."

Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioners  were  selected and  permitted to join training of one  week for theory at  DIET, Fatehpur  with effect from 25.6.1999. They completed the same and the  certificate was issued by the Principal of the   DIET, Fatehpur with a direction to  the respective petitioners to  contact the  District  Basic  Education Officer, Fatehpur for  further  practical training.  The certificate issued by the  Principal of  DIET had  been annexed as annexure SA-1 to the supplementary   affidavit filed on 11.8.2013. Thereafter petitioners  were allotted the  schools for practical training by the letter dated 3.7.1999 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur. Order dated 3.7.1999 is on record as Annexure SA-2.

In the meantime, petitioner no. 2 joined the two months  practical training course in the school allotted to him and completed his training in the month of July and  August, 1999. The certificate  given by the Head Master of the Primary  School has  been brought on record as Annexure SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit. Thus, petitioner no. 2 has completed the  training   of  Special  BTC course.

In so far  as  petitioner no. 1 is concerned,   during pendency of the writ petition he applied pursuant to the  advertisement issued in the year  2004 for selection in  Special BTC course.  He  was selected in the training  and  after completion  of the same,  he was given appointment letter. He is working  as  an Assistant  Teacher  in the primary school where he was appointed.  Thus,  the petitioner no. 2 is the only contesting  petitioner in the present writ petition. 

Learned counsel for  petitioner no  2  submits that as the petitioner no. 2  had  completed training of  Special  BTC course, he is  entitled to be appointed but the  appointment is being  refused to the petitioner on the  ground  that he had  filed  B.Ed. degree of the university other than the university in the State of  U.P.

His further submission is that issue  regarding selection of   candidates  having  B.Ed.  degree  from the university  other  than    the  State of  U.P. has been answered by the  Full Bench  of this  Court  in  writ petition no. 3733 of  2009 (Jitendra  Kumar  Soni  and others vs.  State of  U.P.  & others) alongwith other connected writ petitions.  The  Full Bench has  answered the question referred to  it and held  that  any such  exclusion is  illegal. Paragraph  29 & 30 of the   Full Bench  of this  Court in  the  case of  Jitendra  Kumar  Soni(supra) is reproduced as under:-

"29. We may now answer the reference:

(1) In answer to Question No.(a), it is not open to the State or the State authorities to exclude the students, who have obtained degree/diploma/certificate in LT/B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. from Institutions/Universities established by law situate at place outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and duly recognized by the NCTE, from applying either for the Special B.T.C. Course or B.T.C. Course. Any such exclusion is illegal. Question No, (a) is answered, accordingly.

(2) Insofar as Question No.(b) is concerned, the classification, if any, is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, the only ground given by the State Government for not putting restriction on B.Ed. degree, and putting restriction on LT/B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed., is not sustainable in terms of the rules of N.C.T.E., as the admission can only be based on merit.

(3) Insofar as Question No.(c) is concerned, the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha (supra) did not answer the issue of admission to Special B.T.C. Course, but dealt with the issue of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Even otherwise, considering the findings on question nos.(a) & (b), we will have to hold that the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha does not lay down the correct law.

30. Reference is answered, accordingly. All judgments to the contrary are overruled."

Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner  further  placed reliance upon the judgment of a  Division Bench of this  Court in  Special Appeal No. 276 of  2006( Phool Singh Gautam  & others  vs.  State of  U.P.  & others). He submits that the petitioners  appellants in the above mentioned  Special  Appeal have also  passed  their  B.Ed. degree from Mahatma  Gandhi Gramodai Vishwavidhyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.) in the year  1999. The  Special Appeal was allowed.  Placing reliance upon  Full Bench  judgment of this  Court in Jitendra  Kumar  Soni(supra) wherein  it has been held that  discrimination to the  students who have passed out the qualifying examination from outside the  State of  U.P. is  violation of  Article  14 and  16 of the  Constitution of  India.  The  Division  Bench  in Phool  Singh  Gautam(supra) has held  that the  the law  decided by the  Full Bench  is  equally  applicable to the selections in  B.T.C. 1998.

Having heard  learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned  Standing  Counsel and having perused the record and the judgments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this  Court  finds  that  in Phool Singh Gautam (supra) the petitioners appellants also applied for  BTC training   course  pursuant to the  advertisement   dated 8.3.1999. They  were not allowed to join the   training on account of the  fact that they   did not pass examination from the university within the State of  U.P.  The  Special Appeal was allowed and the  direction of the  Division Bench  in the  Special Appeal are as follows:-

"The Full Bench in Jitendra Kumar Soni (Supra) has held that discrimination to the students who have passed out the qualifying examination from outside the State of U.P is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The law decided by the Full Bench is equally applicable to the selections in BTC 1998, and can be relied upon to challenge the impugned judgment.

The Special Appeal is consequently allowed. The judgment of learned Single Judge, as the then was, dated 28.7.1999 in so far as it has been made applicable to writ petition No. 24366 of 1999 Phool Singh Gautam and and 11 others who are appellants in this Special Appeal is set aside. The benefit of this judgment in Special Appeal will however, be given to only those who were admitted to the course in pursuance to the interim orders, and had completed the training and possess the degree/diploma certificate of qualifying examination from outside the State of U.P. The respondents Shall verify the qualification of the appellants to find out whether the qualifying degree/certificates were obtained form the University/institution established in accordance with law and it were either recognized by NCTE or were established on or before 1.7.1995 or within six months of 1.7.1995. Such candidates will be allowed to appear in the BTC examination. If they succeed, they will be considered for appointment in respect of vacancies, which may be available for appointment from out of BTC 1998. The directions shall be complied with within three months form the date certified copy of this order is produced before the Director of Education, U.P. at Allahabad."

The petitioner no. 2  in the present  petition is  similarly situated candidate and  it is found that his case is  covered by the  directions  given by the  Division Bench of this  Court in  Special  Appeal No. 276 of  2006. The present writ petition is  accordingly  allowed in view of  the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soni(supra) and the directions  given by the  Division  Bench  in Special Appeal in the case of Phool Singh  Gautam(supra)  as narrated above. 

Order Date :- 23.9.2013

P.P.