Allahabad High Court
Kul Bhushan Mishra And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 26 September, 2018
Bench: Dilip B. Bhosale, Chief Justice, Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 812 of 2018
Appellant :- Kul Bhushan Mishra And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,Shivendu Ojha,Sri Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 852 of 2018
Appellant :- Devesh Chhonkar And 11 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18843 of 2018
Petitioner :- Poonam Pathak And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Yadav,Narendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18848 of 2018
Petitioner :- Devesh Chhonkar And 11 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Yadav,
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B. Yadav,Ram Bilas Yadav,Ved Prakash Pandey
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18882 of 2018
Petitioner :- Seema Rai And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh K. Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18919 of 2018
Petitioner :- Veereshwar Singh And 09 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18995 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sudhir Malik And 13 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bachchu Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19005 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ashish Tiwari And 16 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bachchu Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19022 of 2018
Petitioner :- Anju And 22 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bachchu Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19025 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Mala Yadav And 14 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19028 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Pandey And 24 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pandey,Birendra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19034 of 2018
Petitioner :- Kalpna Tripathi And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Chandra Mishra,Arun Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19041 of 2018
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And 20 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bachchu Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19043 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mohammad Nazim And 29 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bachchu Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19044 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Singh And 70 Others
Respondent :- U. P. Basic Education Board Up Allahabad And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh,Deo Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19113 of 2018
Petitioner :- Punam Gupta And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey,
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19115 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rajeev Singh And 118 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19121 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Sadhana Chauhan And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19128 of 2018
Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Mishra And 30 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Datt Mishra,Ashok Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19170 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mansharam Shukla And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitla Prasad Chaubey,Brahma Nand Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Ram Pandey
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19249 of 2018
Petitioner :- Vidya Sagar Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19272 of 2018
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh And 54 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Sanjay Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19278 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ravi Kant And 33 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Dayal,Mahendra Singh,Shri. Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ram Bilas Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19353 of 2018
Petitioner :- Premsheela And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19359 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sandhya Kushwaha And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19364 of 2018
Petitioner :- Phool Chandra Kutar And 22 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19365 of 2018
Petitioner :- Bhawar Singh And 14 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Singh,Abhishek Tiwari,Anil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19367 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar Tiwari And 11 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19380 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Indra Bhati
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Yatindra
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19383 of 2018
Petitioner :- Achchhe Lal Pal And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prakash Shukla
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19397 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dushyant Kumar And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Rai,Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19405 of 2018
Petitioner :- Awanish Kumar Tiwari @ Awnish Kumar Tiwari And 20 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19410 of 2018
Petitioner :- Kavita Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Singh,Ripu Daman Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19424 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19442 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sanjay Tewari And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sapan Kumar Singh,Murli Dhar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19485 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Singh And 11 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uday Shankar Tiwari,Dinesh Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19539 of 2018
Petitioner :- Indu Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirbhay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19547 of 2018
Petitioner :- Anar Singh And 22 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Kumar
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19550 of 2018
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh And 16 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19553 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Khushbu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Singh,Bajrang Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19554 of 2018
Petitioner :- Shushil Kumar And 50 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Verma,Shailendra Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandrakesh Rai
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19575 of 2018
Petitioner :- Babita Devi
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board Up. Through Its Secretary Allahabad And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19579 of 2018
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar And 42 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Singh,Ram Chandra Solanki
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shravan Kumar Panday,Vikram Bahadur Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19592 of 2018
Petitioner :- Satyabhan Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19601 of 2018
Petitioner :- Lallan Yadav And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajitabh Choubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19602 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uday Shankar Tiwari,Dinesh Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh,Nand Kishore Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19605 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sant Kumar Singh And 99 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap Singh,Satish Chandra Yadav,Shyam Krishna Gupta,Vikram Bahadur Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19625 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rambabu And 14 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Khare
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19634 of 2018
Petitioner :- Meenu Singh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Yadava,Bal Mukund Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19643 of 2018
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tomar And 78 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha, Sr.Advocate,Shikher Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19656 of 2018
Petitioner :- Daya Ram And 78 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Vardhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Manu Singh,Mohd Shere Ali
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19668 of 2018
Petitioner :- Jaipal Singh And 136 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19673 of 2018
Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh And 242 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha, Sr.Advocate,Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,Shatrughan Sonwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19736 of 2018
Petitioner :- Nilam Kumari
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19759 of 2018
Petitioner :- Soni Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19771 of 2018
Petitioner :- Umme Salma And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Jeet Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19779 of 2018
Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19798 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ram Ji Yadav And 3 Others
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Chaturvedi,C.S.C.
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19802 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Shweta Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Ram
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19810 of 2018
Petitioner :- Km. Rajni And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19833 of 2018
Petitioner :- Prem Lata And 9 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pratap Singh,Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19857 of 2018
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Tiwari,Rampyare Lal Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19862 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sanjay Lal And 9 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Maurya,Radheshyam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19874 of 2018
Petitioner :- Avantika Shukla And 14 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20005 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ashish Tripathi And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20033 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ajay Bhan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar,Brijesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20056 of 2018
Petitioner :- Kumkum Sharma And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20075 of 2018
Petitioner :- Indra Bhushan Tiwari And 94 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anup Dhar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 577 of 2018
Appellant :- Hanuman Alias Hanuman Chaurasiya (Shiksha Mitra) And 19 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Phool Chandra Singh,Sumitra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 588 of 2018
Appellant :- Anil Kumar Kotarya And 91 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 590 of 2018
Appellant :- Laljee Chaudhary And 5 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Phool Chandra Singh,Sumitra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 591 of 2018
Appellant :- Bimlesh Kumari And 25 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 592 of 2018
Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Pandey And 288 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 593 of 2018
Appellant :- Dhirendra Singh And 927 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 594 of 2018
Appellant :- Shyam Chaturvedi And 90 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 595 of 2018
Appellant :- Kamlakar Singh And 205 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,Radha Kant Ojha,Shivendu Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 596 of 2018
Appellant :- Ranjana Chaturvedi And 15 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Sanehi Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 597 of 2018
Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Gupta And 18 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 598 of 2018
Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Chaubey And 9 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,Radha Kant Ojha,Shivendu Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 601 of 2018
Appellant :- Vishudhanand And 64 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvanand Pandey,Ravindra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 602 of 2018
Appellant :- Khushboo And 31 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Yadav,Shailendra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 605 of 2018
Appellant :- Anjana Vashishth And 36 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Yadav,Jigyasa Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yatindra
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 608 of 2018
Appellant :- Tarun Kumar Yadav And 52 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 609 of 2018
Appellant :- Mukesh Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 610 of 2018
Appellant :- Vishnu Prasad And 4 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvanand Pandey,Ravindra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 613 of 2018
Appellant :- Jahagir Hussain And 64 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 614 of 2018
Appellant :- Kanhaiya Sharan Pandey And 194 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 619 of 2018
Appellant :- Surendra Kumar And 78 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 623 of 2018
Appellant :- Kadar Singh And 119 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 624 of 2018
Appellant :- Alok Kumar Rai And 21 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Gopal Ji Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 627 of 2018
Appellant :- Gyanedra Kumar Mishra And 54 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnesh Kumar Mishra,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 628 of 2018
Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey And 46 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlendra Tripathi,Ratnakar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 633 of 2018
Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Chaubey And 24 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Kailash Singh Kushwaha,Ravi Kant Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 635 of 2018
Appellant :- Pritam Kumar And 40 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Lavlesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 637 of 2018
Appellant :- Ram Sagar And 36 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Dwivedi,Jitendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 642 of 2018
Appellant :- Prveen Kumar And 119
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 644 of 2018
Appellant :- Nandaram Yadav And 243 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 647 of 2018
Appellant :- Shiv Mohan Lal And 8 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 648 of 2018
Appellant :- Ajeet Singh And 302 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Harish Chandra Pratap
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 649 of 2018
Appellant :- Sanju Yadav And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Murali Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 651 of 2018
Appellant :- Vijay Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Murali Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 661 of 2018
Appellant :- Usha Yadav And 12 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Saroj Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 674 of 2018
Appellant :- Shubh Narayan Singh And 142 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
(Per Yashwant Varma, J.)
This special appeal along with connected matters has, with the consent of parties, been taken up for disposal together since the issues raised are common and identical.
The principal question which arises for determination is the claim of "Shiksha Mitras" [the appellant and writ petitioners in this batch of matters] to a weightage of 2.5% marks in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. It is the contention of Shiksha Mitras that this weightage is liable to be accorded to them at the stage of computation of marks obtained in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. The learned Single Judge in this appeal has held that this claim is untenable since the second proviso to Rule 14(3)(a) cannot be read as providing for a weightage being added to the marks obtained in the aforesaid examination. The learned Judge has further held that the second proviso to Rule 14 (3) (a) cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to modify the substantive rule.
Since a large number of appeals and writ petitions stood tagged with this leading appeal, we had invited all learned counsels to address submissions. The submissions on behalf of "Shiksha Mitras" was led by Sri R.K. Ojha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in the leading Special Appeal. Although Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel initially appeared in Special Appeal No. 594 of 2018, at the time when the said appeal was called he did not appear. The counsel on record of Special Appeal No. 594 of 2018 was also invited to address submissions. However, all learned counsels including the counsel on record of Special Appeal No. 594 of 2018 submitted in unison that they were adopting the submissions advanced by Sri R.K. Ojha, the learned Senior Counsel. We may also record at this stage that although no counter affidavits had been filed in the writ petitions or the special appeals, the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri A.K. Yadav appearing for the Basic Education Officer submitted that no counter affidavit need be filed since the issue raised was purely legal in character. It is in the above backdrop that we proceeded to hear learned counsels for parties on merits.
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take a step back and briefly recapitulate the origins of the engagement of Shiksha Mitras as well as the various steps taken by the Department of Basic Education in connection with their recruitment and absorption in the regular cadre of Assistant Teachers employed in Basic Schools in the State of U.P.
The claim with respect to the continuance of Shiksha Mitras and the avowed objective of the State of U.P. to absorb them in the regular cadre of Assistant Teachers was considered in great detail and authoritatively declared by a Full Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors1. The Full Bench noticed not only the legislative backdrop but also traced the history relating to the engagement of Shiksha Mitras in great detail. It ultimately found that the engagement of Shiksha Mitras was not in the regular service of the State since they had not been appointed in accordance with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 19812. It found that their engagement was purely on a contractual basis for a stipulated term of eleven months renewable subject to satisfactory performance and on payment of an honorarium. It also found that their appointments were not against sanctioned posts as determined by the Board of Basic Education under the 1981 Rules. It was also noted that the Shiksha Mitra did not fulfill the qualifications for a regular teacher under the 1981 Rules. The Full Bench thereafter proceeded to evaluate the right of Shiksha Mitras to continue in service in light of the provisions of the Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act 20093 as well as the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education ["NCTE"] for teachers imparting instructions in Basic Schools. On a detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the 2009 Act as well as the Notifications issued by the NCTE it held that Shiksha Mitras did not possess the requisite qualifications and therefore could not be continued. The Full Bench also proceeded to strike down the Government Orders which purported to effect their absorption even though they did not hold the qualifications as were prescribed under the 2009 Act and the Notifications issued by the NCTE. The decision of the Full Bench was subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court which upheld the judgment and the view taken by the Full Bench. While doing so the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and another Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav4 observed thus:
"28. We are in agreement with the above findings. In view of clear mandate of law statutorily requiring minimum qualification for appointment of teachers to be appointed after the date of Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, there is no doubt that no appointment was permissible without such qualifications. Appointments in the present case are clearly after the said date. Relaxation provision could be invoked for a limited period or in respect of persons already appointed in terms of applicable Rules relating to qualifications. The Shiksha Mitras in the present case do not fall in the category of pre 23rd August, 2010 Notification whose appointment could be regularized.
29. Further difficulty which stares one in the face is the law laid down by this Court on regularization of contractually appointed persons in public employment. Appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of teacher nor in pay scale of teachers. Thus, they could not be regularized as teachers. Regularization could only be of mere irregularity. The exceptions carved out by this Court do not apply to the case of the present nature.
30. In view of our conclusion that the Shiksha Mitras were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications and are not covered by relaxation order Under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, they could not be appointed as teachers in breach of Section 23(1) of the said Act. The State is not competent to relax the qualifications."
The Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to consider the fate of 1,78,000 Shiksha Mitras who were continued in service pursuant to the decision of the State Government. Dealing with this aspect it held thus:
"25. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 Lakhs persons to be regularized in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the Rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if for a stop gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed. It may be permissible to give some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with. Regularization of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are obvious. We do not find any error in the view taken by the High Court.
"26. Question now is whether in absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference. In the peculiar fact situation, they ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the concerned authority. Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides."
During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court the State of U.P. proceeded to amend the 1981 Rules. In these cases, we are principally concerned with the Twentieth and Twenty-Second Amendments which were promulgated. The Twentieth Amendment to the 1981 Rules came to be notified on 9 November 2017. This Amendment, in Rule 2(v) defined a Shiksha Mitra to mean a person working in Junior Basic Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad under Government Orders issued prior to the commencement of the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules 2011. It also included Shiksha Mitras appointed as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools and reverted as Shiksha Mitras pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav. It also introduced a definition for the "Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination" to mean a written examination conducted by the Government for recruitment of persons in junior basic schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The "Qualifying Marks of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination" was defined to mean such minimum marks as would be determined by the Government from time to time.
Rule 5 which prescribed the essential qualifications to be possessed by a person desirous of being appointed as an Assistant Master or Mistress in a junior basic school read as follows:
"(a) Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government equivalent thereto together with any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC), two years BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC. Two year Diploma in Education (Special Education) approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India or four year Degree in Elementary Education (B.EI.Ed.), two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) in accordance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure), Regulations, 2002 or any training qualifications to be added by National Council of Teacher Education for the recruitment of teachers in primary education.
and
teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant Teacher recruitment Examination conducted by the Government.
(b) a Trainee Teacher who has completed successfully six months special training programme in elementary education recognised by NCTE.
(c) a shikshamitra who possessed bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government equivalent thereto and has completed successfully two years distant learning B.T.C. course or Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.), Basic Teachers Certificate (B.T.C.) (Urdu) or Vishisht B.T.C. conducted by the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and passed the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government."
For the purposes of determination of vacancies, Rule 14(1)(a) was amended to read as follows:
14(1)(a) Determination of vacancies and preparation of list.
In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools under clause (a) of Rule 5, the appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and other categories under Rule 9 and published in at least two leading daily newspapers having adequate circulation in the State as well as in concerned district inviting applications from candidates possessing prescribed training qualification and teacher eligibility test passed, conducted by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government."
The selection of applicants as per the 1981 Rules is made in accordance with the "quality points" that may be obtained by an applicant computed in accordance with Appendix-I to the 1981 Rules. The Twentieth Amendment amended the Appendix-I to read as follows:
"[APPENDIX-I]
Quality points, and weightage for selection of candidates
Name of Examination/Degree
Quality Points
High school
Percentage of marks in the examination x 10
Intermediate
Percentage of marks in the examination x 10
Graduation Degree
Percentage of marks in the examination x 10
B.T.C. Training
Percentage of marks in the examination x 10
Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination
Percentage of marks in the examination x 60
Weightage
Teaching experiences as shiksha mitra or as teacher working as such in junior basic schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad
2.5 marks per completed teaching year, upto maximum 25 marks, whichever is less
Note:
1. If two or more candidates have equal quality points, the name of the candidate who is senior in age shall be placed higher in the list.
2. If two or more candidates have equal quality points and age, the name of the candidate shall be placed in the list in English alphabetical order."
The 1981 Rules were thereafter amended yet again on 15 March 2018 when the Twenty-Second Amendment came to be promulgated.
For a Shiksha Mitra, the Twenty-Second Amendment prescribed the essential academic qualifications as under:
"Rule 5(a)(ii)(c) a shikshamitra who possessed bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government equivalent thereto and has completed successfully two years distant learning B.T.C. course or Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.), Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) (Urdu) or Vishisht B.T.C. conducted by the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and passed the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Government or by the Government of India."
Rule 14(1)(a) after the Twenty-Second Amendment reads as follows:
"14(1)(a) Determination of vacancies
In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools under clause (a) of Rule 5, the appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and other categories under Rule 9 and published in at least two leading daily newspapers having adequate circulation in the State as well as in concerned district inviting applications from candidates possessing prescribed training qualification and passed teacher eligibility test, conducted by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government."
It would be also to be pertinent to compare sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 14 as amended by the Twentieth and Twenty-Second Amendments. This would be evident from the chart which is extracted herein below:-
(2) The appointing authority shall scrutinize the applications received in pursuance of the advertisement under clause (a) or (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 and prepare a list of such persons as appear to possess the prescribed academic qualifications and be eligible for appointment.
(3)(a). The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points and weight-age as specified in the appendix-I:
Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher:
3(b). The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in the appendix-II
Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher.
(2) Preparation of Merit List- The appointing authority shall scrutinize the applications received in pursuance of the advertisement under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) and prepare a merit list of such persons as appear to possess the prescribed academic qualifications and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination be eligible for appointment.
(3)(a). The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points and weightage as specified in the appendix-I:
Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher:
Provided that a person working as Shiksha Mitra in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad shall be given weightage in the recruitment of the post of Assistant Teacher, only in two consecutive Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government after July 25, 2017.
(b) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14 shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in the appendix-II:
Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher.
Significantly Rule 8 after its Twenty-Second Amendment while prescribing essential qualifications, has done away with the requirement of passing of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government. Similarly the said Rule while prescribing the academic qualifications for a Shiksha Mitra has deleted the requirement of a Shiksha Mitra having passed the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination. This requirement however, is continued in Rule 14(1)(a) as well as in sub-rules (2) and (3) thereof.
It is also pertinent to note that the Appendix as amended by the Twentieth Amendment was not touched by the Twenty-Second Amendment and continues unaltered. Pausing here we note that although a feeble submission was raised with respect to the perceived impact of the deletion of the requirement of passing of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination in Rule 8 by the Twenty-Second Amendment, undisputedly there is no challenge in any of the writ petitions or in the connected appeals forming part of this batch to the validity of Rule 14. We must therefore, necessarily proceed on the basis of Rule 14 as it stands after the Twenty-Second Amendment. We also note that the submissions of learned counsels have principally pivoted on and around the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 14 and the second proviso to sub-rule (3).
Sri R.K. Ojha, the learned Senior Counsel has primarily contended that the proviso in unequivocal terms commands weightage being accorded to Shiksha Mitras in two consecutive Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examinations conducted by the Government after 25 July 2017. According to Sri Ojha in light of the express provision contained in the second proviso to Rule 14(3)(a), the State is clearly obliged to confer weightage at the stage of declaration of results of this examination. Sri Ojha has submitted that the proviso came to be inserted by virtue of the Twenty-Second Amendment and therefore must be given its full effect. The learned Senior counsel also sought to highlight the fact that this amendment was introduced and continues to subsist in the statutory rules and therefore, clearly commands the respondents to declare the results of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination only after according weightage to Shiksha Mitras. Sri Ojha further submits that the concerned proviso was introduced by the Twenty-Second Amendment which did not affect any corresponding amendments to the Appendix-I appended to the 1981 Rules. According to Sri Ojha it is therefore, clear that the proviso was intended to and must override and prevail over the Appendix-I to the 1981 Rules.
The learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Yadav appearing on behalf of the Board have countered these submissions by placing reliance on the substantive parts of Rule 14 and more particularly sub-rules (2) and (3) thereof. It was contended on behalf of the State that sub-rule (2) clearly mandates the preparation of a merit list to include only such persons who possess the prescribed academic qualifications and have passed the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. It was also sought to be highlighted that sub-rule (3)(a) reinforces the above position by prescribing that the names of candidates prepared under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 is to be arranged in accordance with the quality points and weightage as specified in Appendix-I. Drawing our attention to the Appendix-I itself, the learned Standing Counsel contended that it in unequivocal terms provides for a weightage only in respect of every teaching year completed by a Shiksha Mitra. Referring to Clause 6 of the Appendix-I, it was pointed out that Shiksha Mitras are entitled to a weightage of 2.5 marks subject to a maximum of 25 marks in respect of every completed year of teaching alone. It was also pointed out that Clause 5 of the Appendix-I which deals with the computation of quality points marks in respect of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination does not make any provision for the grant of weightage at the stage of declaration of results. They would submit that the second proviso to sub-rule (3) must be harmoniously construed with the other parts of Rule 14 and in any view of the matter cannot be viewed as altering the substantive requirements of the Rule. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the proviso itself is in respect of recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher. In view of the language employed by the proviso, the learned Standing Counsel submits, that weightage must be restricted in its application only to the process of recruitment and consequently to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed for computation of quality points marks as provided for in the Appendix I. Reliance was also placed on Rule 14 (4) which provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment unless his or her name is included in the list prepared in accordance with Rule 14(2). This, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is a reinforcement of a mandatory requirement of a candidate having passed the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination.
On facts, it is not disputed that the State Government did conduct the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination on 27 May 2018. Initially the State Government had prescribed the minimum qualifying marks for candidates falling in the General and OBC categories to be 45% and for Scheduled Castes to be 40%. These minimum qualifying marks were subsequently reduced to 33% and 30% respectively. By a Government order dated 8 August 2018, the State Government again reverted to the original position by providing the minimum qualifying marks to be 45% and 40% respectively. It is also not disputed that none of the appellants or the writ petitioners have obtained the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the State Government. It is in the above context that the issue of weightage being accorded at the stage of declaration of results assumes significance for the appellants and the writ petitioners.
In our considered opinion the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants/petitioners must necessarily be evaluated bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav as well as the statutory amendments introduced in the 1981 Rules by virtue of the Twentieth and Twenty-Second Amendments.
Anand Kumar Yadav, expressly upheld and affirmed the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court confirmed the position found by the Full Bench that Shiksha Mitras did not possess the requisite qualifications required of an Assistant Teacher and, thus, they could not be regularised. However, the Supreme Court also sought to balance the rights of 1,78,000 persons engaged by the State Government in Basic Schools in their capacity as Shiksha Mitras by observing that in the peculiar fact situation, they ought to be given an opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualifications in terms of advertisements for recruitment in the next two consecutive recruitment exercises to be conducted by the Board. It is in that light that the second proviso to Rule 14 (3) must be read. The second proviso must also necessarily be interpreted in conjunction and against the backdrop of the significant observation of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav where it was held that they may be given suitable age relaxation and "some weightage for their experience...". Weightage, crucially was to be given in respect of "experience" and not in connection with any examination.
The appointment of Shiksha Mitras as Assistant Teachers was unequivocally made subject to they having either acquired or now acquiring the requisite qualifications as prescribed under the 1981 Rules. Viewed in this light, it is manifest that Shiksha Mitras were not exempted from the rigours of possessing either the essential qualifications or otherwise meeting the requirements of the 1981 Rules and more particularly Rule 14 thereof. Rule 14(1)(a) in unambiguous terms confines the zone of eligibility to those who (a) possess the prescribed training qualification, (b) have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test and (c) the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. The procedure for preparation of the merit list is then prescribed in sub-rule (2) which mandates the inclusion of only such persons, who possess the prescribed academic qualifications and have additionally passed the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. Sub-rule (3) then proceeds to prescribe that the name of candidates shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points and weightage as specified in Appendix-I. Clause 5 of the Appendix-I provides for the manner in which quality point marks are to be computed with respect to marks obtained in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. There is thus an unambiguous command enshrined in sub rules (1) and (2) read with the Appendix-I of a candidate passing the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. These provisions, significantly, do not prescribe or envisage the conferral of weightage to the marks obtained in the said examination.
The Appendix-I and more particularly Clause 5 thereof, provides for the computation of quality points based upon the marks obtained by an applicant in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. As is evident from Clause 6 of the Appendix-I the weightage of 2.5 marks subject to a maximum of 25 marks is confined to every completed year of teaching. Weightage is not provisioned for in Clause 5 which deals with the computation of quality points with regard to the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. The Appendix-I in unambiguous terms provides for a weightage of 2.5 marks subject to a maximum of 25 only in respect of every completed year of teaching. Significantly although the second proviso to sub rule (3) was introduced by way of the Twenty-Second Amendment on 15 March 2018, the Appendix-I as amended by the Twentieth Amendment was not touched. This clearly seems to suggest that the rule making authority had no intention of amending or modifying the manner in which quality point marks were to be computed. Neither Clause 5 nor Clause 6 of the Appendix-I were varied. They continue to link the grant of weightage solely to every completed year of teaching. Similarly, Clause 5 continues to maintain the formula for computation of quality point marks as it is without providing for any addition or weightage being provided at this stage.
A proviso, as is well settled, only operates within the field which is created and covered by the main provision to which it is appended. It essentially carves out an exception to the main provision, thus, in one sense, taking out from the ambit of the principal provision a subject which would otherwise stand covered and be governed.
It is also equally well settled that the interpretation to be accorded to a statute cannot, in all circumstances, be guided solely by a particular label accorded thereto. In many situations, a provision although styled as an "Explanation" or a "Proviso" may also be viewed as an independent and substantive provision in itself.
In the present case, although the provision in question is described as a proviso, it does not appear to exorcise or remove from the principal provision any particular subject. The second proviso to Rule 14(3) fundamentally appears to have been introduced to accommodate and give effect to the observation of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav that Shiksha Mitras may be given some weightage for their experience. It is in this sense inextricably linked and connected with the said observation as appearing in Anand Kumar Yadav.
This Court must also necessarily bear in mind that a proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner which may nullify the main enactment itself. The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors.5 being clearly apt are extracted herein below:
"It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the filed, which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted by the proviso and to no other. The proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment, and its effect is to confine to that case. Where the language of the main enactment is explicit and unambiguous, the proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude from it, by implication what clearly falls within its express terms. The scope of the proviso, therefore, is to carve out an exception to the main enactment and it excludes something which otherwise would have been within the rule. It has to operate in the same field and if the language of the main enactment is clear, the proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify by implication what the enactment clearly says nor set at naught the real object of the main enactment, unless the words of the proviso are such that it is its necessary effect."
The second principle of statutory construction, which stands attracted in the present case is the duty of a Court to understand and comprehend the hierarchy of different provisions in the same statute. This principle is invoked where the Court finds a conflict between provisions appearing in the same statute. Although an exercise is to be undertaken to reconcile different provisions in the same statute so as to give full effect to each of the provisions, in case of an irreconcilable conflict it is for the Court to construe and identify the hierarchy of each provision so as to give effect to the underlying legislative intent. Dealing with this aspect, the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dileep Kumar Singh6, observed thus:
"16. It is well settled that the provisions of a statute must be read harmoniously together. However, if this is not possible then it is settled law that where there is a conflict between two sections, and you cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other. This statement of the law is to be found in Institute of Patent Agents v. Lockwood, [1894 AC 347 (HL), AC at p. 360. Lord Herschell, L.C., stated this, as follows:
".... Well, there is a conflict sometimes between two sections to be found in the same Act. You have to try and reconcile them as best you may. If you cannot, you have to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other."
17. This Judgment has been subsequently followed by the High Court of Australia in Project Blue Sky Inc. v. Australian Broadcasting Authority, [(1998) 153 ALR 490: (1998) 194 CLR 355 (Aust)], in the following terms:
"A legislative instrument must be construed on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals. Where conflict appears to arise from the language of particular provisions, the conflict must be alleviated, so far as possible, by adjusting the meaning of the competing provisions to achieve that result which will best give effect to the purpose and language of those provisions while maintaining the unity of all the statutory provisions. Reconciling conflict provisions will often require the court "to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other". Only by determining the hierarchy of the provisions will it be possible in many cases to give each provision the meaning which best gives effect to its purpose and language while maintaining the unity of the statutory scheme. (at pp. 509-10)"
Proceeding to notice the settled position with regard to the contours of operation of a proviso, the Supreme Court in the said decision observed as follows:
"20. Equally, it is settled law that a proviso does not travel beyond the provision to which it is a proviso. Therefore, the golden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such manner that they mutually throw light on each other and result in a harmonious construction. This is laid down in Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, [(1976) 1 SCC 128], as follows: (SCC p. 137, para 18)"
"18. We may mention in fairness to counsel that the following, among other decisions, were cited at the Bar bearing on the uses of provisos in statutes: CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. [AIR 1959 SC 713 : 1959 Supp (2) SCR 256 : (1959) 36 ITR 1], SCR p. 266; Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. CST [AIR 1955 SC 765 : (1955) 2 SCR 483 : (1955) 6 STC 627], SCR p. 493; Thompson v. Dibdin [1912 AC 533 : 81 LJKB 918 : 28 TLR 490], AC p. 541; R. v. Dibdin [1910 P 57 (CA)], pp. 119, 125 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 1012 : 1959 Supp (2) SCR 875 : 1959 Cri LJ 1231], SCR p. 893. The law is trite. A proviso must be limited to the subject-matter of the enacting clause. It is a settled rule of construction that a proviso must prima facie be read and considered in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not a separate or independent enactment. 'Words are dependent on the principal enacting words to which they are tacked as a proviso. They cannot be read as divorced from their context' (Thompson v. Dibdin, [1912 AC 533 : 81 LJKB 918 : 28 TLR 490]). If the rule of construction is that prima facie a proviso should be limited in its operation to the subject- matter of the enacting clause, the stand we have taken is sound. To expand the enacting clause, inflated by the proviso, sins against the fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered in relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso. A proviso ordinarily is but a proviso, although the golden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such manner that they mutually throw light on each other and result in a harmonious construction."
Ultimately proceeding to deal with the merits of the issue which arose in that decision, it was held:
"A reference to these two judgments makes it clear that Section 47 is the "leading provision" and Section 73 is the "subordinate provision". Further, Section 47 is a positive and clear provision. This is because, Section 47 is the substantive provision exempting the subject-matter of Section 47 as a whole as opposed to Section 73 which is only a machinery provision by which notifications made under Section 47 are to be laid before each House of Parliament."
Having noticed the fundamental principles of statutory interpretation which must govern, it is manifest that the submissions urged on behalf of the appellants and the writ petitioners must be decided on the anvil of the above noted precepts.
As has been repeatedly held, the provisions of a statute must be read harmoniously and as a whole, viewed and read in its entirety in order to ascertain the true scope and intent of each of its independent provisions. If there be an apparent conflict between two provisions, it is the duty of the Court to undertake an exercise of reconciling the ostensibly incompatible provisions so as to give effect to the purpose of the legislation. Equally well settled is the principle that a proviso cannot be construed or interpreted in a manner where it subsumes or nullifies the principal provision. If the Court ultimately comes to conclude that the conflict between two competing provisions in the same statute is irreconcilable, then it must undertake the exercise of identifying the hierarchy of competing provisions and proceed to identify the principal and secondary provisions therein.
Both sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 unequivocally mandate that a candidate desirous of appointment as an Assistant Teacher must have passed the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. Rule 14 (3)(a) then proceeds to prescribe that the names of candidates prepared under Rule 14 (2) is to be arranged in accordance with quality points and weightage as specified in Appendix-I. Appendix-I as noticed above restricts the application of weightage to every completed teaching year. Neither sub rules (2) and (3) nor the Appendix-I contemplate weightage being accorded at the time of computing quality points with respect to the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination or at the time of declaration of results of the said exam. This subject is dealt with exclusively by clause 5 of Appendix-I. This particular clause, as noticed above, has remained unaltered and untouched by the Twenty-Second Amendment. Even this clause does not prescribe a weightage being accorded to the marks obtained in the examination in question. The subject of weightage is considered principally by Clause 6. It is also signifiant to note that Clause 6 restricts the application of weightage to every completed teaching year alone. This particular Clause was also neither visited nor touched by the Twenty-Second Amendment.
Viewed in the above backdrop, we are of the considered view that weightage was not contemplated to be added to the marks obtained by a person in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. Following the principle of identifying the hierarchy of provisions as enunciated by the Supreme Court, we find that sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 14 are the principal provisions. The prescription and requirements placed by these two provisions must be recognised to be the fundamental pedestal which must be achieved by any candidate seeking appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The second proviso to Rule 14 (3) must, therefore, be interpreted so as to fall in line and in tune with sub-rules (2) and (3). This would also flow from the language of the second proviso itself, which principally deals with the subject of grant of weightage in respect of recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 is also of no less significance. This provision in unambiguous terms prescribes that no person shall be eligible for appointment unless his or her name is included in the list prepared under sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (4) expressed in negative terms clearly operates as a statutory injunction against the appointment of any person unless he or she finds place in the list prepared in accordance with Rule 14 (2). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, as we have held above, clearly requires all persons to pass the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. This sub rule does not contemplate the grant of weightage at the stage of preparation of the result of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. We have also recognised sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 14 as well as Appendix-I to be the principal provisions. On a conjoint reading of these provisions, it is manifest that weightage is not liable to be accorded at the stage of computation of marks obtained by a candidate in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. At the cost of repetition, we may only reiterate that the observation of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav with respect to the grant of weightage also stood confined to the experience gained by a Shiksha Mitra. This observation stands embedded in the statute with Appendix-I prescribing weightage being accorded for every completed year of teaching.
On an over all conspectus of the aforesaid facts and the conclusions reached by us above, we find no merit either in the appeals or the connected writ petitions. Accordingly this appeal as well as all other connected matters shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2018
LA/VKS
(Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
