Allahabad High Court
Ghan Shyam Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5018 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Dhananjay Awasthi,Rijwan Ali Akhtar
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Sri Shivendra Ojha, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 6, which is taken on record.
Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Shivendra Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed an order dated 29.4.2019 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 4887 of 2016 and submitted that controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 29.4.2019, which is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents as well as Sri B.P. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer.
This petition has been preferred for a direction being issued commanding the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad, the fourth respondent herein to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Teachers consequent to their selection in a process which was initiated by the respondents.
Before this Court, it is not disputed that the petitioners were duly selected and included in the list as prepared. An issue appears to have arisen with respect to the validity of the BTC certificates held by the petitioners and granted by the Nehru Gram Bharati University (deemed University) for the Session 2010-11. The certificates issued by that University are stated to have been accorded approval by both the State Government as well as the NCTE. However in the initial order which was passed by the State Government on 29 May 2013 the recognition and approval to the certificates as administered by that University were restricted to the academic session 2012-13. Upon the matter being represented, the State Government appears to have amended the stipulation as contained in its order granting approval and by a separate order dated 7 July 2014 held that the earlier order stood amended to the extent of the approval being read as from the Session 2010-11. The matter of the petitioners is thereafter stated to have been forwarded to the State Examination Regulatory Authority on 5 August 2014 for further clarification. The Secretary of the State Examination Regulatory Authority in terms of her communication dated 2 September 2014 had clarified the entire matter and called upon the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad to proceed in the matter in light of the order of the State Government dated 7 July 2014. In light of the aforesaid stand which stands duly disclosed in the last of the communications referred to above, no further legal impediment is either shown or established.
Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer sought to contend that the certificates which are held by the petitioners have not been issued by the State Examination Regulatory Authority and therefore cannot be countenanced. The Court however, finds itself unable to sustain this objection in light of the undisputed clarification issued by the Authority itself.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad is hereby directed to process the candidature of the petitioners in light of the observations made hereinabove."
He submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief as granted in Writ-A No. 4887 of 2016 vide order dated 29.4.2019.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not disputed the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but submitted that against the order dated 29.4.2019, Special Appeal No. 659 of 2019 has been filed in which the Court has made an observation that any further action or appointment shall be subject to final decision of this appeal.
Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 29.4.2019 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 4887 of 2016. The order dated 12.3.2019 passed by respondent no. 4-District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj to pass a fresh order in light of observation made by this Court in Writ-A No. 4887 of 2016 vide order dated 29.4.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If the respondent no. 4-District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj is of the view that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is not covered with the order dated 29.4.2019 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 4887 of 2016, he shall pass a reasoned order within the same time.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Rmk.
