Allahabad High Court
Ram Bhawan Yadav And 18 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15205 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Bhawan Yadav And 18 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate (Ashok Khare)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Examination Controller, Public Service Commission, U.P., Prayagraj. A challenge is also made to Rule 8(12) of U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983 (in short the 'Rules of 1983') as amended in 2016. The challenge is made in reference to Appendix-A of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short the 'Act of 1921'). The last prayer is to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners in pursuant to the selection held for the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade for Arts subject.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by a cyclostyled order, the petitioners were held ineligible for the post in question and for ready reference one of the order passed on 27.10.2020 was referred.
It is stated that the order does not specify as to how the petitioners are lacking in qualifications and otherwise cyclostyled order has been passed by the respondents.
In view of the above, the order dated 27.10.2020 deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a reference of the amended Rules of 2016, so notified in the Gazette on 19.10.2016 to indicate as to what qualification is now required for the post of Assistant Teacher (men/women) Arts. As per the qualification given under the Rules of 2016, one should be in possession of Bachelors degree in Arts/Fine Arts subject with B.Ed. course recognized by the Government. It is submitted that the petitioners are Graduate/Post-graduate yet disqualified in selection. It is ignoring the amended Rules of 2016. Since the Rules of 1983 were amended by the notification dated 19.10.2016, the respondents were required to apply their mind giving out as to which qualification is not possessed by the petitioners. The Cyclostyled order thus deserves to be interfered.
A challenge to Rule 8(12) of the Rules of 1983 as amended by the notification of 2016 has not been pressed in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Prakash Yadav and 46 others vs. The Union of India and 4 others, Writ A No. 11545 of 2018 decided on 10.5.2018.
We have accordingly considered the case on challenge to the order dated 27.10.2020. The perusal of the order under challenge shows it to be in one and same language for all the candidates. It however, indicates that the petitioners are lacking in the required qualification, thus they are ineligible. The order aforesaid was passed in compliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Prakash Yadav and 46 others (supra). The judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Yadav and 46 others (supra) makes it clear that Regulations of 1983, as amended in the year 2016 are not illegal or ultra vires to the constitution and accordingly one was required to be in possession of qualification given under the amended Regulations of 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was invited to show that each petitioner is in possession of the required qualification given under the Rules of of 1983 amended in the year 2016. This is to make scrutiny of the order impugned herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show that petitioners are in possession of the required qualification.
What we find that either the petitioners are not in possession of the qualification of B.Ed. or equivalent or if it is there then they are not having the qualification of degree in Arts subject at the level of graduation.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners could not show or demonstrate that petitioners were in possession of the required qualification.
The liberty to the counsel was given to find out that each petitioner is in possession of the required qualification. The learned Senior Counsel failed to show that petitioners are in possession of required qualification. If the petitioners are lacking in the qualification required for the post in question, then cannot be held suitable only for the reason that order does not specify as to which qualification is not possessed by them. It is more so when we opened the issue to make scrutiny of each candidate as to whether he/she is in possession of required qualification or not.
Taking into consideration the facts in totality, we find no reason to interfere in the order dated 27.10.2020. The writ petition for it, is accordingly dismissed and otherwise it is to be governed by the judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Prakash Yadav and 46 others (supra).
Order Date :- 18.1.2021
Ashish Pd.
