Suhail Asgar Khan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7356 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4657 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Suhail Asgar Khan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Present writ petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 25.1.2020 passed by respondent no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and further for a direction to the respondents to decide the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in Writ-A No.22223 of 2018.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.11.2019 passed in Writ-A No.15412 of 2019 (Mohammad Asif Ansari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and as such it is submitted that similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition. For ready reference, the order dated 14.11.2019 is quoted as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On 5.11.2019, the Court had passed the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier petitioner No. 3 has filed Writ-A No. 10187 of 2016 (Tahzeeb Fatma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2018 in terms of order dated 30.01.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 6004 of 2016 (Sartaj Ahmad and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) along with other connected petitions.

As per paragraph 11(i) of the judgment of Sartaj Ahmad (Supra), petitioners are fully eligible for appointment. Relevant paragraph 11(i) of the judgment of Sartaj Ahmad (Supra) is quoted below:-

"(i) All the petitioners who had taken admission prior to 11.8.1997 in the Moallim-E-Urdu training course and have cleared it during academic session 1997-98 would be entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu in the primary institutions run by the Department of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, for which process had been initiated vide Government Order dated 5.1.2016."

It is further submitted that in the impugned order, it is admitted that petitioners have taken admission in Moallim-E-Urdu training course prior to the cut-off date fixed by the Court i.e. 11.08.1997, but considering this fact that mark sheet was issued on 22.10.1998, his candidature was rejected which is absolutely contrary to the direction issued by the Court in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad (Supra).

I have perused the impugned order dated 22.07.2019. By the perusal of impugned order, it is apparent that there is no dispute on the point that petitioner had taken admission in course in question prior to the cut-off date fixed by the Court i.e. 11.08.1997 and also there is no dispute raised in the impugned that this admission was not taken in Session 1997-98 and only on the ground of declaration of result on 22.10.1998, their candidatures have been rejected which prima facie appears not in consonace with the direction issued by this Court in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad (Supra).

Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 prays for and is granted a week time to seek instruction in the matter.

Put up this case on 14.11.2019 in the additional cause list."

Pursuant to the order dated 5.11.2019, Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has produced written instruction, which is taken on record. In the written instruction, there is no denial of any fact which was observed by this Court in the order dated 5.11.2019 and only ground has been taken that result was declared on 22.10.1998 after cut-off of date fixed by this Court in Writ-A No. 6004 of 2016 in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, therefore, selection was denied by Committee vide order dated 8.7.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad (supra) this Court has only held that admission should have been taken prior to 11.8.1997 in Session 1997-98 and this fact is not disputed, but merely on the ground of date of declaration of result on 22.10.1998, candidature of the petitioners has not been considered and impugned order dated 22.7.2019 has been passed.

I have perused the impugned order as well as relevant record and judgment of this Court in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad (supra). Relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment are quoted below:-

"10. Once an application for grant of recognition under section 14 of the Act could be moved uptill 31.3.1999, the training certificate issued prior to it cannot be discarded merely for the reason that institution which granted such certificate has not applied for recognition till the academic session 1997-98. The objection of respondents in that regard cannot be sustained. Petitioners' training certificate of Moallim-E-Urdu is thus a valid training certificate when admission had been secured for training programme prior to 11.8.1997.

11. For the reasons recorded above, this bunch of writ petitions is disposed of by providing as under:-

(i) All the petitioners who had taken admission prior to 11.8.1997 in the Moallim-E-Urdu training course and have cleared it during academic session 1997-98 would be entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu in the primary institutions run by the Department of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, for which process had been initiated vide Government Order dated 5.1.2016.

(ii) Petitioners alongwith certified copy of this order would also submit proof of their admission in the course concerned prior to 11.8.1997 within a period of three weeks from today. It would be open for the concerned District Basic Education Officers to examine the question as to whether admission had in fact been obtained by the petitioners prior to 11.8.1997, as is asserted by them. It goes without saying that other educational certificates etc. would also be open to be examined in accordance with law.

(iii) Petitioners who have already participated in the counselling pursuant to interim orders passed in this bunch of writ petitions and have been selected would be considered for appointment and appropriate orders in that regard would be issued within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

(iv) In respect of those petitioners who have not participated in the counselling, it would be open for them to approach the District Basic Education Officer concerned and in case there are posts still lying vacant and the respondents are proposing to conduct further counselling, their claim shall also be considered in accordance with law."

By perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that admission is required to be taken prior to 11.8.1997 in Session 1997-98 and there is no dispute on the point that the petitioners had taken admission in Moallim-E-Urdu course prior to cut-off date i.e. 11.8.1997. Once this Court in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad (supra) has not made any observation with regard to issuance of result and it is not disputed that the petitioners had taken admission in the year 1997, date of declaration of result cannot be a ground for rejection of candidature of petitioners. It is also necessary to point out that there is no inordinate delay in date of declaration of result of Session 1997-98 and session would have been completed in June, 1998 and mark sheet was issued on 22.10.1998, therefore, impugned order is bad and liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.7.2019 passed by respondent no. 4-District Basic Education Officer, Etah is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 4-District Basic Education Officer, Etah is directed to pass fresh order in light of observation made by this Court in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad (supra) within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of the judgment in Mohammad Asif Ansari (Supra). The impugned order dated 25.1.2020 passed by respondent no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur is hereby quashed. The respondent no.4 is directed to pass fresh order in the light of the observations made by this court in the matter of Sartaj Ahmad (Supra) within four weeks from the date of production of copy of this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 9.7.2021

SP/