Allahabad High Court
Ateeq Ahmad Ansari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 21 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 13606 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ateeq Ahmad Ansari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Yogendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
Petition has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 13.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.4 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
(ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect the impugned orders dated 13.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.4 as contained in Annexure No.1 this writ petition;
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 and 4 to issue the certificate and proper marks-sheet of Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test (U.P. T.E.T.-2016) (Primary Level) to the petitioner before issuance of the appointment;..............................."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) but was declared ineligible for the Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test (U.P. T.E.T.) on the ground that the result for Moallim-E- Urdu was declared on 28.07.1997 which is before the date fixed in the circular i.e. 11.08.1997. The petitioner's representation was therefore rejected vide order dated 13.04.2018 on that very ground that the date of declaration of result of the said post was not in accordance with the cut off date of the circular i.e. 11.08.1997.
Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed in Writ-A No.6004/2016 (Sartaj Ahmad & 5 others vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) and other connected petitions with the submission that in the aforesaid judgment and order, this Court has clearly directed that all the candidates who had taken admission prior to 11.08.1997 in the Moallim-E- Urdu course and have cleared it in the academic session 1997-1998 would be entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is against the aforesaid judgment of this Court inasmuch as, it lays emphasis only on the date of issuance of the result and not on the fact that petitioner had taken admission in the course prior to 11.08.1997.
Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that as per the condition prescribed for petitioner's eligibility for U.P. T.E.T., the certificate of petitioner was not in accordance with the Government Order/ Guidelines since it was issue on 25.09.1997 due to which his candidature could not be considered.
Considering the material available on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that a similar dispute has already been adjudicated upon by this Court in the case of Sartaj Ahmad (supra) in which in paragraph no.11 the following directions had been issued is as follows:
"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. "
A perusal of the impugned order makes it apparent that the opposite party has found the petitioner to be ineligible only on the ground that the result of Moallim-E- Urdu course pertaining to petitioner has not been issued as per the cut off date. It is clear that the opposite parties have completely disregarded the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed in the case of Sartaj Ahmad (supra) although the said judgment has been passed prior to passing of the impugned order. It is apparent from the directions issued by this Court that the only relevant aspect for consideration is that the petitioner should have taken admission prior to 11.08.1997 and should have cleared it during the academic sessions 1997-1998. The aspect of the date of declaration of result in the course is immaterial for considering eligibility of petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid, from the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner had taken admission in Moallim-E- Urdu course prior to 11.08.1997 and has cleared academic session 1997-1998 as is apparent not only from the impugned order but also from the mark-sheet dated 25.09.1997. As such, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of directions issued by this Court in the case of Sartaj Ahmad (supra).
Considering the aforesaid, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 13.04.2018 and further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to grant benefit to the petitioner of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 in the case of Sartaj Ahmad (supra).
Necessary order pertaining to the same shall be passed by the concerned authority within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority along with a copy of judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed in Sartaj Ahmad (supra).
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 21.6.2021
Subodh/-
