Allahabad High Court
Deepak vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 323 of 2022
Petitioner :- Deepak
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Birla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to make the allotment of a Primary School to the petitioner after declaring him successfully selected in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination - 2018. A further prayer for commanding the Respondent No.3 the District Basic Education officer, Etah, to make payment of salary regularly without delay, as and when the same falls due, has also been made.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination - 2018 held for filing up 68,500 vacancies of Assistant Teachers in the State of U.P. The petitioner was declared successful having secured 67 marks in the General Category. The petitioner was called for counselling and appeared for the same on 09.03.2019 in District Etah and submitted all his original documents and photocopies thereof along with Notary Affidavit/Declaration and Demand Draft of Rs.500/- It is further submitted that though the petitioner participated in the counselling, he has neither been allotted any school nor issued any joining letter, which is normally issued on the same date after taking note of the preference of the School and District. The petitioner thus contends that even though he is fully eligible in terms of the NCTE Regulations as framed from time to time for being appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary) and has qualified the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination - 2018, he is not being allotted a Primary School in the District Etah for which there can be no justification.
A counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Etah, wherein a categorical stand has been taken that the petitioner passed his Intermediate Examination in the year 2016, Bachelor of Commerce in the Year 2011, however, the petitioner passed Diploma in Education in the year 2008 i.e. before passing Bachelor of Commerce and as per Rule 2(1)(q) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, such candidate who have obtained Diploma in Education before passing the Bachelor Degree cannot be considered Trained and consequently, the formal letter of appointment as Assistant Teacher has not been issued to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the Respondent No.3 in not issuing the appointment letter does not merit consideration in as much as the Regulations 2014 of the National Council of Teachers Education (in short 'NCTE') is applicable to the case of the petitioner and would prevail over the provisions of Rule 2(1)(q) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules (Amended) 1981. He further submits that similar objection taken by the respondents was considered and struck down by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2019 passed in Writ (A) No.23691 of 2018 (Vikram Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) and the respondents were directed to process the candidatures of the petitioners therein forthwith. Further, the question regarding applicability of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, in comparison to or over the NCTE Regulations 2014 is also no longer Res-integra and stands settled in view of the decision of this Court passed in Writ (A) No.5981 of 2019 (Suraj Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). It is, accordingly, prayed that the writ petition be allowed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
I find that the factum of the petitioner qualifying the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination - 2018 and finding a place in the select list and participating in the counselling process is not in dispute. The only objection as borne out from the counter affidavit of the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Etah, is that the petitioner cannot be regarded as Trained in terms of Rule 2(1)(q) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules (Amended) 1981, as he has obtained the Diploma in Education before obtaining Graduation Degree. The aforesaid objection of the Respondent No.3 has been elaborately dealt with by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.04.2019 passed in Writ (A) No.2361 of 2018 (Vikram Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. & others) and the said objection has not been sustained. I am in full agreement with the view taken in the case of Vikram Singh (Supra).
I also find that the petitioner otherwise satisfies the eligibility norms as set out in the NCTE Regulations 2014, which would prevail over the provisions as contained in Rule 2(1)(q) of the 1981 Rules as NCTE Regulations 2014 is a Central Legislation.
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher having qualified the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination - 2018.
The Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Etah is directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order before him.
Subject to the above, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022
pks
