Allahabad High Court
Anup Kumar Tiwari And Another vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5920 of 2014
Petitioner :- Anup Kumar Tiwari And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Singh Atal,Anand Kumar Tripathi,Praveen Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.B.Singh,Vindhyawashini Kumar
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
(C.M. Application No.9 of 2023)
This is an application for clarification of judgment and order dated 07.05.2022.
Heard.
Writ-A No.5920 of 2014 was dismissed on 07.05.2022 in the following terms:-
"Heard.
By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary School.
It is claimed that a Government Order dated 15.10.2013 for selection and appointment of ten thousand Teachers in Primary School was issued. The petitioners applied in pursuance thereof and also appeared in the counselling but they were never offered appointment.
We are now in 2022.
On being confronted, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer placed before the Court a letter dated 21.10.2014 according to which 'Bhasha Shikshak Patrata Pariksha Pramrambhik Star' (Sanskrit) is relevant only for Language. As per U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the Primary Level Teachers Eligibility Test is mandatory. The said letter, however, says that C.T. (Child Education) training is not recognized under the said Rules. However, the counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners have acquired Two years' BTC Training in the year 2012 and TET in 2013 but the counsel for the Basic Education Officer says that their TET is for the language of Sanskrit but the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 restricted the selection and appointment for those having Two years' BTC/Special BTC/Two years' BTC (Urdu). The petitioners did not fall within the ambit of the said Government Order. TET with Sanskrit language was not relevant to the said selection.
The counsel for the petitioners insisted that the matter is of the year 2014, therefore, it may be decided today itself.
Therefore, this Court has taken the letter dated 21.10.2014 on record, a copy of which has also been provided to the counsel for the petitioners.
The Government Order dated 15.10.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioners, therefore, whatever conditions that are mentioned in the therein are final.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
The petition is dismissed. "
Against this, Special Appeal bearing No.304 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 10.06.2022 in the following terms:-
"After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the appellant has requested that he may be permitted not press this special appeal and he may be given liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. On his request, none of the opposite parties has raised any objection.
Therefore, the present special appeal is dismissed being not pressed with the aforesaid liberty. However, such review petition may be filed within a period of one month, failing which this liberty shall not be provided to the appellant."
Thereafter, a review application was filed seeking review of judgment dated 07.05.2022 passed in the writ petition referred above. The said review petition was dismissed on 02.02.2023 in the following terms:-
"Perused the order passed in special appeal as also the judgment dated 07.05.2022 passed in writ petition, review of which has been sought.
There is no error apparent on the face of record pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant review. As regards the request that he may be granted liberty to challenge G.O. dated 15-10-2013, this cannot be within the scope of review application. The petitioner may move such other application as may be appropriate in this regard as no such prayer was made when the petition was being decided, therefore, the judgment dated 07.05.2022 cannot be said to be erroneous on this count.
Subject to the above, the application for review is dismissed."
Thereafter, this application for clarification of the judgment dated 07.05.2022 has been filed seeking a clarification that the said judgment shall not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging validity of Government Order dated 15.10.2013. The relief clause of the application for clarification reads as under:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accord requisite permission to challenge the order dated 21-10-2014 and the Government Order dated 15-10-2013 to the extent that T.E.T. trained teachers cannot be appointed as Assistant Teachers or Primary Schools by way of requisite amendment in the Writ A No;5920 of 2014 Anup Kumar Tiwari and another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others; modify/ clarify its judgment dated 07-05-2022 and may also pass such other order or orders as sit may deem just and proper"
The Court finds that selection in which the petitioner had participated and was unsuccessful/ not selected, was held in pursuance to G.O. dated 15.10.2013, a fact which is also admitted by learned counsel for the applicant before this Court. The judgment dated 07.05.2022 specifically mentioned that the said G.O. has not been challenged. The petitioner having participated in the selection based on the conditions mentioned in the G.O. dated 15.10.2013 cannot turn around and cannot be permitted to challenge the same after being declared unsuccessful that too after dismissal of Writ-A No.5920 of 2014 on 07.05.2022, by way of clarification of the said judgment especially as G.O. dated 15.10.2013 was annexed with the writ petition and was all along in the knowledge of the petitioner. The petition remained pending before this Court for almost eight years. Even at the time of disposal of the petition, no such prayer was made and even if it was made, it could not have been acceded for the reasons aforesaid. There is no question of amendment of relief clause in the petition after its dismissal.
Accordingly, the application for clarification is misconceived and it is rejected.
(Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 10.2.2023
Shanu/-
