Allahabad High Court
Anoop Kumar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 146 of 2023
Appellant :- Anoop Kumar Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Basic Edu. Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Tripathi,Praveen Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Bhushan Singh Nishad,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Pratyush Chaubey, learned State Counsel and Sri Rais Ahmad, holding brief of Sri C.B. Singh, learned counsel representing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Balrampur.
Under question in this Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is the order dated 10.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5920 of 2014 whereby the application seeking clarification of the earlier judgment and order passed in the said writ petition, dated 07.05.2022, has been rejected.
The appellant-petitioner had instituted the proceedings of Writ-A No.5920 of 2014 with the prayer to direct the respondents therein to appoint him on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School run and managed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The claim put-forth by the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that he was though eligible in terms of the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, however, the respondents have wrongly not appointed him despite the fact that he was called for counselling based on the selection held for the said purpose.
Learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition on 07.05.2022 holding that in terms of the prescriptions of the eligibility under the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 since the appellant-petitioner was not eligible, hence he was rightly not appointed on the post in question. The application seeking clarification of the judgment and order dated 07.05.2022, too, has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by means of the order dated 10.02.2023.
The question, thus, for our consideration in this Special Appeal is as to whether the appellant-petitioner fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria for selection/appointment to the post in question.
The State Government by issuing Government Order dated 15.10.2013 directed for making appointment against ten thousand posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the State of U.P. which are run and managed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The said Government Order dated 15.10.2013 stipulates eligibility conditions, according to which for selection/appointment against the posts of Assistant Teachers only those candidates will be eligible (1) who are credited with a degree from a University established by law in India and in addition to the said qualification (2) the candidates should have two years BTC Training Course organized by the State Council for Education Research and Training (SCERT)/Two years Urdu efficiency BTC Training/Special BTC Training. In Addition to such Teachers Training Course, as per the prescriptions available in the Government dated 15.10.2013, the candidate should have either passed Teachers Eligibility Test(TET) organized by the State of U.P. or should have passed Central Teachers Eligibility Test(CTET) organized by the Government of India.
So far as the qualification of the appellant-petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that he is a graduate. It is also not in dispute that he has two years' BTC Training Course to his credit which was organized by the SCERT. The dispute is only in relation to the Teacher Eligibility Test. The appellant-petitioner is credited with Teacher Eligibility Test-Language and not Teacher Eligibility Test, whereas no such stipulation for determining the eligibility is made in the Government Order dated 15.10.2013, according to which the candidate should have Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) to his credit. Some distinction has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents in Teachers Eligibility Test and Teachers Eligibility Test-Language.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the qualification of the Teacher Eligibility Test-Language for the purpose of determining the eligibility is required so far as the appointment in Junior High Schools is concerned, however, so far as the appointment in Primary Schools is concerned, the TET-Language and TET are to be treated to be equivalent.
If it is the grievance of the appellant-petitioner, he ought to have challenged the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 to the extent of non-inclusion of TET-Language as one of the eligibility conditions. The appellant-petitioner, however, did not challenge the said Government Order dated 15.10.2013. Even otherwise, a long period of about 10 years was elapsed since the selection process was initiated.
Learned Single Judge has expressed his opinion that in terms of the Government Order dated 15.10.2013, the appellant-petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility conditions.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are in complete agreement with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The special appeal is, thus, devoid of merit, which is hereby dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
Sanjay
