Allahabad High Court
Km. Abadha vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 November, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173144
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4823 of 2020
Petitioner :- Km. Abadha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar,Sunil Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15899 of 2021
Petitioner :- Govind Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kr Srivastava,Pratibha Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,Sanjay Kumar Singh,Shruti Malviya
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5143 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4652 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar And 9 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8904 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5616 of 2024
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar And 15 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramanuj Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14398 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shailesh Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Sushant
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
A common issue arises for consideration in all connected matters. The writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment.
The petitioners were not granted weightage as Shiksha Mitra for appointment as Assistant Teachers. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid stand of the department declining to grant them the weightage of Shiksha Mitra. According to the petitioners, their applications are liable to be processed giving them the benefit of their experience gained as Shiksha Mitra.
The same controversy had engaged the attention of the Court in Vijay Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Basic Education and Others, rendered in Writ-A No. 31509 of 2021 and other companion writ petitions. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Vijay Singh (supra) held as under:
"12. The argument appeared to be attractive at first blush, however, on a perusal of the extract of the online application form contained in the software as annexed by the petitioners as Annexure-18, which the candidate was required to fill, the Court finds that the Code No. 2 therein reads as under:
"??????????? (?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ? ?????? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ??. ??. ??. ????????)"
13. A perusal of this extract clearly shows that the said code refers to Shiksha Mitra and in bracket it refers to two categories of Shiksha Mitras: one is the category which has been trained through distant education mode and another the category of Graduate Shiksha Mitra who had completed two years B.T.C. course. The alphabet '(?)' is disjunctive otherwise there can be no justification for the use of alphabet '(?)' as, for completing the B.T.C. course as informed by the counsel for the petitioners himself, Graduation was must. Of course, if the language was much more clear in the Government Order dated 01.12.2008, this confusion would not have arisen, but considering the language used in the online application form there is no doubt that for Shiksha Mitra the code was No. 2, and not No. 1. The petitioners did not fill in Code No. 2 in their online application form on account of which the software did not identify them as Shiksha Mitra, consequently they did not get weightage referred above. The applications having been processed online, no relief prayed for in the writ petition can be granted to the petitioners in view of the wrong code having been filled by them. Moreover, all the 69,000/- posts have been filled up and appointment letters have been issued. No doubt, the Government had earlier taken a decision vide Government Order dated 04.12.2020 to consider the case of such Shiksa Mitras who had filled the wrong code but subsequently it seems that the matter was referred to the Law Department and the claim of the petitioners was declined vide order dated 30.07.2021, however, this order was put to challenge in Writ Petition No. 26396 (SS) of 2021 and some observations were made therein about it being cryptic and laconic. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 has been passed declining the claim of petitioners for reasons aforesaid.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, the Court does not find any ground for interference with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, left open to the State Government to consider the appointment of the petitioners and other similarly situated if there are vacancies available on account of non-joining of any selected candidate which had been advertised for the selection in question, if the petitioners, after being given weightage of 2.5 marks per year of service as per Rules/Policy applicable, would have scored more than the cut off mark and would thereby fall in the merit list. It is open for the State Government to do so and this judgment will not come in its way in this regard. This will not entail displacement of any candidate already appointed."
Vijay Singh (supra) was not considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Usha Kumari and another vs State of U.P. reported at 2023 (5) ADJ 26 as held under:
"The Court finds no substance in submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner did not fill in the information that they were Shiksha Mitra having obtained the BTC qualification by distant education made in their online application form and on account of the said non disclosure the software did not identify them as Shiksha Mitra and consequently, did not extend the weightage admissible to them. In the opinion of the Court, it is the faulty programming and the petitioners have satisfied the eligibility criteria could not be denied the appointment. However, the Court upholds the stand of the respondents that no correction could be made in the online form of the petitioners.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned orders dated 05.11.2020 and 10.11.2020 (Annexure Nos.7 & 8) to the writ petition respectively) are quashed to the extent it denies the relief of including the names of the petitioners in the list of selected candidates for allotment of the District for appointment as Assistant Teachers. The impugned orders so far as it holds that no correction can be made in the online application forms are upheld. The respondents shall now proceed to include the names of the petitioners in the list of successful candidates for allotment of the Districts and allot the Districts as per their preference and quality point marks and issue the appointment letters accordingly. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court upon the concerned respondents."
It is evident that the controversy had been decided by the learned Single Judge in Vijay Singh (supra) at a prior point of time. The said judgment was not referred to the Court in Usha Kumari (supra). Hence, Usha Kumari (supra) was decided without consideration of the judgment rendered in Vijay Singh (supra).
In this wake, this Court is of the view that the writ petition and other companion writ petitions are liable to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in Vijay Singh (supra).
Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Order Date: 05.11.2024
NSC
