Allahabad High Court
Pooja Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 24 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62288
Court No. - 6
1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2686 of 2021
Petitioner :- Pooja Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2659 of 2021
Petitioner :- Akhaya Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,Seemant Singh,Shiv Poojan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2681 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rekha Rani
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5956 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kamal Kant
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Rajesh Yadav
5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6013 of 2021
Petitioner :- Meenakshi And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambuj Pandey,Man Bahadur Singh,Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Vijai Kumar Srivastava
6. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6219 of 2021
Petitioner :- Namrata And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Bharat Pratap Singh,C.S.C.,Durga Singh,Yatindra
7. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6345 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jashi Prabha And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Durga Singh
8. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6346 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ashish Sharma And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Durga Singh,Pradeep Singh Sengar
9. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6428 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shyam Shundar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Rajesh Khare
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh and Sri Man Bahadur Singh, Advocates for petitioners and Mrs. Archana Singh, Sri Manvendra Singh, Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadoria, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh Kuchhawah, Sri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani and Sri Yatindra, Advocates for respondents.
2. In the present bunch of writ petitions, all writ petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers, however, they were later on non-suited on ground that they have passed Diploma in Elementary Education prior to completion of their Graduation and, therefore, they are before this Court.
3. By way of different interim orders petitioners were permitted to discharge their duties with a direction to pay their salary.
4. The bone of contention is Rule 2(1)(q) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Twenty Second Amendment) Rules, 2018, wherein the definition of 'Training' was amended in following terms:
"(थ) प्रशिक्षण का तात्पर्य सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर कक्षा एक से आठ तक के बच्चों को शिक्षित करने हेतु मान्यता प्राप्त प्रशिक्षण पाठ्यक्रम अथवा राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा अधिसूचित किसी प्रशिक्षण अर्हता से है जिसमें प्रवेश पाने के लिए स्नातक उपाधि धारक पात्र है;"
5. In pursuance of above amendment a Circular dated 18.01.2021 was issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh. In the present writ petitions though Amended Rule is not challenged but consequential Circular is under challenge.
6. Learned counsels for petitioners have brought on record that earlier this Court has dealt with the issue, firstly in Vikram Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019:AHC:65040, wherein it was held that respondents have failed to establish on merit that petitioners therein could not have persuade Diploma Course prior to completion of their graduation after taking note of Amended Rule 2(1)(q) of Rules, 2018.
7. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court subsequently in the case of Suraj Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019:AHC:83579 has also taken a similar view after taking note of Clause 3.2 of N.C.T.E. Regulations, 2014 and writ petition was allowed with direction to issue appointment letter to petitioner therein.
8. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021:AHC:113893 has quashed circular dated 18.01.2021 being arbitrary and illegal on ground that it was not clarificatory in nature but imposes fresh conditions for consideration which are neither specified in Rules for recruitment nor in the advertisement.
9. In Pawan Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019:AHC:147007 another Coordinate Bench of this Court has followed the judgment in Suraj Kumar Tripathi (supra) and writ petition was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2021. This order was subject matter of challenge at the behest of District Basic Education Officer concerned in Special Appeal Defective No. 1317 of 2020 (The District Basic Education officers vs. Pawan Kumar and others), 2021:AHC:30323-DB, which was dismissed on ground of laches.
10. Learned counsels appearing for respondents submit that in all the cases rule is not under challenge and since Amended Rule is still in existence, it has to be interpreted as it is, however, they are not able to dispute that above referred judgments are in favour of petitioners.
11. In aforesaid circumstances, since four Coordinate Benches of this Court have taken a view in favour of petitioners and even Circular dated 18.01.2021 is set aside in Sunil Gupta (supra) and respondents have not shown that said order was challenged further as well as that in another matter Special Appeal was also dismissed, therefore, there is no reason to take a contrary view.
12. Since impugned circular dated 18.01.2021 has already been set aside in Sunil Gupta (supra), therefore, in a way all these writ petitions become infructuous. However, considering that since there are interim orders in favour of petitioners, therefore, while making the same absolute, all these writ petitions are disposed of and legal consequence of it shall be followed.
Order Date :- 24.04.2025
AK
