HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2016
Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Singh And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellants are in special appeal.
An advertisement was issued on 28 May 1999 for the appointment
of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The appellants have a grievance that though they were qualified for the post and have submitted applications for appointment, they were not permitted to appear before the interview board.
The appellants obtained a certificate in teaching titled the 'Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad' in 1998 as disclosed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. The State Government, by a notification dated 11 August 1997 de-recognized the aforesaid certificate course as a result of which, it ceased to be equivalent to the BTC. Initially, in a judgment of a learned Single Judge in Girijesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors1, it was held that the Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad two years' course even if it was completed in 1998 (after de-recogntion on 11 August 1997) should be treated as equivalent to the BTC training course and the appellants there be considered for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement. According to the appellants, they were parties to a writ petition2 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 17 November 1999 in terms of the earlier decision. The special appeal filed by the State was dismissed for want of prosecution on 1 December 2006.
On 27 June 2015, in pursuance of the directions issued by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition previously filed by the appellants, the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi issued an order. The District Basic Education Officer has, inter alia, held against the appellants on the ground that their certificate course had been de-recognized. The second ground which has also weighed in the decision is that the appellants do not possess the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) certificate, which is mandatory in view of the directions of the NCTE and the judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors3.
The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that in regard to the validity of the certificate obtained by the appellants, there is a judgment of a learned Single Judge inter partes dated 17 November 1999, directing that the course of 'Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad' will be treated as equivalent to the BTC for the purpose of appointment.
For the purpose of these proceedings, we will proceed on the basis that there is a judgment inter partes, as submitted on behalf of the appellants. However, from the prayers contained in the writ petition, it is evident that the appellants were seeking a mandamus for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools. The District Basic Education Officer has recorded, in his impugned order dated 27 June 2015, that the selection in pursuance of the advertisement had already been completed and all posts have been filled up. If the appellants seek fresh appointment, then the absence of TET would be fatal to their claim. Once the TET is mandatory under the law having due regard to the regulations of the NCTE, the appellants would not be entitled for a mandamus in the absence of fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. The selection in pursuance of the advertisement had been completed way back in time and, at the present stage, there is no question of disturbing that selection.
For these reasons, we see no reason to entertain the special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.2.2016
RKK/-
(Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
Chief Justice's Court
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.12485 of 2016
In re:
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2016
Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Singh And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The delay of 104 days in filing the special appeal is condoned since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit in support.
The delay condonation application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.2.2016
RKK/-
(Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2016
Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Singh And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellants are in special appeal.
An advertisement was issued on 28 May 1999 for the appointment
of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The appellants have a grievance that though they were qualified for the post and have submitted applications for appointment, they were not permitted to appear before the interview board.
The appellants obtained a certificate in teaching titled the 'Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad' in 1998 as disclosed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. The State Government, by a notification dated 11 August 1997 de-recognized the aforesaid certificate course as a result of which, it ceased to be equivalent to the BTC. Initially, in a judgment of a learned Single Judge in Girijesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors1, it was held that the Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad two years' course even if it was completed in 1998 (after de-recogntion on 11 August 1997) should be treated as equivalent to the BTC training course and the appellants there be considered for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement. According to the appellants, they were parties to a writ petition2 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 17 November 1999 in terms of the earlier decision. The special appeal filed by the State was dismissed for want of prosecution on 1 December 2006.
On 27 June 2015, in pursuance of the directions issued by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition previously filed by the appellants, the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi issued an order. The District Basic Education Officer has, inter alia, held against the appellants on the ground that their certificate course had been de-recognized. The second ground which has also weighed in the decision is that the appellants do not possess the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) certificate, which is mandatory in view of the directions of the NCTE and the judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors3.
The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that in regard to the validity of the certificate obtained by the appellants, there is a judgment of a learned Single Judge inter partes dated 17 November 1999, directing that the course of 'Buniyadi Shiksha Visarad' will be treated as equivalent to the BTC for the purpose of appointment.
For the purpose of these proceedings, we will proceed on the basis that there is a judgment inter partes, as submitted on behalf of the appellants. However, from the prayers contained in the writ petition, it is evident that the appellants were seeking a mandamus for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools. The District Basic Education Officer has recorded, in his impugned order dated 27 June 2015, that the selection in pursuance of the advertisement had already been completed and all posts have been filled up. If the appellants seek fresh appointment, then the absence of TET would be fatal to their claim. Once the TET is mandatory under the law having due regard to the regulations of the NCTE, the appellants would not be entitled for a mandamus in the absence of fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. The selection in pursuance of the advertisement had been completed way back in time and, at the present stage, there is no question of disturbing that selection.
For these reasons, we see no reason to entertain the special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.2.2016
RKK/-
(Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
Chief Justice's Court
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.12485 of 2016
In re:
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2016
Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Singh And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The delay of 104 days in filing the special appeal is condoned since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit in support.
The delay condonation application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.2.2016
RKK/-
(Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC
