Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 962 (ALL)

SANDHYA SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-08-06

ANJANI KUMAR

body2002
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE petitioners candidature for selection and appointment as B. T. C. teachers has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners have obtained their B. T. C. certificate from an institution which is situated outside the State of U. P. This Court by an interim order dated 1st october, 1997, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners candidature in accordance with law and in case, they come to the conclusion that the petitioners candidature is liable to be rejected, they must communicate the same to the petitioners. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such communication has been made to the petitioners individually. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that in the counter-affidavit, reasons have been given for not considering the petitioners candidature. The only reason given in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioners certificate of B. T. C. is from the institution which is outside the State of U. P. and that is why the respondents have not considered the petitioners candidature. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Upendra Rai v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2000 (1) AWC 570 : 200o (2) UPLBEC 1340, wherein similar controversy has been dealt with by the Division Bench. ( 3 ) FOR the reasons and facts given in the said Division Bench decision which is binding on me also, I hold that the rejection of the petitioners candidature for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers by the respondents only on the ground that the petitioners have obtained certificate of B. T. C. from an institution which is outside the State of U. P. is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and amounts to denial of opportunity enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) IN this view of the matter, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners candidature in accordance with law and shall not reject the petitioners candidature only on the ground that the petitioners obtained their B. T. C. certificate from an institution which is situated outside the State of U. P. in the forthcoming selection in case, the petitioners are eligible for the same. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. There is no order as to costs. .