Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1366 (ALL)

Akram Mahmood v. State of U. P.

2004-07-27

N.K.MEHROTRA

body2004
JUDGMENT : N.K. MEHROTRA, J. 1. This is a writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to reject the candidature of the Petitioner being the Petitioner completed his Degree of B.P.Ed. from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal which is recognised by the University Grants Commission and National Council of Teachers Education and to allow the Petitioner to take training of the Special B.T.C. Course of 2004 scheduled to be commenced with effect from 25.7.2004. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri R.K. Srivastava, the learned standing counsel. 3. The learned standing counsel has shown me the advertisement and the policy of the State Government contained in Government order dated 20.2.2004 laying down the procedure for selection of the candidates for special course of B.T.C. training. A perusal of the Government policy, and the Government order dated 20.2.2004 goes to show that it was decided by the Government that the candidates having C.P.Ed., D.P. Ed. and B.P.Ed. training from the State run University and the State run degree college/training colleges as institutional students were eligible for applying special B.T.C. course. According to this policy the candidates having completed their B.P.Ed. training from the University or degree colleges situated outside the State and being conducted by the Government other than the State Government and the Central Government were excluded from the eligibility criteria for admission to the Special B.T.C. course. So the impugned advertisement was issued in pursuance of the State policy circulated through G.O. dated 20.2.2004. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that this action of the Government is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is against the law laid down by this Court in Upendra Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2000) 2 AWC 865 . In this case an advertisement making classification between the candidates who have passed the requisite teacher training course from the recognised institution of Gorakhpur and those who have passed such course from recognised institution outside Gorakhpur was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by a Division Bench of this Court. But Shri R.K. Srivastava, the learned standing counsel has referred another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2211 . But Shri R.K. Srivastava, the learned standing counsel has referred another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2211 . In this later judgment, the Division Bench has occasion to examine the same condition in the Government order dated 9.1.1998 in pursuance of which the earlier advertisement dated 8.3.1998 for the selection of the candidates for B.T.C. training was issued. The Division Bench after referring the earlier judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 29107 of 1999, Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and the judgment of the Apex Court in English Medium Students Parents Association vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 550 , upheld the vires of the said G.O. dated 9.1.1998 in which the similar restriction was imposed restricting the eligibility to those candidates who had obtained C.P.Ed., P.B.Ed., L.T., D.P.Ed. and B.Ed. degree from within the State of U.P. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner has obtained B.P.Ed. degree from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal situated outside the State of U.P. In the earlier Writ Petition No. 2933 of 2004, Km. Hena Afroz vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Basic Education and Others. I have dismissed the writ petition by following the decision of the Division Bench in Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others (supra). Therefore, this writ petition is also dismissed on the same grounds by holding that the condition imposed in the advertisement excluding those who had obtained degree from the University situated outside the State is not ultra-vires or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner is not found eligible for the course as per policy. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.