JUDGMENT By the Court—This special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, arises from the judgment/order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 10.5.2001 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10944 of 2000. 2. We have heard Sri Abhinav Upadhayaya, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri G.C. Yadav learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. It appears that the petitioner-respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition for commanding the respondents-appellants to grant her admission in Special BTC Training Course. The Hon’ble Single Judge having heard learned Counsel for the parties, directed respondent No. 2 to accept the caste certificate of the petitioner-respondent and grant her admission in Special BTC Training Course under OBC Category within one month, in view of the judgment rendered in Sunil Kumar v. Director, Rajya Shikshak Anusandhan Aur Prahikshan Parishad and others, 2000(4) E.S.C.2493 (AII). 4. Admittedly, the petitioner-respondent seeks admission in Special BTC Training Course (old course) pursuant to Government Order dated 9.1.1998. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others, ( 2005 (5) SCC 172 ) in paras 19 and 20 have held that the Special B.T.C. Course, in the absence of recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, (in short, Act of 1993), is not a recognised teacher’s training course. Their Lordships’ further held that the Special BTC Training Course formulated by the State Government was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder. 5. In the circumstances, once the Special B.T.C. Training Course is not approved by the National Council for Teachers Education, it has been held to be invalid qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the primary school, the petitioner respondent now cannot be allowed to undergo any such Special B.T.C. Training Course, since mandamus cannot be issued to the authorities to grant admission to a person in the training course which is not valid in law. In these circumstances, the special appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone as the mandamus issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge in favour of the petitoner-respondent cannot be carried out. 6. In these circumstances, the special appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone as the mandamus issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge in favour of the petitoner-respondent cannot be carried out. 6. However, the learned Standing Counsel further submits that even on merit the writ petition was liable to be dismissed but the Hon’ble Single Judge has not considered certain relevant aspects and, therefore, has erred in law in allowing the writ petition and commanding the respondents appellants to grant admission to the petitioner-respondent in Special B.T.C. Training Course. The petitioner-respondent applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 8.3.1988 for training of Special B.T.C. Course. The advertisement (Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application), requires a candidate to enclose caste certificate issued by the competent authority if he claims benefit of reservation applicable to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC etc. The quality point marks secured by the petitioner-respondent were 49.89, although the last general selected candidate has secured 52.99 quality point marks and, therefore, the petitioner-respondent was not selected for admission to the aforesaid course. The petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 33118 of 1999 stating that she belongs to OBC category and has secured 49.89 quality point marks, whereas the last OBC selected candidate has secured 47.20 quality point marks and yet she has not been sent for training. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 6.8.1999 directing the Director, State Council of Education, Research & Training, Lucknow to consider the representation dated 15.5.1999 already submitted by the petitioner raising the aforesaid grievance and decide by a speaking order and in case the decision is in favour of the petitioner respondent, to send her for appropriate training. Consequently, the Director, vide order dated 23.8.1999, has considered the grievance of the petitioner-respondent and held that she had not enclosed the caste certificate issued by the competent authority along with her application form and, therefore, her case cannot be considered under the OBC category. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner-respondent in Writ Petition No. 10944 of 2000 which has been allowed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal. 7. It is not disputed that the last date for submission of the application form was 30.3.1998. The petitioner submitted her application form on 26.3.1998. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner-respondent in Writ Petition No. 10944 of 2000 which has been allowed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal. 7. It is not disputed that the last date for submission of the application form was 30.3.1998. The petitioner submitted her application form on 26.3.1998. The Director, State Council of Education, Research & Training, after examining the original form of the petitioner found that she has neither marked the column meant for reservation benefit nor has enclosed any caste certificate verifying that she is an OBC candidate. It appears that subsequently, along with her representation submitted on 15.5.1999, the petitioner-respondent enclosed a copy of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority on 29.4.1999. There is nothing on record to show that prior to that date the petitioner-respondent had any caste certificate issued by the competent authority, which was enclosed along with her application form. Even otherwise, since the form was not marked with respect to the claim for OBC, the Director, State Council of Education, Research & Training has rightly rejected her application and there was no occasion to consider the petitioner-respondent in the category of OBC. Even otherwise, since the form was not marked with respect to the claim for OBC, the Director, State Council of Education, Research & Training has rightly rejected her application and there was no occasion to consider the petitioner-respondent in the category of OBC. The finding of fact recorded by the Director in his order dated 23.8.1999 impugned in the writ petition is reproduced as under: Þ4- ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns”k dh izekf.kr izfr lfgr fn;s x;s izR;kosnu esa fiNM+s oxZ dh vH;fFkZuh gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k] tcfd ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag }kjk ekpZ] 1998 esa izsf’kr ewy vkosnu i= ds Øekad 7 vkj{k.k dh dksfV ds fdlh Hkh ckDl dks "V" fpfgUr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u gh lEcfU/kr tkfr izek.k i= layXu fd;k x;kA bl izdkj ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag ds fiNM+h tkfr dh vE;kfFkZuh gksus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha ik;k x;k vkSj bUgsa lkekU; vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Js.kh esa lfEefyr fd;k x;kA 5- vizSy] 1999 esa fof”k’V ch0 Vh0 lh0 izf”k{k.k gsrq p;fur vE;fFkZ;ksa dh vfUre lwph fuxZr djus ds mijkUr ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa ls izkFkZuk i= ekaxs x;s Fks] tks ;g le>rs Fks fd muds vuqlkj mudk “kSf{kd xq.kkad lEcfU/kr Js.kh ds p;fur vE;fFkZ;ksa ds U;wure xq.kkad ls vf/kd gSA izkFkZuk i= nsus ds fy, 15 ebZ] 1999 vfUre frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h FkhA bl frfFk rd izkIr lHkh izR;kosnuksa dk fuLrkj.k 31 ebZ] 1999 ds iwoZ djds lEcfU/kr tuin ds ftyk f”k{kk vkSj izf”k{k.k ds izkpk;Z dks lwph vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lwpukFkZ lwpukiV ij iznf”kZr djus gsrq miyC/k djk nh x;hA ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag }kjk fn;s x;s izR;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k xksj[kiqj tuin ds lHkh izR;kosnuksa ds fuLrkj.k ds lkFk fd;k x;kA bl lwph ds Øekad 53 ij ^vugZ dkj.k lfgr^ esa mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k&Þvks0 ch0 lh0 izek.k i= 29-4-1999 dkAß ;g lwpuk ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag us vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk ftyk f”k{kk vkSj izf”k{k.k laLFkku] xksj[kiqj ds lwpukiV ij vo”; ns[kh gksxhA ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag }kjk ebZ] 1999 esa fn;s x;s izR;kosnu ds lkFk fnukad 29-4-99 dks fuxZr vU; fiNM+s oxZ dk izek.k i= layXu fd;k x;k] blls ;g izekf.kr gS fd ekpZ] 1998 esa ewy vkosnu i= izsf’kr djrs le; ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag ds ikl fiNM+h tkfr dk izek.k i= miyC/k ugha FkkA vr,o buds fiNM+h tkfr dh vH;fFkZuh gksus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha ik;k x;k vkSj ;kph Jherh laxhrk flag dks lkekU; vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Js.kh esa lfEefyr fd;k x;kAÞ 8. The Hon’ble Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter since the case of the petitioner respondent was that the caste certificate was enclosed along with the original application form and has been misplaced by the office of the respondent appellant, but the original application form itself did not have any marking in column 7 which shows that the petitioner respondent did not claim the benefit of reservation in the application form. The Hon’ble Single Judge has not adverted to this aspect of the matter and, therefore, it is difficult for this Court to uphold the judgment under appeal. However, we find that the Hon’ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition holding that the matter was covered by this Court’s judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar (Supra). In our view, the facts of that case cannot be said to be similar to that of Sunil Kumar’s case (Supra) and, therefore, the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition relying on the judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar (Supra). 9. In the case of Sunil Kumar (Supra), he secured 55.22 quality point marks while the last selected candidate of general category has secured 52.99 quality point marks, yet Sunil Kumar was denied admission in the Special B.T.C. Training Course. The authorities took defence that Sunil Kumar has not attached the mark sheet of B.Ed, along with his application form and the same was supplied subsequently in the year 1999 and, therefore, it could not have been taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Single Judge; while rejecting the contention of the authorities, observed that earlier while permitting Sunil Kumar to make representsrtion to the authorities, this Court permitted him to enclose such documents including the mark sheets as are necessary to support his claim and the authority was directed to consider the matter. Therefore, the Hon’ble Single Judge took the view that having been permitted to file documents, it was not open to the Director to ignore the said documents. In the case in hand, however, the facts are different, inasmuch as in the application form the petitioner did not fill in the column to claim benefit of reservation and since there was. no claim in the application itself, the subsequent of caste certificate even otherwise would have been of no avail. In the case in hand, however, the facts are different, inasmuch as in the application form the petitioner did not fill in the column to claim benefit of reservation and since there was. no claim in the application itself, the subsequent of caste certificate even otherwise would have been of no avail. There is nothing on record to contradict the finding of fact recorded by the Director, State Council of Education, Research & Training in the order impugned in the writ petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge having failed to consider this aspect of the mater, we are of the view that the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the writ petition of the petitioner respondent shall stand dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal Allowed. ———