Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 363 (UTT)

Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

2007-07-05

M.M.GHILDIYAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel State of Uttarakhand for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions relate to the admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course in the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In all the petitions, the petitioners have prayed to extend the benefit of Government Order dated 19th March, 2005 by extending the age limit for selection in Special B.T.C. 4. Some of the petitioners, such as in Writ Petition No. 840 (S/S) of 2005 and 848 (S/S) of 2005, though the prayer for age relaxation is not there in the writ petitions, but the contention of the petitioners is same that they may be considered for being selected in Special B.T.C. Course, though they have crossed the age limit which is prescribed in the advertisement. 5. In the recent past, there has been an acute shortage of teachers in Basic Schools of the State. The State Government, finding it difficult to fulfill its obligations to provides education to children, issued Government Order which provides for a Special B.T.C. Course for B.Ed., L.T., C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. trained applicants for a period of 6 months as equivalent to regular B.T.C. Course for appointment in the Basic Schools run by the State. Initially, this arrangement was made only for the academic session 1997-98. The training was to be given in the District Institute of Education and Training, but since the shortage of teachers in the primary school increased every year, this policy was extended time to time and Special B.T.C. Course are being conducted by the State Government so that after the course is completed, the teachers may be appointed in primary schools. The matter was taken up with the National Council of Teacher's education and the N.C.T.E. permitted the aforesaid course on the following condition. (1) The program shall be run on full time basis and be of 6 months' duration. (2) The program shall be conducted in recognized DIETs under the academic supervision and monitoring of S.C.E.R.T. (3) The intake of candidates in this program shall not exceed above 100 in one batch in a DIET. (4) The curriculum shall include educational theory and internship each of3 months duration. (5) The S.C.E.R.T. shall develop a detailed curriculum for the program including scheme of examination. For this purpose, they may adopt the curriculum frame-work developed by the NCTE. (4) The curriculum shall include educational theory and internship each of3 months duration. (5) The S.C.E.R.T. shall develop a detailed curriculum for the program including scheme of examination. For this purpose, they may adopt the curriculum frame-work developed by the NCTE. (6) The S.C.E.R.T. shall be responsible for the conduct of final examination and issue of certificates to the successful candidates. 6. After creation of State of Uttarakhand on 09-11-2000, since the State Government was also facing with the same problem of shortage of primary school teachers in the primary school of the State, consequently, the Government decided to provide Special B.T.C. Training Course to the candidates, who have obtained B.Ed., L.T., C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. Course. Consequently, the Government issued an advertisement for Special B.T.C. Training Course on 21-04-2001. There was some confusion whether the selection is to be made for Special B.T.C. Training Course on the basis of merit of all the candidates who have applied, whether they have passed the aforesaid courses such as B.Ed., L.T. etc. in any year prior. to the selection, or the selection is to be made on the basis of year-wise, that is to say, first to complete the selection from amongst the candidates, who have passed the aforesaid courses in the year 1990 and after all the candidates who have passed B.Ed., L.T. etc Courses in the year 1990 are considered, the cases of those candidates, who have obtained degree of B.Ed., L.T. etc. Courses in the year 1991, are to be considered. 7. Some correspondence was going on between the DIETs and the Government. In the meantime, again an advertisement was issued in the year 2004 and after receiving clarification from the Government, the process of selection to the Special B.T.C. Training Courses could be completed sometime in the year 2005. Before the selection could be completed, the Government issued clarification in respect of age relaxation on 19th March, 2005 and it was stated in the aforesaid order that only those candidates who were eligible to apply in pursuance to the advertisement issued in 2001 and who have not crossed the age of 40 years on 01-07-2004, may be considered for selection for Special B.T.C. Training Course. The Government Order issued on 19th March, 2005 is quoted hereunder :- 8. The Government Order issued on 19th March, 2005 is quoted hereunder :- 8. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the candidates were given relaxation as provided in the order and selection was made for Special B.T.C. Training Course. 9. Again on 09-07-2006, another advertisement was issued inviting applications for Special B.T.C. Training Course in compliance of Government Order 13-06-2006. Vide Order dated 13th June, 2006, the Government has decided to conduct Special B.T.C. Training Course for 6 months and it was provided in the order that for selection of the said Course, the candidates, who are graduate and are trained, will be selected and after completion of the Special B.T.C. Training Course of 6 months, they will be treated equivalent to B.T.C. and can be provided appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary schools of the State. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is quoted hereunder :- 10. The procedure, qualification, constitution of selection committee etc. were also provided in the aforesaid order dated 13th June, 2006. In pursuance to this order dated 13th June, 2006, on 9th July, 2006, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for selection to Special B.T.C. Training Course. 11. In the State of Uttarakhand, there are 13 districts and earlier 7 DIETs were available and now apart from 7 DIETs, 6 District Resources Centers have been established to perform the duties of Districts Institute of Educational Training, consequently, in each district of the Uttarakhand, now there is a Center for providing educational training. Clarification was sought from some of the DIETs in respect of Government Order dated 13-06-2006 as to whether the provision which was provided vide order dated 19th March, 2005 regarding age relaxation is also applicable in respect to the selection, which is to be made in pursuance of advertisement issued on 09-07-2006, and in reply the Additional Secretary of Government of Uttarakhand has issued Government Order No. 667 dated 01-08-2006 clarifying the Government Order dated 13-06-2006 as well as order dated 19-03-2005 as under : 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners have also applied in the year 2001, however, they could not be selected in view of the fact that the year, in which they have obtained the Training Certificate/Degree, was not considered by the DIETs for selection as the selection was completed in respect of those candidates who had obtained Training Certificate/Degree prior to the year in which the petitioners have obtained. Since they had applied in the year 2001 and could not be selected in view of the Government Order that the selection is to be made on year-wise basis, there is no fault of petitioners and as such they should be given benefit of Government Order dated 19th March, 2005. 13. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the advertisement issued by different DIETs in the year 2006 in pursuance to Government Order dated 13-06-2006 are independent one and lays down the eligibility criteria including that of age limit. It is clearly provided in the advertisement itself in Clause (5) that - 14. Clause (6) of the advertisement states as under:- 15. On 19th March, 2005, following order was passed by the Secretary, Uttarakhand Government in respect of age relaxation of candidates in Special B.T.C. Training Course : 16. This benefit of age relaxation by the Government Order dated 19th March, 2005 was provided for the selection to be held in the year 2004-05 and that too was granted only to those persons who were qualified to apply and have actually applied for selection in Special B.T.C. Training in 2001 and have not crossed 40 years of age on 01-07-2004, because the selection in pursuance to the advertisement issued in 2001 could not be held till 2004-05. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that this benefit should also be extended to the candidates who have applied for selection for Special B.T.C. Training Course in pursuance to the advertisement dated 13-06-2006. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that this benefit should also be extended to the candidates who have applied for selection for Special B.T.C. Training Course in pursuance to the advertisement dated 13-06-2006. 18. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that in the advertisement itself, the age has been prescribed and a clarification was also sought from the Government by the DIETs in respect to the Government Order dated 19th March, 2005 and it was clarified vide order dated 01-08-2006 that there is no provision for age relaxation in the Government Order dated 13-06-2006, in pursuance to which the advertisement has been issued for selection in Special B.T.C. Training Course. 19. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 461 of 2004, Devendra Singh & Ors.• Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AWC 2004 (3) Page 1891, wherein the issue was raised before the learned Single Judge, who has not accepted the argument and, consequently, aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, a Special Appeal was filed by the petitioner Devendra Singh. The Division Bench upheld the judgment of learned Single Judge and has held in para 13 of the judgment as under :- "The selections are still under way and the select list has not been declared as yet. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with the argument that the maximum age should be 45 years as provided in the 1998 selections of special B.T.C. and that those candidates who were eligible to appear in the 2001 selections should be given exemptions on the ground that National Council has not provided any restriction with regard to the maximum age while granting approval to the said course. The learned Single Judge has not accepted the argument that under the UP Public Services (Exemption of Age Limit for Recruitment) Rules, 1992 the State Government should have exercised the power of exemption to extend the age limit further. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. This Court cannot increase the maximum age, nor can it hold that those who were within the age limit of 40 years in 2001 should be treated as eligible. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. This Court cannot increase the maximum age, nor can it hold that those who were within the age limit of 40 years in 2001 should be treated as eligible. In the G.O. dated 14-01-2004 as amended by G.O. dated 20-022004 it is mentioned that the candidate must be not more than 40 years of age on 1-7-2004. This Court cannot extend this age limit. The Court must maintain judicial restraint in such matters. Fixing the age limit is exclusively a matter for the concerned authorities to decide. " 20. Learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. filed by Devendra Singh & Ors., wherein the Apex Court has dismissed the S.L.P. In para 8 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held as under : "The record discloses that the primary contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the maximum age should be 45 years as provided for in the 1998 selections of Special BTC and that those candidates who were eligible to appear in the 2001 selections should be given exemptions on the ground that National Council had not imposed any restriction with regard to the maximum age while granting approval to the said course. These contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench. 21. The Apex Court in para 10 has further held that the process of selection of the• candidates for the said training and the arrangement of the training is required to be conducted in accordance with the guidelines, directions, conditions and restrictions incorporated. thereunder. None of the appellants qualified themselves for undergoing the said training course inasmuch as they were not selected as they were not found meritorious or over aged as the case may be. It is not demonstrated as to how the appellants were entitled for selection to undergo Special B.T.C. Training Course 2004. 22. It is clear that in the advertisement, the age limit has been prescribed and the petitioners have already crossed the age limit, which is prescribed under the advertisement. It is well settled law that a person cannot claim a right in respect of educational qualification or age against the qualification or age which is prescribed in the advertisement. 22. It is clear that in the advertisement, the age limit has been prescribed and the petitioners have already crossed the age limit, which is prescribed under the advertisement. It is well settled law that a person cannot claim a right in respect of educational qualification or age against the qualification or age which is prescribed in the advertisement. Since the petitioners are not eligible to be considered as they do not fulfill the criteria prescribed under the advertisement, they are not entitled for any relief. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, this Court cannot increase the maximum age limit nor can be held that those, who were within the limit of 40 years in 2001, should be treated as eligible. This Court cannot extend the age limit which is prescribed in the advertisement. It is a matter of policy and it is well settled law that the Court should not interfere with the policy matters until or unless the same is arbitrary. Moreover, fixing the age limit is the exclusively matter for the concerned authorities to decide. 24. In the advertisement issued in the year 2006, the age limit has been prescribed and I do not find any ground to interfere with the age limit, which is prescribed under the advertisement. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners should be exempted in the age limit is rejected. 25. All the writ petitioners are dismissed. No order as to costs. All the pending applications stand disposed of. 26. Let a certified copy of this judgment be placed in all the connected writ petitions.