Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1590 (ALL)

DHAN RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-08-11

TARUN AGARWALA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri N.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on the post of Assistant Teacher in primary institution in the District of Allahabad on the ground that the petitioner has a Buniyadi Prashikshan Certificate which is equivalent to the Basic Training Certificate and, which was recognised by the State of U.P. till the year 1997. The petitioner contends that he had obtained this certificate in the year 1973, and on this basis, he had applied for an appointment in the year 1995 and, at that moment of time, the Buniyadi Prashikshan Certificate was recognized by the State of U.P., as equivalent to the B.T.C. On this basis the petitioner contended that he had the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary institution under Rule 8(1) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit alleging that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief inasmuch as the Buniyadi Prashikshan Certificate obtained by the petitioner was de-recognized by the State Government w.e.f. 11.8.1997 and therefore, as on date the petitioner was not eligible for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in any Primary institution in the State of U.P. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his application for appointment was pending with the respondent from the year 1995 and at that moment of time the State Government had recognised the Buniyadi Prashikshan as being equivalent to the Basic Training Certificate and therefore, the petitioner was eligible for being considered for an appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The mere fact that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1995 does not bind the respondents to act upon the said application, especially in the absence of any averment that the petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement. Consequently, the mere fact that the petitioner had moved an application for appointment will not bind the respondents. Consequently, the mere fact that the petitioner had moved an application for appointment will not bind the respondents. Further, the writ petition does not indicate that the petitioner had pursued his application. The writ petition reveals that after 1995 the petitioner moved another application in the year 2004 and on that basis, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus. If the 2004 application is to be considered, admittedly, the petitioner was not eligible since the certificate which the petitioner possessed had been de-recognized by the State Government w.e.f. 11.8.1997. The learned counsel for the respondents further invited the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court dated 12.2.2008 passed in Special Appeal No. 8034 of 2001, Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai and others, wherein the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 25 of 2000, Upendra Rai v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(2) UPLBEC 1340 , has been reversed. The Supreme Court has held that the Government Order dated 11.8.1997 de-recognising certain degrees and certificates is a valid Government Order and that a person who does not have the qualification mentioned in Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 could not be validly appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. ———