Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1025 (ALL)

Mukesh Chaturvedi v. State of U. P.

2010-03-29

ARUN TANDON

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. - Connect with Writ Petition No. 68624 of 2009. 2. The controversy with regard to the admission to Special B.T.C. Course-2001 could not be resolved even after 09 years because the State Government has decided to issue Government Orders after Government Orders for confusing the issues in garb of clarifying the position and by altering its stand from time to time. 3. Entrance Test for Special B.T.C. Course-2001 took place in April, 2002. The results were declared on 03rd July, 2003. It is admitted to the State respondents that the results were fabricated and that the admission granted were based on other considerations than merit. Therefore, the State Government ultimately on 20.10.2005 cancelled the entire entrance test. 4. The State Government in the same Government Order came out with an exception clause. The exception clauses i. e. para 4 and 5 of the Government Order provided that irrespective of the fact as to whether the candidate was admitted illegally or by superseding the other meritorious candidates, if he has completed two years of training because of such illegal admission, he shall be permitted to appear in the fresh entrance test to be conducted along with entrance test of B.T.C. Course-2005 and if in such entrance test the illegally admitted candidate comes within the zone of being admitted to B.T.C. Course, then he will not be required to undergo the B.T.C. Training again and such candidate with the permission of the NCTE would be offered appointment in Parishadiya Vidhyalayas. Clause (5) recorded that permission to hold Special B.T.C. 2001 entrance examination along with B.T.C. Entrance Examination-2005 be undertaken with the approval of the State Government and a proposal in that regard be submitted to the State Government. 5. What follows from the Government Order dated 20.10.2005 is as follows: (a) There shall be a separate entrance test for Special B.T.C.-2001 candidates along with B.T.C. Entrance Test of 2005 from amongst the students who participated in the earlier entrance test only. (b) Candidates, who have already undergone training of two years under the admission granted after declaration of result in July, 2003, shall not be required to undergo the training of two years again. (b) Candidates, who have already undergone training of two years under the admission granted after declaration of result in July, 2003, shall not be required to undergo the training of two years again. (c) They would be offered appointment after obtaining permission from the N.C.T.E. (d) A proposal be submitted to the State Government for holding a common entrance test for Special B.T.C. Course-2001 along with B.T.C. Entrance Test of 2005 from amongst candidates who had undertaken the training of two years. 6. This Court may record that the Government Order permitted participation of all earlier candidates in the second entrance test for B.T.C.-2001 irrespective of the fact whether they had been admitted to B.T.C. Course and completed training or not. According to the Court, the only benefit granted to the candidates, who had completed the B.T.C. Training of two years, irrespective of the cancellation of the entire entrance test held earlier, was that if they are successful in the entrance test of Special B.T.C. Course 2001 to be held under Government Order dated 20.10.2005, then they will not be required to undergo the training of two years again. This benefit was not provided to other candidates who may be admitted after the entrance test to be held under Government Order dated 20.10.2005. 7. This Government Order was subjected to challenge by means of large number of writ petitions, which were decided on 24.04.2006. The order of the Hon'ble Single Judge provided that examination for B.T.C. 2001 shall be conducted only from amongst the candidates who have undertaken examination on the last occasion. Meaning there by that the zone of consideration for Special B.T.C. Entrance Test 2001 under Government Order dated 20.10.2005 was confined to the students who had undergone the said entrance test held in April, 2002. 8. Certain private candidates not being satisfied with the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge filed Special Appeal No. 553 of 2006, which was decided on 31.08.2007 and the Court specifically held that the decision taken by the State Government under Government Order dated 20.10.2005 was a correct decision. For protecting the interest of genuine persons, who had undergone the training, it was observed that if they are successful in the entrance test to be held under Government Order dated 20.10.2005, then there would be no reason for them to undertake the training of two years afresh. For protecting the interest of genuine persons, who had undergone the training, it was observed that if they are successful in the entrance test to be held under Government Order dated 20.10.2005, then there would be no reason for them to undertake the training of two years afresh. For ready reference the order of the Division Bench, relevant for our purposes, is quoted herein below: "Now coming to the last aspect of the matter whether equity and justice require that the candidates having completed two years of training ought not to have visited penal consequences and, therefore, the State Government's decision should have been set aside. We find that it is true that due to ongoing enquiry and time taken therein, in the meantime the candidates who were selected and admitted have devoted their two years valuable time for the purpose of undergoing the BTC training and we also feel that it would be hard on the part of such candidate who are ultimately excluded having spent their two years valuable time undergoing such training but in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, we find that the State Government has taken a correct decision and also has taken care of training undergone by the genuine persons by providing in the order impugned in the writ petition that ofter having fresh entrance test, the candidates who are ultimately found successful, if had already undergone training, would not be required to undergo such training afresh but the earlier training shall be treated to be a valid training and shall entitle those candidates for appointment in accordance with the rules on the basis of the said training. This taken care of the genuine candidates who have already undergone BTC training but those who failed to get selection cannot claim any benefit since the beneficiaries of wrongful means or wrongful selection are liable to loose the benefit acquired on the basis of such tainted selection and no equity would lie in their favour." 9. The State of U.P. is said to have made a modification application before the Hon'ble Single Judge in the writ petition, referred to above, which was rejected after observing that the order has merged in the orders of the Division Bench. 10. The State of U.P. is said to have made a modification application before the Hon'ble Single Judge in the writ petition, referred to above, which was rejected after observing that the order has merged in the orders of the Division Bench. 10. Instead of carrying out the directions contained in the order of the writ Court as well as of the Division Bench, which had specifically affirmed the Government Order dated 20.10.2005, the State Government became wiser and came out with a fresh Government Order on 29.12.2008 to the effect that the candidates, who had completed two years training in pursuance to the admission for B.T.C. Course-2001 held in April, 2002, they would be required to appear in an examination wherein, if they achieve 33% marks, they would be offered appointment as assistant teacher in Parishadiya Vidhyalayas. This Government Order has been made a sheet anchor for rejecting the representation of the petitioner, who had appeared in the entrance test held in the year 2002 and claims to be a victim of unfair practice adopted by the State. The Secretary, Basic Education, under the impugned order has recorded that the Government Order dated 29.12.2008 confines the test for the candidates who had completed two years training in pursuance of the selection held in the year 2002, which has been cancelled by the State Government itself in 2005. It has been recorded that since the petitioner had not undergone the training of two years in pursuance to the earlier admissions/selections, they cannot be permitted to appear in the test now held under the Government Order dated 29.12.2008. The order of the Secretary is under challenge in this petition. 11. I am of the prima facie opinion that the order of the Secretary is based on complete non application of mind to the terms and conditions of the Government Order dated 20.10.2005, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. 12. As already noticed above, a fresh entrance test from amongst all the candidates who had undertaken the earlier examination held in April, 2002 was necessary. Only relaxation from training was granted to such candidates who succeed in the entrance examination to be held under Government Order dated 20.10.2005 and who had completed two years training. 12. As already noticed above, a fresh entrance test from amongst all the candidates who had undertaken the earlier examination held in April, 2002 was necessary. Only relaxation from training was granted to such candidates who succeed in the entrance examination to be held under Government Order dated 20.10.2005 and who had completed two years training. The Division Bench has specifically held that if such candidates are successful in subsequent examination to be held under Government Order dated 20.10.2005, it will be too harsh to ask such candidates to undergo the training again for the same period of two years. The Government Order dated 29.12.2008 has been made a tool by the State Government to deny consideration for admission to B.T.C. Course 2001 to the candidates like the petitioner, who are victim of illegalities earlier committed by the State itself. The Government Order dated 29.12.2008 over reaches the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above and is an attempt to perpetuate illegalities committed by the State while granting admissions on the basis of entrance test held in the year 2002. 13. Let Secretary, Secondary Education, file is personal affidavit by the next date fixed for explaining the situation and to show cause why this Court may not proceed to impose exceptional cost for unnecessary litigation being generated. He may also explain that once the Government Order dated 20.10.2005 was affirmed by this Court in the year 2005 and directions were issued to act in accordance there to, how could the Government Order dated 29.12.2008 be issued for diluting the directions issued by the Writ Court and as to why proceedings for contempt of the Court may not be initiated against him. List on 12th April, 2010. Ordered Accordingly.