JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—The matter relating to appointment of persons like the petitioners in the present petition, who have obtained B.T.C. Training Course through correspondence, has been repeatedly engaging the attention of this Court since 1998. There has been three sets of writ petition and three sets of contempt petitions. The controversy must be laid to rest by this Court now, on the basis of the material evidence which exists on record. 2. Petitioners before this Court claim to have obtained B.T.C. Training Certificate through correspondence, the final examination whereof was held by the Registrar Departmental Examination U.P., Allahabad between the year 1983 to year 1995. 3. An advertisement was published by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah in Hindi newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ published from Agra on 17.8.1997 inviting applications from qualified candidates for appointment as assistant teachers in various Parishadiya Vidyalaya. Appointment in Parishadiya Vidyalaya is regulated by U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1981 Rules’). These rules have been framed under Section 19 of the U.P. Basic Education Act. Rule 6 of the said 1981 Rules lays down the age qualification. Rule 8 prescribes the essential educational qualification for appointment against the different categories of post of teachers covered under the 1981 Rules. 4. In this petition, the posts in question are that of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress of junior basic schools, the minimum educational qualification whereof as prescribed under Rule 8 at the relevant time was Intermediate or equivalent thereto together with training qualification like B.T.C., H.T.C., J.T.C. or any other training course recognized as equivalent by the State Government. The age limit as prescribed under Rule 6 is between 18 years to 32 years with the provision that the outer age can be extended up to 50 years if appointment could not be offered because of non-availability of the posts in the district. 5. In the advertisement so published the age limit prescribed was 18 to 32 years with the relaxation clause and the minimum qualifications were as per the statutory rule 8. The advertisement further specifically provided that the prospective candidates must submit their application by registered post so as to reach the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 31.8.1997 and further that they were required to appear alongwith their original testimonials in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 5.9.1997. 6. The advertisement further specifically provided that the prospective candidates must submit their application by registered post so as to reach the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 31.8.1997 and further that they were required to appear alongwith their original testimonials in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 5.9.1997. 6. According to the petitioners they applied but were not issued any call letter. They approached the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, but were informed that they cannot be considered as they had passed their B.T.C. Examination through correspondence, as per circular dated 24.8.1997. 7. Petitioners decided to approach this Court after more than one year of the date fixed for appearance before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari under the advertisement, vide Writ Petition No. 32385 of 1998 and 39356 of 1998, filed before this Court in October, 1998, and Writ Petition Nos. 7240/99 and 7234/99 filed in the year 1999. 8. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the only relief prayed for in the writ petition was that the circular dated 24.8.1997 be quashed and that the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioners as qualified for the post of assistant teachers. The writ petition was decided without calling for any counter-affidavit by observing that this Court in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1995 (Virendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and others) has already held that the correspondence course should be treated as equivalent to regular BTC Course. The writ petition was disposed of with the same directions as issued in the special appeal. 9. The order of the special appeal was not being complied with and therefore petitioners filed Contempt Petition Nos. 624 of 1999, 625 of 1999. In the contempt petitions notices were issued. 10. At this stage appointment letters are said to have been issued in their favour by the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah, namely Urmila Saxena on 31st March, 1999. Copy of the appointment letters have been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the present writ petition. The appointment letters record that the petitioners are being appointed in terms of the order of the High Court dated 9.10.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 32385 of 1998, dated 17.12.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 39356 of 1998 and dated 24.2.1999 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 7240 of 1999 and 7234 of 1999 respectively. 11. The appointment letters record that the petitioners are being appointed in terms of the order of the High Court dated 9.10.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 32385 of 1998, dated 17.12.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 39356 of 1998 and dated 24.2.1999 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 7240 of 1999 and 7234 of 1999 respectively. 11. Within 15 days of the issuance of the appointment letter, the same Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 17.4.1999 issued a notification and also forwarded a letter to the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari stating therein that certain teachers with correspondence B.T.C. Course have manufactured forged appointment letters and on the basis thereof they are proceeding to submit their joining. They may not be permitted to join and if any such person has already joined, then he may not be permitted to sign the attendance register. Information of such persons already appointed must be immediately communicated to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 12. Against the order dated 17.4.1999 three set of writ petitions were filed by the present petitioenrs, being Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999, 20061 of 1999 and 20354 of 1999. In the said writ petitions an interim order was granted by the High Court on 24.5.1999 with liberty to Basic Shiksha Adhikari to conduct an enquiry. A counter-affidavit was filed in the said writ petition categorically stating that the appointment letters were forged and in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit it was also stated that all the petitioners were overage with reference to the statutory rules applicable. 13. In order to keep the record straight, it may be noticed that in paragraph 6 of the said three writ petitions, the petitioners had categorically stated that an advertisement was published on 27/30.11.1998 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah. A copy of the advertisement was enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and in paragraph 14 it was specifically further stated that the petitioners had applied with reference to the advertisement published in November, 1998. 14. It is, therefore, clear that in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999, 20061 of 1999 and 20354 of 1999 filed by the petitioners it was their categorical case that they had applied in pursuance to the advertisement published on 27/30.11.1998 and it is with reference to this advertisement alone that the petitioners claim that appointment letters had been issued in their favour on 31.3.1999. 15. 15. The interim order of writ Court was not being complied with therefore the petitioners filed Contempt Petition No. 2914 of 1999, 2915 of 1999 and 2916 of 1999. In the said contempt petitions an affidavit in reply was filed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari stating that the appointment letters set up by the petitioners were forged and that a counter-affidavit has already been filed alongwith stay vacation application in Writ Petition Nos. 20031 of 1999, 20061 of 1999 and 20354 of 1999. 16. The contempt Court on 7.11.2000 passed an order that the contempt petitions be listed after disposal of the aforesaid three writ petitions. 17. The writ petitions came to be decided under an order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 22.4.2009 and dated 30.7.2009. The writ petitions were allowed. The State respondents were directed to ensure that the petitioners are permitted to work and paid their salary. It is an admitted position that between 1999 till 2009 the petitioners did not work nor were paid salary. 18. The State and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari not being satisfied filed Special Appeal No. 775 of 2010, 776 of 2010 and 777 of 2010. The special appeals were allowed vide order dated 26.8.2010. 19. Before the Division Bench it was stated that the enquiry has already been completed and it has been found that the appointment letters were forged. The petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The Division Bench taking note of the enquiry report found that the petitioners had not been called to participate in the enquiry and therefore permitted the petitioners to file their objections to the enquiry report. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari was directed to take a fresh decision after considering the case of the petitioners. The Division Bench further clarified that the order passed by the Court will not entitle the petitioners to seek reinstatement or to claim salary. 20. In pursuance to the order of the Division Bench, petitioners did file their objections to the enquiry report, which objections have been considered and under the order impugned dated 22.12.2010 it has been found that the appointment letters set up by the petitioners dated 31.3.1999 were forged documents. Petitioners were ineligible to be appointed. No procedure prescribed in the matter of appointment had been followed. The petitioners had not worked. Their claim has been rejected under the order dated 22.12.2010. Petitioners were ineligible to be appointed. No procedure prescribed in the matter of appointment had been followed. The petitioners had not worked. Their claim has been rejected under the order dated 22.12.2010. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 21. In the present writ petition in paragraph 4 it has been specifically stated that the petitioners had applied with reference to the advertisement dated 27.11.1998. A copy of the advertisement dated 27.11.1998 has also been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the present writ petition. 22. While hearing the matter, this Court on previous dates found that under the advertisement, which was enclosed alongwith the present petition dated 27.11.1998 there was a specific stipulation whereunder the candidates with a Certificate of BTC Training through correspondence were declared as ineligible to apply. 23. What logically follows is that even if the petitioners could be said to be eligible in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Virendra Bahadur Singh (supra), the only order which could be issued in the present petition possibly could be to set aside the advertisement with a further direction for fresh publication of the advertisement permitting all similarly situate candidates with BTC Certificate through correspondence, like the petitioners, to apply. 24. The petitioners have filed an amendment application to be precise on 15.1.2012 and for the first time a prayer has been made to amend paragraph 4 of the present petition. The petitioners have come out with a case that they had applied with reference to the advertisement published on 17.8.1997. Appointments had been offered to them under letter dated 31.3.1999 with reference to the application so made by the petitioner in response to the advertisement of 1997 and the orders passed by the writ Court as detailed above. 25. This Court may deal with the amendment application at the first instance. 26. As already noticed above, in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999, 20061 of 1999 and 20354 of 1999 it was the specific case of the petitioners that they had applied with reference to advertisement dated 23.11.1998 only. A copy of the advertisement was also brought on record as Annexure-1 to those petitions. 26. As already noticed above, in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999, 20061 of 1999 and 20354 of 1999 it was the specific case of the petitioners that they had applied with reference to advertisement dated 23.11.1998 only. A copy of the advertisement was also brought on record as Annexure-1 to those petitions. This Court fails to understand as to how the petitioner can wriggle out of the admission so made in the petition filed 14 years earlier and which was decided finally on 22.4.1999. 27. This Court may further record that in the first bunch of petitions filed by the present petitioners i. e. Writ Petition No. 32385 of 1998, 39356 of 1998, 7240 of 1999 and 7234 of 1999 the petitioners only sought for quashing of the circular dated 24.8.1997. These petitions were admittedly filed after more than one year of the last date fixed for making of the application and of the date fixed for appearance before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari i.e. 5.9.1997. 28. The petitioners had placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 13th June, 1995 whereunder equivalence was granted to the correspondence course by the State Government and it was declared that persons with correspondence B.T.C. Certificate are to be treated at par with the regular B.T.C. Course Certificate holders. The petitioners in the said writ petitions did not make nor press for any relief for their claim being considered with reference to the advertisement dated 17.8.1997 and they be appointed like any other candidate who had applied in pursuance thereof. It is in this background that the said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 07th October, 1998, only with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Virendra Bahadur Singh (supra) and for the claim of the petitioner being considered accordingly. 29. In view of the facts on record, this Court finds that the amendment, which has now been prayed for by the petitioner in this petition, is not only contrary to their own case pleaded in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999, 20061 of 1999 and 20354 of 1999, the same is also an after thought only in order to overcome the objection taken qua the petitioners being disqualified from making any application itself under the advertisement of 1998, which condition was never challenged by the petitioners in any of their writ petitions. 30. 30. It may be recorded that in the writ petitions of 1999, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the condition imposed in the advertisement, that persons with correspondence B.T.C. Certificate are ineligible to apply, had not been challenged. This Court, therefore, rejects the present amendment application. The amendment application stands rejected. Now on Merits 31. In the inquiry report it has specifically been noticed that the appointment letters had been issued bearing Nos. 13474-81, 13482-88, 13489-96, 13497-504, 13505-512 and 13513-520 and on the strength of six dispatch numbers only large number of candidates had been appointed, when as a normal practice only one appointment letter can be issued against one dispatch number. It has further been recorded, with reference to the evidence of the dispatch clerk that such letters in fact had not been issued and what is most relevant is that within 15 days of the issuance of the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioners dated 31.3.1999, the same Basic Shiksha Adhikari had issued a notification dated 17.4.1999 directing the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the appointment letters produced by the persons with correspondence BTC Certificate were forged and they may not be permitted to join. The same Basic Shiksha Adhikari had also stated during the enquiry that such appointment letters had not been issued by her. The plea raised by the petitioner in response to same has been considered and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari under the order impugned has found as a matter of fact on the basis of the material evidence on record that the appointment letters were forged and have not been issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. It has also been recorded that the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who was responsible for creating the situation had been placed under suspension and was being proceeded with departmentally. 32. This Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded, after examining the Patal Sahayak, Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the relevant records qua the appointment letters being forged, are pure findings of fact based on consideration of material evidence. Disputed issues of fact raised in that regard cannot be a subject-matter of consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33. Disputed issues of fact raised in that regard cannot be a subject-matter of consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33. There is another reason for denying the relief which has been prayed for by the present petitioners, namely that at the time the advertisement was published in 1997 as well as at the time when advertisement was published in the year 1998 all the petitioners were beyond the maximum age of 32 years. Such was the stand taken by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition Nos. 20031 of 1999, 20061 of 1999 and 20354 of 1999. 34. Counsel for the petitioners in order to over come the aforesaid legal hurdle refers to third proviso to Rule 6 of the 1981 Rules. The Rule 6 read as follows: “6. Age.—A candidate for recruitment to any post referred to in clause (a) or proviso to clause (b) of rule 5, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than thirty-two years on the first day of July following the year in which the vacancy is notified: Provided that the upper age limit shall, in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and dependents of freedom-fighters, be greater by five years or as provided by the State Government from time to time: Provided further that the upper age limit shall in the case of candidate, who is ex-servicemen, be greater by three years or as provided by the State Government from time to time: Provided also that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of Basic Schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment: Provided also that no upper age limit shall apply in case of B. Ed/L.T./B.P. Ed. or D.P. Ed. trained candidates who have completed special B.T.C. Training Course in the year 1999.” 35. or D.P. Ed. trained candidates who have completed special B.T.C. Training Course in the year 1999.” 35. According to the petitioners since equivalence to B.T.C. correspondence certificate was granted in the year 1995, the entire period from the date they had obtained the BTC correspondence certificate till the year 1995 had to be excluded in determination of their outer age limit. According to the petitioners if such exclusion is granted, they being within 50 years of age are within the zone of consideration. 36. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has to be rejected on simple reading of the provision. The provision only excludes the period, in determination of the outer age, during which appointment could not be made for want of vacancies in the district. There is hardly any pleading in any of the writ petitions filed i.e. of the year 1998 or of the year 1999 or in the present petition filed in the year 2011, qua appointment being not made, despite having obtained the training qualification through correspondence, for want of vacancies in the district. There is no pleading in any of the writ petition which could support the claim of the petitioners for exclusion of any period under the proviso to Rule 6. 37. In para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999, which has been referred to by the counsel, only vague allegations have been made. Relevant facts, whereunder relaxation in age can be claimed, had not been stated. It is not the case of the petitioner that they could not be offered appointment because of vacancies being not available in the district earlier. This Court has no hesitation to record that the petitioners hopelessly failed to establish that they are entitled to any relaxation in the age beyond the prescribed maximum age of 32 years. 38. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order impugned. No relief can be granted. Writ petition is dismissed. ——————