Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2984 (ALL)

Madhuri Lata v. State of U. P. and Others

2012-12-20

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2012
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.; -- List revised. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer to issue writ of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 16.01.2007 passed by respondent no.2. and further issue a writ of certiorari commanding respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher/B.T.C. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed B.T.C. in the year, 1991, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The State-Government has formulated the policy to absorb all those, who have completed B.T.C. On 04.02.2003, the petitioner has submitted application before the D.I.O.S., Mainpuri, for appointment of the petitioner on the post of B.T.C. teacher. 4. He also contended that at the first time application was given by the petitioner on 16.10.2000 and 17.03.2003, the D.I.O.S. has sent a letter to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad for sanction to appoint the petitioner, which is still pending. On 10th June, 2005, the Basic Education Officer sent letter to respondent no.2 for approval and sanction for appointment of the petitioner. On 01.12.2005, the petitioner submitted application before the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad to the effect that her representation was pending, hence it might be decided to appoint as assistant teacher. The representation of the petitioner remained pending, hence writ petition no.51334 of 2006 was filed which was disposed of on 15.09.2006 with direction to consider and decide the representation. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was decided and prayer of the petitioner was rejected by impugned order dated 16.01.2007, hence the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the Government order, the petitioner was to be accommodated for appointment. The prayer was refused on the ground that the petitioner was overage, the maximum age in the year, 2001 was 32 years and petitioner had completed 34 years. According to the rules 6, if there was no selection during certain period that period has to be excluded giving the maximum relaxation of age upto 50 years. since, the petitioner has not completed 50 years age for assistant teacher, hence she was entitled for appointment. Hence, in view of the fact the impugned order dated 16.01.2007 is liable to be quashed and direct the respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner. 6. since, the petitioner has not completed 50 years age for assistant teacher, hence she was entitled for appointment. Hence, in view of the fact the impugned order dated 16.01.2007 is liable to be quashed and direct the respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that for a period of about 10 years after completing B.T.C., no application was given by the petitioner for appointment as assistant teacher, hence delay and default was on the part of the petitioner for which she is not entitled to relaxation of age. First time, the application was given by the petitioner on 17.02.2001 and on relevant date, the petitioner has completed 34 years of age on that date maximum age for appointment was 32 years, hence rightly the representation was rejected. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in fact, first time application was given on 16.10.2000 and second time application was given on 17.02.2001. The first application was also received in the office of D.I.O.S., hence this factual aspect is incorrect. 8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, if post was advertised after 1991 and before October, 2000 and there was no application from the side of the petitioner for selection, then there was delay on part of the petitioner. Hence, if there was no advertisement and there was no selection according to advertisement then there was delay on the part of the respondents and State-Government and in view of the rules 16 for that period the relaxation of age has to be provided. Since there is no averment whether any selection took place during this period. Hence, if there is no advertisement and selection before 2000 then petitioner is entitled for relaxation for maximum age for that period during which no selection took place. Hence, the respondent no.2 is required to consider this aspect afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed off.