Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2501 (ALL)

NIHAL AHMED v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-08-14

SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.M. Asthana and Sri Sharad Tewari appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 6 respectively. 1. This petition has been filed with the following reliefs : “(i) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to submit their Application forms for Selection of Trainee-Teachers for Primary and Upper Primary Schools of U.P. Basic Education Board and reckon their marks obtained in the TET for their selection. (ii) ISSUE any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and proper under the circumstances of the case and ALLOW this humble petition.” 2. Similar controversy was engaging attention of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7730 of 2011 (MS) which was allowed on 30.7.2014. Operative portion of the order dated 30.7.2014 is being reproduced below : “Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat both the B.Ed. degree course i.e. one year degree course and the degree obtained by distance mode at par with necessary consequences.” 3. From the above, it is clear that respondent No. 3 was directed to treat both the degree course i.e. one year degree course and the degree obtained by distance mode at par with necessary consequences. 4. Sri M.M. Asthana and Sri Sharad Tewari appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 6 respectively have supported this contention. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that Universities are insisting students for obtaining individual order. 5. In view of general nature of order passed on 30.7.2014, all the petitioners were not required to come and crowd this Court unnecessarily. Authorities are not paying attention to the order passed by this Court; adding to the plight of litigants. 6. In any case, order dated 30.7.2014 is rem in nature. It is, therefore, directed that Universities and other authorities will not insist for individual order from every candidate i.e. to approach this Court for above relief. B.Ed degree course whether it is of two year or one year will be treated at par for all purposes. So far as present petitioners are concerned, needless to say that they are also entitled to the benefit of above order. Petition is allowed as above. —————