SANDHYA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners' candidature for selection and appointment as B.T.C. teacher had been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners have obtained their B.T.C. certificate from an institution which is situated outside the State of U.P. This Court by an interim order dated 1st October, 1997 directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' candidature in accordance with law and in case they come to the conclusion that the petitioners' candidature is liable to be rejected, they must communicate the same to the petitioners. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no such communication has been made to the petitioners individually. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that in the counter -affidavit reasons have been given for not considering the petitioners' candidature. The only reason given in the counter -affidavit is that the petitioners' certificate of B.T.C. is from the institution which is outside the State of U.P. and that is why the respondents have not considered the petitioners' candidature. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2000(1) LBESR 584 (All) : 2000 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. at page 1340, Upendra Rai v. State of U.P. and others, wherein similar controversy has been dealt with by the Division Bench.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' candidature in accordance with law and shall not reject the petitioners' candidature only on the ground that the petitioners obtained their B.T.C. certificate from an institution which is situated outside the State of U.P. in the forthcoming selection in case, the petitioners are eligible for the same.