SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are 49 in number, are graduates and have a degree of B.Ed. They have passed the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'TET Examination'). The petitioners seek quashing of the Government Order dated 5th December, 2012 as well as the advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur. The petitioners also seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents-authority from making any selection in pursuance to the impugned Government Order/ advertisement by applying reservation and lastly a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners with reference to the reservation in terms of the advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 and further to complete the process of selection in terms of the Rules existing prior to 30th November, 2011.

(2.) Sri Shailendra Advocate on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following pleas in respect of the reliefs prayed for (a) vacancies of Apprentice Teachers were advertised on 30th November, 2011,? the advertisement was subsequently cancelled on 31st August, 2012 because of the amendments made in the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as '1981 Rules'), although the cancellation of advertisement is not being questioned in the present writ petition, but the vacancies earlier advertised should be filled in accordance with the Rules applicable on the date the advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 was made, and (b) that in 'TET Examination', reservation was applied and the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, were declared passed in the 'TET Examination' with reference to the marks fixed for the reserved categories.? While making selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7th December, 2012, the State Government cannot now apply reservation,? as it will amount to double reservation.

(3.) The contentions raised by Sri Shailendra on behalf of the petitioners do not appeal to this Court. The advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 was published by the State inviting applications for appointment as Apprentice Teachers. This advertisement was cancelled under an order of the State Government dated 31st August, 2012. The legality of the decision so taken by the State Government was subject matter of challenge in civil misc. writ petition no.39674 of 2012, which has been dismissed by this Court under judgment and order dated 16th January, 2013. Amongst others, it has been held that the advertisement for appointment as Apprentice Teachers was not inconformity with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The '1981 Rules' did not contemplate any appointment as Apprentice Teachers on the relevant date. Therefore the vacancies subject matter of advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 were non existent.