ASRAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in these writ petitions have approached this Court for the relief that their certificate known as 'Shiksha Vigyan Bhushan' obtained from Maharshi Bharadwaj Shiksha Samiti, Shahjahanpur, be considered equivalent to B.T.C. Course in the matter of appointment in Basic Schools run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case, as contained in these petitions, is that in the District of Shahjahanpur there is a registered society known as Maharshi Bharadwaj Shiksha Samiti, Shahjahanpur, which conducts various courses of training including 'Shiksha Vigyan Bhushan', which as per petitioners is equivalent to B.T.C. Petitioners contend that each one of them had completed the aforementioned course through correspondence. Petitioners have contended that the said certificate issued by the aforementioned Society, in all eventuality, be accepted as equivalent to B.T.C. and consequently, benefits of the same be extended qua the petitioners. Supplementary affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that pursuant to Notification dated 11 -3 -1997, published in daily Dainik Jagaran by National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE), the aforementioned society had applied for recognition of the aforementioned course. Petitioners have contended that written query was made in this respect on 18 -4 -1997 and the same was adequately replied to. It has been contended that 'No Objection Certificate', was demanded, which was to be issued by the State Government. It has been contended that NCTE vide its communication dated 28 -10 -1997 refused to accord approval. It has been contended that thereafter matter had been represented and till date no decision has been taken. It has been contended that society in question preferred writ petition No. 4283 of 2003 stating therein that upon the facts and circumstances of the case deemed 'no objection certificate' be presumed and recognition be awarded. In the said writ petition directives had been issued to decide the representation so moved.

(3.) SRI Sidheshwari Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of petitioners and learned Standing Counsel argued the case on behalf of State respondents.