SOBH NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court, questioning the validity of decisions dated 25.04.2000 and 23.08.2003 taken by District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, declaring the appointment orders passed in favour of petitioners as inoperative and void.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that an advertisement was published on 21.08.1997 by District Basic Education Officer, for making selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in primary institutions run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. At Allahabad. The eligibility criteria which was prescribed for in the said advertisement was that incumbent should possess training qualification equivalent to B.T.C. or H.T.C. along with Intermediate Examination or any other qualification as recognized by the State Government. Each one of the petitioners did not possess B.T.C. or H.T.C. Certificate, and as they were ineligible, they preferred writ petition No.29701 of 1997 before this Court, and this Court on 18.08.1998 disposed of the writ petition by mentioning that issue involved in that case was fully covered by the decision of this Court in case of B. Ed. Berozgar Sangh v. State of U.P. , 1997 (3) UPLBEC 1774, and the said decision would also apply in the petitioners' case. Petitioners have contended that copy of said order was produced before the concerned authority, and thereafter, District Basic Education Officer. Passed order dated 25.04.2000, holding petitioners ineligible. Subsequent to the same, they were offered appointment on 30.10.2001 in untrained grade, and they joined. Thereafter, it was revealed that petitioners had been offered appointment without undertaking any process of selection. On 15.02.2002 order was passed mentioning therein that petitioners would not be permitted to perform and discharge their duties. At the said point of time, petitioners preferred writ petition No. 8146 of 2002, wherein initially interim order was passed and thereafter on 21.04.2003, said writ petition had been dismissed by recording categorical finding of fact that petitioners lacked training qualification of B.T.C. and their appointment was illegal and same had been rightly cancelled. Petitioners submit that against the said judgment they filed Special Appeal No.499 of 2003, which is pending. Thereafter on 23.08.2003 petitioners' appointment had been cancelled. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed and therein, precise plea has been taken that selection and appointment of petitioners was clearly an act of manipulation and manoeuvering, and once petitioners are ineligible, no relief can be granted to them. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating that of writ petition. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed in the present case.

(3.) After pleadings aforementioned have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Lal Chandra Yadav, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case arbitrary treatment has been accorded to petitioners and on totally unsustainable grounds their candidature has been sought to be cancelled, and in this background, it has been urged that writ petition deserves to be allowed.