AJAY PRATAP SAHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Pleadings have been exchanged and they agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. This petition is directed against an order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being sent for B.T.C. Training.

(2.) THE petitioners alleged to have been appointed in Shivaji Social Welfare Children School, Nishaniya, Paikawali, in District Deoria which was granted recognition on 31 3.1995. Admittedly, they were untrained teachers but claiming that they were working prior to the recognition of the institution, they claimed the benefit of a Government order dated 6.9.1994 by which facility to untrained teachers of B.T.C. Training was extended, with certain conditions. It is claimed that on the basis of the aforesaid Government order the Basic Shiksha Adhikari forwarded the name of the petitioners to the District Institution of Education and Training but they were not allowed to complete their training in view of the Government order dated 18.3.1996. It is further pleaded that though similarly placed several persons approached this Court and were granted the relief of training, they could not file the writ petition earlier and having come to know about an order dated 4.3.2003 passed in Special Appeal No. 731 of 2002 in the case of Kali Charan Singh and Anr. v. The Registrar, Departmental Examination Allahabad, they filed a Writ Petition No. 47919 of 2005 which was finally disposed off vide order dated 11.7.2005 directing the respondents to consider their claim keeping in mind the decision in the aforesaid appeal of Kalicharan. In pursuance thereof, the present impugned order has been passed holding that the name was never recommended for training on the basis of the Government order dated 6.9.2004 prior to 18 3.1996. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that since their names were mentioned in the return submitted by the Management seeking recognition of the institution, they were entitled to be sent for training on the basis of the decision in Kalicharan's case.

(3.) APPLYING the aforesaid ratio, it would be evident that the benefit of the aforesaid appellate order dated 4.3.2003 was applicable to only those persons who complete the twin requirement of: 1. Their names are mentioned in the returned submitted by the management seeking recognition of the institution, and 2. Their names were also approved for training in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.9.1994. In the case at hand though the petitioner allegedly satisfies the first requirement, it is evident from the record that his name was never recommended for training in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.9.1994 till it was amended by the Government order dated 18.3.1996. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted.