LAWS(ALL)-1998-5-79

JITENDRA PRASADS Vs. ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI AZAMGARH

Decided On May 29, 1998
JITENDRA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, AZAMGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the appellants, who hold certificates of training of physical education (C.P.Ed, for short), are entitled to relaxation of the maximum age prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for appointment to the post of Assistant Master in Basic Schools under the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Azamgarh.

(2.) The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus : In pursuance of the advertisement published in the daily newspaper, Dainik Jagran dated 27.11.1993 published from Gorakhpur (Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the stay petition) inviting applications for the post of Assistant Masters for Primary Basic Schools controlled by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, the appellants, who held C.P.Ed, certificates, submitted their applications. They were called to the interview held on 6th and 7th of December, 1993 along with other candidates. From the candidates holding C.P.Ed. certificates called to the interview, 56 were issued appointment orders, but the appellants were denied appointment on the ground that they were age-barred. Being aggrieved by the action of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Azamgarh, excluding them from selection for the post, they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15231 of 1996 contending, inter alia, that they were entitled to relaxation of the maximum age upto 50 years, which is applicable to candidates holding Basic Teachers Training Certificate (B.T.C. for short) since the State Government has taken a policy decision to recognise C.P.Ed, as equivalent to B.T.C. for the purpose of eligibility qualification for appointment as Assistant Master in a Basic School. The learned single Judge by his judgment/order dated 1.5.1996 rejected the contention raised by the appellants and dismissed the writ petition. The said judgment/order is assailed in this appeal.

(3.) Rule 6 of the Rules, which prescribes the maximum age of candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Master, reads as follows :