DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, requesting therein that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 14.11.2008, which mentions that the candidates who intend to be selected in Special BTC Course from the category of Shikshamitra, must be teaching as Shikshamitra on the date they apply for admission to such course. Case of the petitioners is that they have functioned as Shikshamitra for more than three years; in Special BTC Course -2008, 10% seats have been reserved for the candidates from this category of Shikshamitra; in advertisement, which has been issued on 14.11.2008, it has been mentioned that the persons applying for Special BTC Course from Shikshamitra category, must be teaching as such till date. Petitioners submit that they do not fulfil this part of the requirement as mentioned in the advertisement; this part is totally arbitrary and discriminatory, and constitutes class amongst class of Shikshamitra, who have functioned for more than three years. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, advocate, contended with vehemence that imposition of such condition that the candidate must be teaching till date, is totally arbitrary and discriminatory, as such said technical part of the Government Order is liable to be struck down, and the candidature of the petitioners is liable to be considered. Countering the said submission, Sri K.K. Chand, learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, contended that this is the policy matter and 10% seats have been reserved for the candidates from the category of such Shikshamitra, who have worked for three years and have been working on the date of application, and not for such Shikshamitra who had functioned in the past; in this background, no interference is required by this Court, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to be included within 10% vacancies reserved for Shikshamitra, for the reason that on the date of application being submitted pursuant to advertisement, petitioners were not functioning as Shikshamitra. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges in the present case is that for Special BTC Course-2008, State Government has framed policy, and therein provision has been made to reserve 10% of the vacancy in favour of Shikshamitra, who have worked for three years and have been working on the date of application and in this regard, they would have to be produce certificate from Basic Shiksha Parishad. In the present case, the petitioners, although they have functioned for more than three years as Shikshamitra in the past, but on the date of making application, they were not functioning as such. Claim set up by the petitioners cannot be accepted by any means, inasmuch as Policy Makers in their wisdom have chosen to provide 10% seats to the candidates coming from the category of such Shikshamitra, who have completed three years' service as such, and have been currently performing and discharging duties as Shikshamitra. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others vs. Government N.C.T. Delhi, J.T. 2003 (2) SC 453 has taken the view that it is within the domain of the recruiting authority to evolve policy of recruitment and decide the source from which recruitment is to be made. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul vs. Chairman, U.P. S.C., AIR 2007 SC 254, has taken the view that it is the statutory authority alone, which is entitled to frame Rules as well as prescribed qualification, and the courts have no authority to prescribe the qualification or supplant or supplement the same. Inevitable conclusion is that Framers of the Scheme are presumed to be aware of each and every fact, including the fact that the candidates with all kinds of qualifications are available and it is well within their domain to evolve policy of recruitment and decide the source from which recruitment is to be made. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Gopi Nath, AIR 2006SC 651, has taken the view that the policy decision must be left with the Government, as it alone can decide as to which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles in the matter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by Government. So long as infringement of fundamental right is not there, the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of the decision of the Government, court cannot interfere even if second view is possible from that of Government, it is not permissible. Consequently, in the present case once such policy decision has been taken, chalking out the source from which recruitment is to be made, and therein the candidates unlike the petitioner are out the zone of eligibility criteria, then in this background, no direction can be issued to the State Government for including or clubbing another set of resource of recruitment. Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.