SHIKHA GAUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioners no. 1, 14 and 11 - appellants, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 25.05.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 65529 of 2008, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioners no. 1, 14 and 11 - appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants") were candidates for selection to the Special B.T.C. Course - 2007 in the General Category Arts (Female) and General Category Science (Female). They offered their candidature for the said course in various districts including Mathura. According to the appellants, they have been selected for admission in various districts including Mathura. The requirement for taking admission in the said course at Mathura, was that the candidates would forego their rights for admission in other districts. The appellants opted for being admitted in said course in district Mathura. Later on, it was found that persons having higher merit had been left out and the appellants had been selected and, therefore, they were restrained from continuing with the training. Aggrieved by the same, appellants preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47400 of 2008 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 12th November 2008, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Principal, District Education and Training Institute Baad, Mathura to examine the grievance of the appellants and pass appropriate orders. In the light of the said decision, the Principal, District Education and Training Institute Baad, Mathura considered the claim of the appellants along with other candidates and found that candidates with higher quality point marks were available and they had not been chosen and, accordingly, rejected the claim of the appellants by order dated 01.12.2008. Challenge to the aforesaid order had failed in the writ petition and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge observed as follows:- "...In between the incumbent who was incharge Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training proceeded to offer the seats to the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates. After the permanent Principal returned back and joined, then it was revealed that the candidates with less quality point marks have been included vis-a-vis candidates from reserved category with higher quality point marks have been left out. On being confronted with the situation, the petitioners were restrained from completing training. Cut of merits of Female Arts category candidates was 255.50 and that of reserved female category candidates was 255.70. In this background, requisite exercise has been undertaken and as per merit the candidates who were entitled for training have been sent for training. The order which has been passed by the Principal, DIET cannot be faulted, and same requires no interference by this Court. Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, if the seats are still lying vacant, then immediate steps be undertaken to fill up the vacancies from respective candidates solely on the basis of merit strictly as per policy formulated in the matter within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment."

(3.) WE do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Judge has concurred with the finding of the Principal that after the regular Principal returned, it was revealed that the candidates with less quality point marks had been included for training vis-a-vis the candidates from reserved category with higher quality point marks who have been left out. In case, candidates with higher quality point marks are left out, any direction to continue the appellants to complete the course shall be in direct conflict with their rights.