Geeta Devi vs State of U.P.and Others

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Mr. Y.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 and perused the records.

The writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for selection to the ''BTC Training Course 2010'' treating her to be eligible and qualified under the ''Shiksha Mitra'' quota belonging to Scheduled Caste Category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the Government Order dated 14.5.2010, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for BTC Training Course 2010 in daily newspaper ''Dainik Jagran'' on 16.5.2010 for a total sanctioned posts of 250. As per the advertisement, the last date of submission of application form was 08.06.2010 and 10 per cent posts were reserved for ''Shiksha Mitra'' quota meaning thereby out of 250 posts, 25 posts were reserved for ''Shiksha Mitra''. s

The petitioner against the aforesaid reserved seats for ''Shiksha Mitra'' had submitted her application form on 25.5.2010.

As per the Government Order dated 14.5.2010 and the conditions prescribed in the advertisement, candidates at the time of applying fistful BTC Training Course 2010 shall be eligible and having the requisite educational qualification as well as experience of teaching, in this regard. | an undertaking was required to be given that in case any of the documents submitted along with the application form is found incorrect or the required certificates/marksheets are not prior to the date of submission of application form, the candidates shall become ineligible and their candidature shall be cancelled.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being fully eligible had applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. With the application form, she had enclosed selfattested copies of marksheet of Intermediate Examination as well Graduation Examination and the experience certificate, caste certificate, domicile certificate, etc. the quality point marks of the petitioner were 187.73. However, in most arbitrary and discriminatory manner, the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered whereas the persons having lesser merit namely, Km. Nisha, Anjali and Km. Sarla Devi having 184.33,182.29 and 181.66 quality point marks respectively were sent on training.

It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 07.12.2010 had directed the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. However, in most arbitrary manner, the opposite parties by letter dated 27.1.2011 have rejected the representation of the petitioner.

Mr. Y.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the advertisement as well as the conditions laid down for selection of candidates for ETC Training Course 2010, a candidate was required to fill up the application form enclosing selfattested marksheet of Intermediate Examination as well as Graduation Examination. There was no requirement of enclosing copy of the Bachelor''s Degree or the provisional certificate. As such it was wrong to hold that since the petitioner had not enclosed the copy of the Bachelor''s Degree or the provisional certificate, therefore, her candidature could not be accepted.

It is further submitted that the experience certificate was enclosed with the application form and at the time of verification of documents the original was not seen.

Mr. Y.K. Mishra submitted that the petitioner had the requisite educational qualification and experience at the time of submission of the application form and the candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected.

It is also submitted that the similarly situated candidate namely Sarla Devi who possessed the Graduation degree only in the year 2009 and she did not have the required experience of three years but she has been selected for BTC Training Course 2010 under ''Shiksha Mitra'' quota.

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit submitted that although the petitioner had obtained 187.73 quality point marks but with the application form, the petitioner had not enclosed the selfattested copy of the Bachelor''s Degree or the provisional certificate and the marksheet of the Bachelor''s Degree course did not bear the enrollment number. Moreover, the petitioner had filed selfattested copy of experience certificate of Shiksha Mitra dated 25.5.2010 but at the time of verification, she failed to produce the original certificate issued prior to the last date of submission of application form. She produced experience certificate of Shiksha Mitra dated 07.07.2010 which was issued after the last date of submission of application form. The petitioner had appeared for verification on 09.07.2010 but she failed to produce the original Bachelor''s Degree or provisional certificate and also the original experience certificate in respect of Shiksha Mitra, photocopy of which was enclosed along with her application form. Since the petitioner had applied against the seats which were reserved for ''Shiksha Mitra'', therefore, she was required tc produce the experience certificate of Shiksha Mitra, issued prior to the last date of submission of application form. The experience certificate which was produced was of 07.07.2010, which was issued after the last date of submission of application form consequently the said experience certificate was not acceptable being contrary to the conditions laid down in the Government Order dated 14.5.2010.

It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the Court''s order was considered and rejected.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties counsel,

It is admitted position between the parties that the petitioner had obtained 187.73 qality point marks and the candidates in the petitioner''s category having lesser quality point marks have been sent on training for BTC Training Course2010.

The only question which requires consideration is as to whether the petitioner fulfilled the required eligibility conditions at the time of applying for BTC Training Course 2010.

There is no denying the fact that the petitioner had the required percentage of marks in the Intermediate examination as well as in the Graduation examination, which she had possessed prior to the issuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner had applied in time and with the application form, selfattested copies of marksheet of Intermediate examination as well as Graduation examination were annexed, however, she did not enclose the copy of Bachelor''s Degree or provisional certificate with the application form.

From the perusal of the conditions laid down vide Government Order dated 14.5.2010, under Condition No. 16 it is provided that a candidate while applying for ETC Training Course 2010 shall enclose selfattested copies of marksheet of High School examination, Intermediate examination as well as Graduation examination along with caste certificate issued by the competent authority, domicile certificate and certificate for claiming special category reservation. Moreover, as per the conditions prescribed under the advertisement for BTC Training Course 2010, at the time of verification of the documents, the candidate shall produce the original certificate, copies of which have been enclosed with the application form.

At the time of verification, the petitioner had produced the original marksheet of the High School, Intermediate as well as Graduation but she was not able to produce the Bachelor''s Degree or provisional certificate.

Since there is no dispute that the petitioner had produced the original marksheet, copies of which were enclosed with the application form and there was no specific requirement that the petitioner should have enclosed copy of the Bachelor''s Degree or provisional certificate, I am of the view that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected on that basis.

So far as the experience certificate of Shiksha Mitra dated 25.5.2010 is concerned, it is to be noted that certain candidate namely Km. Sarla Devi who is said to be similarly situated as the petitioner, not having the said experience certificate, has been sent on training for the BTC Training Course 2010 and the original experience certificate of the petitioner was not considered. It was wrong on the part of the opposite parties to deny BTC Training Course 2010 to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner requires to be reconsidered for BTC Training Course 2010. She cannot be denied training simply because she had not been able to show the Bachelor''s Degree or the provisional certificate at the time of verification of documents or the original experience certificate.

The writ petition is allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for BTC Training Course 2010 and pass appropriate orders in this regard, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the opposite party No.3Director, Basic Education, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow.

(Petition allowed)