Manoj Kumar and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State/Respondents.

In 2006, an advertisement was published inviting applications from Bachelor of Education Degree holders, obtaining such degrees after pursuing regular course of Bachelor of Education, for admission in Special B.T.C. Course. The advertisement was responded also by those who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree upon pursuing correspondence course. Apprehending that their applications may not be accepted, they also filed writ petitions. On those writ petitions, various interim orders were passed, directing consideration of their applications in response to the said advertisement. In the backdrop of the said interim orders, the Government on 14th October, 2006 decided to invite applications also from those who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree by pursuing correspondence course. In terms thereof, a further advertisement was published. Ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed whereupon special appeals were filed which were disposed of by requesting the Government to take a decision in the matter. The Government thereupon considered the matter in all respect and decided that as and by way of one time solution, those B. Ed. Degree holders, obtaining the same by pursuing correspondence course, shall also be admitted to B.T.C. Course and for that matter seats available in B.T.C. Course in different districts shall be appropriately increased. This decision was translated into a Government Order dated 12th December, 2007. Subsequent, thereto, on 30th August, 2008, 161 seats were created for those B. Ed. Degree holders who obtained the same after pursuing correspondence course in Haridwar district. Thereafter, on 17th November, 2008 an advertisement was published inviting those persons who became successful, upon their response to the advertisements published in the year 2006, for being allocated to different institutions for pursuing B.T.C. Course. In the said advertisement, however, only those persons, who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree by pursuing regular course, were invited for counselling; those who obtained the said degree by pursuing correspondence course were not invited for counselling. No separate advertisement for counselling was also published in respect of those Bachelor of Education Degree holders who obtained the same by pursuing correspondence course and for whom those 161 seats were created in Haridwar district. Appellants who obtained Bachelor of Education Degree by pursuing correspondence course and who had responded to the advertisements published in 2006, thus approached this Court by filing a writ petition and thereby, challenged the said advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 inviting only regular Bachelor of Education Degree holders for counselling.

The learned Judge who dealt with writ petition found that the said advertisement was contrary to and in breach of the Government decision dated 12th December, 2007. However, the learned Judge did not quash the said advertisement, as was sought for, only on the ground that in pursuance therewith selected candidates have been sent for training. It is surprising, that at the time when the writ petition was being considered, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondents that only 60 seats are available for candidates having B. Ed. Degree through correspondence course. The fact remains that admittedly, atleast 161 seats were created for B. Ed. Degree holders who obtained the same through correspondence course. The fact remains that the 17th November, 2008 advertisement did not call for counselling of B. Ed. Degree holders who obtained the same through correspondence course and, accordingly, pursuant to the said advertisement no B. Ed. Degree holder obtaining the same through correspondence course could be counselled for being sent for training. No attempt was made how then the said 161 seats stood reduced to 60 seats. The statement thus made from the bar is improper, unjust and should not have been relied. Inasmuch as, the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 called for only regular B. Ed. Degree holders and not correspondence course B. Ed. Degree holders and there being no separate advertisement for correspondence course B. Ed. Degree holder, the action contemplated by the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008, according to us should have been clarified by deleting the words "regular degree holders" from the said advertisement entitling all B. Ed. Degree holders who responded to the advertisements of 2006 to participate in counselling provided they had obtained their B.E.d. Degree before 1996. To the extant as above, we modify the order under appeal and quash that part of the judgment and order under appeal where it has been mentioned that 60 seats are available for correspondence B. Ed. Degree holders. Inasmuch as, time for counselling pursuant to the said advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 has expired, we extend the same by six weeks from today directing counselling to take place of all those candidates eligible in terms of this order at the same venue. The date of the counselling, however, shall be informed to the persons entitled to be counselled either by personal correspondence or by a public notification to be published in a newspaper.