Ms. Nisha and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Earlier Ms. Nisha and Ms. Kavita Chaudhary were candidates in Special B.T.C. Course 2004, they had preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27212 of 2004. Said writ petition alongwith Bunch of writ petitions was finally decided by this Court on 12.12.2008 with following direction:

In Writ Petition No. 43815 of 2008, Girvar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 29.8.2008, the Court held

In the Government Order dated 10.7.2007, for admission in Special BTC Course 2007, there is no such restriction that the eligibility qualification ought to have been obtained from an institution situated only within the State of U.P. An advertisement which is consequential to the Government Order, is to be read consistent to the conditions contained in the Government Order since the selection to the aforesaid post is in pursuance to the Government Order and if there is any inconsistency between the Government Order and the advertisement, it is the Government Order which will prevail, though, even otherwise I do not find any such inconsistency therein.

I am in total agreement with the aforesaid proposition laid down. The advertisement was issued pursuant to the Government Order. If there is any inconsistency between the Government Order and the advertisement, the Government Order would prevail and the qualifications mentioned therein would prevail.

Much water has flown since the filing of the writ petition. It is not known whether the course is continuing or not. It is not known whether the vacancies are still existing or not. Consequently, these writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the observations made above and in the event the petitioners apply afresh within six weeks from today, and in the event the vacancies are existing, and in the event the candidate is eligible, in that case, the respondents will admit the candidate for training in the Special B.T.C. Course, 2004.

Petitioners submit that after the said judgment has been delivered on their behalf representation has been made before respective Principal, District Institute of Education and Training but till today no action whatsoever has been taken.

Full Bench of this in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3733 of 2009 (Jitendra Kumar Soni and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) answered the questions which were referred in following term on 13.08.2010.

We may now answer the reference:

(1) In answer to Question No. (a), it is not open to the State or the State authorities to exclude the students, who have obtained degree/diploma/certificate in LT/B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. from Institutions/Universities established by law situate at place outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and duly recognized by the NCTE, from applying either for the Special B.T.C. Course or B.T.C. Course. Any such exclusion is illegal. Question No, (a) is answered, accordingly.

(2) Insofar as Question No. (b) is concerned, the classification, if any, is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, the only ground given by the State Government for not putting restriction on B.Ed. degree, and putting restriction on LT/B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed., is not sustainable in terms of the rules of N.C.T.E., as the admission can only be based on merit.

(3) Insofar as Question No. (c) is concerned, the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha (supra) did not answer the issue of admission to Special B.T.C. Course, but dealt with the issue of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Even otherwise, considering the findings on question nos.(a) & (b), we will have to hold that the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha does not lay down the correct law.

Reference is answered, accordingly. All judgments to the contrary are overruled.

The Government has issued orders closing these courses except for those, whose applications were rejected on the ground that they did not possess the L.T./B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. from institutions in U.P. and the matters are pending before this Court. With respect to the Special B.T.C. Courses for the years 2004, 2007 or 2008, if the petitioners, whose petitions are pending, are eligible, they shall be considered for training for the Special B.T.C. Courses, which shall be commenced within a reasonable period.

Now petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of suitable direction for consideration of their candidature for B.T.C Course 2004 and sending them for training.

Prayer which has been made by petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Full Bench while considering the matter has clearly mentioned that with respect to the Special B.T.C. Courses for the years 2004, 2007 or 2008, if the petitioners, whose petitions are pending, are eligible, they shall be considered for training for the Special B.T.C. Courses, which shall be commenced within a reasonable period.

Prayer which has been made by the petitioners, in case is accepted then same will amount to adding something in the aforesaid Full Bench Judgement and judicial discipline does not warrant any addition in the order dated 13.08.2010.

In these circumstances no directives can be issued to extend the said benefit to the petitioner, in case directives are already there and same are not being complied with petitioner can always move contempt application, complaining non-compliance of the earlier directives issued by this Court on 12.12.2008.

Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.