Pramod Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Others

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The claim of the Petitioner is that he was an Applicant for Special B.T.C. Course, 2004 as a general candidate in Science group. However, his candidature was rejected on the ground that the certificate of B.Ed. from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow in the year 1993, was not valid as the college was not recognized by NCTE.

The question whether the candidates, who obtained B.Ed. degree prior to 1995 from the institutes which were not recognized from NCTE, are illegible for being sent for training of Special B.T.C. Course, came up for consideration before Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and Ors. v. State of U.P. The Full Bench held that candidates, who had obtained B.Ed. degree before the enforcement of NCTE Act, 1993 are legible for being considered for Special B.T.C. course. The judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and Ors. 2010 (4) UPLBEC 2921.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that after the judgment in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra), Director State Council for Education. Research and Training, though vide letter dated 02.12.2010 directed all the Principals of DIET that all those candidates, who obtained B.Ed. degree prior to 1995 are eligible for being considered for Special B.T.C. course, but even though the Petitioner was entitled, he has not been called for counselling subsequently.

After the decision in the Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra) case, from a perusal of pleadings, it appears that Petitioner already made a representation with respect to his grievances before Respondent No. 3 on 12.01.2011.

Considering the facts and circumstances, writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Respondent No. 3 along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today and in case any such representation is made, the same shall be decided by Respondent No. 3 by means of reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra) within a further period of four weeks from the date of making of the representation.