Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he may be permitted to implead National Council of Teacher Education, (N.C.T.E.) in the array of parties as Respondent No. 4.

Accordingly, permission granted.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is permitted to implead National Council of Teacher Education, (N.C.T.E.) in the array of parties as Respondent No. 4, during the course of the day.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notices on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 4.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the candidature of the Petitioner for sending the Petitioner for training of Special B.T.C. 2004 has been rejected.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the candidature of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner obtained the C.P.Ed. degree from outside the State of U.P. which is not recognized by the U.G.C. therefore the case of the Petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the Government Order and the other ground is that the case of the Petitioner is not covered by the Full Bench decision rendered in the matter of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi which has been upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.10.2010. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further contended that Full Bench in the matter of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi has held that those candidates who obtained degree before the commencement of the National Council of Teacher Education, in short ''N.C.T.E.'' are also eligible for B.T.C. training therefore the case of the Petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid Judgment as well as of the Judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court dated 29.10.2010. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner has obtained the C.P.Ed. degree in the year 1993-94 and the N.C.T.E. came into force on Ist July 1995, therefore the Petitioner�s case is fully covered by the aforesaid Judgment.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned as well as averments made in the present writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires re-considered by the Respondent No. 2.

Accordingly, the order impugned dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner shall file an appropriate application alongwith certified copy of this order before the Respondent No. 2 within a period of 15 days from today and if such an application is filed before the Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of one month thereafter.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed off.

No order as to costs.