Shravan Kumar Dwivedi and Others vs Director, Scert, Lucknowand Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—In this bunch of writ petitions common question of law and fact is involved and affidavits have also been exchanged in some of the writ petitions. With the consent of parties I proceed to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage.

Brief fact of the case is that the petitioners of these writ petitions were admitted in the BTC Course 2001. After admission in the said course they have completed their two years training and became eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. However, on the allegation of certain fraudulent act the entire examination was cancelled by the Government vide order dated 20.10.2005. Keeping in view the light of trainees of BTC Course 2001, the State Government had taken in sympathetically to avoid undue hardship to the trainees and issued the Government Order dated 15th December 2005, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure4 to the Writ Petition, granting certain relaxation to the trainees of BTC Course 2001.

According to impugned Government Order all those candidates who were appeared in BTC Course 2001 but cannot admitted in the Special BTC Training 2004 on account of pursuing of the training of BTC Course 2001, were permitted to undergo the Special BTC Training 2004 subject to condition that they should have selected in the examination of BTC Training 2004. The other benefit provided by the impugned Government Order is that in case the candidates admitted in BTC Course 2001 had completed their two years training successfully and they have also been selected in Special BTC Training 2004 then it shall not be necessary for such candidates to undergo training in pursuance to selection of Special BTC Training 2004.

The petitioners of this bunch of writ petitions assail the impugned Government Order on the ground that they have completed their said BTC Training Course 2001 successfully and their names found place in the tentative list of Special BTC Training 2004. The reason for non participation in the counseling assigned by the petitioners is that they were prevented by their respective District Education and Training Institutes on the ground that they were already pursuing the course of BTC Training 2001. The averments contained in paragraph 9 and 10 of the writ petitions indicating this aspect of the matter has not been denied by the respondents while filing the counter affidavit. The other reason assigned by the petitioners'' counsel for non appearance in the counseling of Special BTC Training 2004 is that they were compelled to give an affidavit in the respective institutes to the effect that they shall not appear in any examination without prior permission. It has also been submitted by the petitioners in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 of the rejoinder affidavit that their academic records were deposited with the Principal of the respective Institutes where they were undergoing training of BTC Course 2001.

Learned standing counsel has not disputed that the petitioners were selected in the Special BTC Training 2004. It has been further admitted that the counseling is being held only for verification of academic records. So far as the selection to the Special BTC Training 2004 is concerned, it is being done on the basis of quality point marks granted to the respective candidates keeping in view their academic record i.e. the marks obtained in High School, Intermediate, Graduation and B.Ed etc. the application form further contains declaration by the candidates that after admission in BTC Training Course 2001, the candidates shall not seek admission in any other training course.

The factual position discussed nereinabove has not been disputed by the respondents.

Once the State Government had taken a decision to grant certain benefits to the candidates admitted in BTC Training Course 2001 then it was incumbent upon the State Government to consider the facts and circumstances, discussed hereinabove. Once the candidates were prevented to appear in the counseling for the reasons discussed hereinabove then the impugned Government Order issued by the State Government shall not achieve the object for which it was issued. The candidates have been prevented to appear in the counseling of Special BTC Training 2004 for no fault on their part. Rather on account of various restrictions imposed by the State Government itself, which have been discussed hereinabove, the issuance of the impugned Government Order without considering the various restrictions, seems to be an arbitrary act as well as unjust and improper. Impugned order seems to be an act of non application of mind and arbitrary in nature. Accordingly, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners, who have completed their training of BTC Course 2001 and could not appear in the counseling under the compelling circumstances as well as for valid reasons, discussed hereinabove, have right to appear in the counseling of Special BTC Training 2004. Since the entire selection and result of BTC Training Course 2001 has been cancelled by Government Order, naturally the various restrictions or grounds depriving the petitioners to appear in the subsequent examinations shall not be available to deny their rights. Petitioners shall be entitled to get back their records from the respective Institutions and to appear in the counseling of Special BTC Training 2004 keeping in view the letter and spirit of the Government Order dated 15.12.2005. Even if, the counseling of Special BTC Training 2004 has been completed, petitioners cannot be deprived from their valuable right of training and appointment, as the case may be, on the basis of result of BTC Training Course 2001.

The BTC training courses are imparted to provide job by appointing successful candidates as Assistant teachers in the various schools situated in the various districts of the State. It corelate with the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher providing, livelihood to the candidates selected for the said course. A person can not be deprived from his right to livelihood being protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in an arbitrary manner. In the present case at the face of record petitioners have been deprived to avail the benefit of Special BTC Training 2004 for unreasonable and improper reason. Even if counseling of Special BTC Training 2004 has come to an end it shall be the duty of State Government or the competent authority to hold fresh counseling for the candidates who has been deprived on account of anomaly contained in Government Order dated 15.12.2005. This Court has been informed that still thousands of vacancies are lying vacant relating to BTC Training as well as on the post of Assistant Teachers in respective districts. Petitioners can be very well accommodate by providing necessary training if necessary in accordance to law and may be appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers.

In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued, quashing the Government Order dated 15.12.2005, as contained in the Annexure4 to the writ petition to the extent it deprived the petitioners to avail the benefit of Special ETC Training 2004 coupled with successful training of BTC 2001 Course. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the State Government to issue fresh Government Order keeping in the view the observation made in the present judgment expeditiously and preferably within a period of three weeks from today permitting all those candidates of BTC Training Course 2001 to appear in fresh counseling so that their academic records may be verified for the consequential benefits.

Let the necessary exercise be done keeping in view the observation made in the present judgment for counseling and other benefits within a period of three months from today in accordance to law. Petitioners as well as Standing Counsel are directed to communicate this judgment to competent authority within a week.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Petition allowed accordingly)