High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raj Kishore v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29684 of 2005  RD-AH 9418 (11 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29684 of 2005
State of U.P. and other.......................................................Respondents.
Heard Sri D.K.Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner holds a degree in Vyayam Ratna issued by Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir Vyayam College, Jhansi which is a recognized institution. An advertisement was issued in the year 2004 inviting applications from the candidates for being sent for Special Basic Training Course, 2004. Amongst other qualifications, one of the qualification was that the petitioner should hold a D.P.Ed degree from an institution located within the State of U.P. The petitioner applied as a candidate having D.P.Ed degree from Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir Vyayam College, Jhansi. The petitioner was called for counselling and was selected for training and thereafter sent for training. Subsequently, his training was stopped on the ground that he does not possess a D.P.Ed degree. Consequently, the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Vyayam Ratna degree issued by the institution concerned is nothing else but a D.P.Ed degree and is also recognized by the N.C.T.E. under the N.C.T.E. Act 1993 as is clear by their letter dated 5.12.1998. As per letter dated 23.8.2004 NCTE had clarified that Vyayam Ratna and D.P.Ed degree is one and the same degree though it is called by different names. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. However, the stand taken in the counter affidavit is, that Vyayam Ratna is not a D.P.Ed Degree and, it is only an equivalent degree. Since the advertisement only invited the candidates holding a D.P.Ed. degree and not an equivalent degree, consequently, the petitioner's candidature for being sent for training was cancelled.
In my view, the contention of the respondents is bereft of merit. Admittedly the institution has been recognized by the N.C.T.E. under Section 14(3)(a) of the N.C.T.E. Act 1993. The recommendation granted was for a D.P.Ed. degree which is also known as Vyayam Ratna as clarified by N.C.T.E in its letter dated 23.8.2004. Consequently, there was no justification on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 1.3.2005 cancelling the candidature and training of the petitioner in the Special B.T.C., 2004 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
An interim order dated 13.4.2005 was granted by this Court directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his training and appear in the examination. It has been stated at the Bar, that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner completed his training and gave his examination but the result have not been declared.
In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the examination within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.