Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UDAI NARAIN SINGH versus BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Udai Narain Singh v. Basic Shiksha Parishad And Another - WRIT - A No. - 25132 of 1996 [2007] RD-AH 14977 (3 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No.26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25132 of 1996

Udainarayan Singh

Versus

Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad through Secretary & another

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

The present writ petition was filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the post of assistant teacher untrained grade as other untrained grade teachers are being considered and selected.

By order dated 13.8.1996 passed by this Court, this Court had directed to file a counter affidavit and further direction was given by this Court to keep one post available for the petitioner subject to further orders by this Court.

It appears that the respondent No.2 advertised certain posts by notification dated 25.11.1995 for assistant teacher in primary school. Petitioner is B.A from Allahabad University and D.P.Ed from Maharani Laxi Bai Vyayam Mandir Vyayam Collge, Jhansi. The candidates who were having C.P.Ed qualification have been invited for test as well as for interview as B.T.C. candidates were not available in the district Fatehpur. The D.P.Ed qualification is equally to C.P.Ed. There is no difference in two degrees. By letter dated 21st July, 1993, the Basic Shiksha Prishad has also declared B.P.Ed equivalent to C.P.Ed. A copy of the aforesaid letter has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Petitioner applied for the said post but petitioner was not called. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has given the name of one Hirdai Ram Yadav who is having C.P.Ed. qualification but has been selected. In paragraph 14 the writ petition, petitioner has also given the name of Sri Brij Mohan Singh who was also a candidate of D.P.Ed and he has been selected but the petitioner has not been considered.

A counter affidavit has been filed. The facts regarding appointment of persons mentioned in the writ petition has been admitted by the respondents but it has been stated that he has been sent for training on the basis of the order passed by this Court. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that it is, however, a fact that two candidates referred to in the para under reply have been appointed in the untrained grade in the second week of July in accordance with the Government Orders related thereto.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Shukla for the respondents and have perused the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3693 of 1996.

There is no direction by this Court that the petitioner in that writ petition be appointed or sent for training. Only there is an order of consideration. Sri Mool Behari Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the subsequent order, now the qualification of D.P.Ed and C.P.Ed have been accepted as same and in view of the order passed by this Court dated 13.8.1996, the petitioner is entitled for consideration. Though in the advertisement the age of the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition was 37 years in the year 1996 and in the advertisement the age for consideration was from 18 to 45 years. Admittedly, the petitioner has become overage but as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a scheduled castes candidate, therefore, he will get five years relaxation.

After hearing counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the government order and in view of the fact that two teachers have been given appointment and there is no denial in the counter affidavit. If the petitioner has not become over-age according to the advertisement issued earlier in the year 1996, the claim of the petitioner may be considered as there was an interim order on 13.8.1996. If the petitioner is over-age then he can approach the the State Government for relaxation, as it is the State Government only to relax the age. The aforesaid exercise be done by the respondents preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

3.9.2007

SKD


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.