JAGDISH PRASAD PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Jagdish Prasad Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 17011 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5810 (2 April 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17011 of 2007

Jagdish Prasad Pandey

Versus

State of U.P and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.

Petitioner claims that he has acquired his B.T.C. Training  from Rajkiya Junior Training College, Lalitpur(Jhansi) in the year 1975. Petitioner has contended on 17.10.2002 he moved an application before respondent no. 4 to appoint him on the post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner has contended that opinion was sought from respondent no. 2. Letter was issued on 17.03.2004 wherein it was mentioned that incumbents who could be appointed earlier may be appointed as Assistant Teacher subject to condition that they possess the age as prescribed. Petitioner submits that said matter has been referred to the State Government on 17.08.2004. Petitioner has contended that in spite of the fact that matter has been referred, no action has been taken. At this stage present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arun Srivastava, Advocate, contended with vehemence that petitioner is not at all at fault, and specific direction has been issued for consideration  of candidature as such directives be issued to respondents to decide the application dated 17.01.2005 qua his appointment as Assistant Teacher in Basic School.

Sri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate on the other hand contended that as per U.P. Basic School (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 as per Rule 6 of the Rules 1981 the maximum age limit provided for is fifty year and as per admitted position as on date said age has been crossed as such no futile writ be issued.

After respective arguments have been advanced, Rule 6 of U.P. Basic School (Teachers) Service Rules 1981 has beer perused and said Rule is being quoted below:

"6. Age- A candidate for recruitment to any post referred to in Clause (a) or proviso to clause (b) of Rule 5, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than thirty two years on the first day of July following the year in which the vacancy is notified.

Provided that the upper age limit shall, in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes; Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and dependent of freedom-fighters be greater by five years or as provided by the State Government from time to time.

Provided further that the upper age limit shall, in the case of a candidate, who is ex-serviceman, be grater by three years or as provided by the State Government from time to time.

Provided also that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment.

Provided also that no upper age limit shall apply in case of B.Ed/L.T./B.PEd./C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. trained candidates who have completed special B.T.C. Training Course in the year 1999."  

Bare perusal of provision quoted above would go to show that in statutory rule age of candidate has been prescribed by mentioning that candidate must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than thirty two years on the first day of July following the year in which the vacancy is notified. Proviso which are four in number have been added to the aforesaid rule, Proviso No. 3 mentions that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic schools, a candidate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment.

Undisputed position is that petitioner has not at all been offered appointment till date and the fact of the matter is that petitioner has already crossed age of 50 years. Once petitioner has crossed age of 50 years then there is complete prohibition qua his appointment.

Consequently, no futile writ can be issued by this Court, as such writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

02.04.2007

Dhruv    

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

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.