Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sunil Rai v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 33856 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 6907 (16 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).


16.4.2007    Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

  Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shree prakash Singh, Standing counsel for the respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner has urged that as per advertisement dated 13.12.1996, applications were invited for the posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools having educational qualifications of B.T.C and equivalent.  It was made clear that candidates possessed of C.P.Ed degree would be treated equivalent to B.T.C.  

It appears from notification dated 23.3.1995 appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition that the State Government had notified that C.P.Ed degree holders could be appointed in Government recognized institutions/schools treating them untrained teachers.  The petitioner, who applied for the post of Primary School Teacher, was selected as per select list, which was published.  However, before his appointment order could be passed, State Government issued notification dated 11.8.1997 derecognizing C.P.Ed as equivalent to B.T.C.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph 17 of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that 41 candidates from the selet list, in which the name of the petitioner was at sl. no. 156, had been given appointment and were working as Assistant Teachers at their respective place of posting in the district of Gorakhpur.

Standing counsel has urged that the petitioner has no right to be appointed as no appointment letter was issued to him even after selection and that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of appointment as vide Govt. order dated 11.8.1997, qualification of C.P.Ed  is no longer equivalent to B.T.C

No counter affidavit has been filed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur- respondent no. 3.  Standing counsel states that it is not clear from perusaql of paragraph 17 of the writ petition that 41 candidates who are said to have been appointed possessed C.P.Ed degree  or not.

It appears from the perusal of Annexure 5 that some ban was imposed by the State Government before publication of the advertisement, in question, as such, the petitioner could not be given appointment. The relevant portion of the enquiry report is as under :-

"   f'k{kk funs'kd (csfld) mRrj izns'k y[kum ds v0'kk0 i=kad gh0bZ0@3287&3288 @96&97 fnukad 25-1-97 Onkjk fnukad 15Qjojh 1997 rd rFkk 'kklu ds vkns'k la- 1402@15&5&1927 fnukad f'k{kk vuqHkkx (4) y[kum fnukad 13-2-1977 Onkjk fnukad 28 Qjojh 1997 rd visf{kr dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj voxr djk, tkusa ds funsZ'k iznku fd;s x;s Fks ijUrq jftLV~kj foHkkxh; ijh{kk,a mRrj izns'k bykgkckn rFkk vU; laLFkkvksa ls izsf"kr lwfp;kW lR;kiuksijkUr foyEc ls ekg ebZ 1997 dks fuxZr vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj bu fu;qfDr;kWsa ij jkd yx tkus ds dkj.k gh budh fu;qfDr;kssa ds laca/k esa vkns'k fuxZr ugha fd;s tk lds Fks A ;/kfi iz/kkukpk;Z egkjkuh y{ehckbZ C;k;ke efUnj dkyst] >kWlh ls lh0ih0,M0 izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa dh lwfp;ksa dk lR;kiu fnukad 27-2-1997 dks gh okgd ds ek/;e lsa dk;kZy; esa izkIr gks x;k Fkk bl izdkj ;fn p;u lfefr dh cSBd gks x;h gksrh rks fnukad 28 Qjojh 1997 dh vfUre frfFk dks gh fu;qfDr vkns'k fuxZr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd bUgsa Hkh ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa dh izsf"kr lwfp;ksa ds lR;kiu ls izkIr gksus ds mijkUr muds lkFk gh fu;qfDr;ksa ds vkns'k fuxZr fd;k tkusa dh vis{kk esa jksd fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj blh dkj.k ;s lkjh fu;qfDr;kW 'kklu Onkjk yxkbZ xbZ jksad ls izHkkfor gks xbZ A"

Counsel for the petitioner states that it is apparent from the above that had the ban been not mad applicable, the petitioner could have been appointed. For this contention, he relied upon the following portion of the aforesaid enquiry report :-

"   ;gkW ;g mfYyf[kr fd;k tkuk lehphu izrhr gksrk gS fd ;fn mDr jksd izHkkoh ugha gqvk gksrk rks lR;kiu dh izkfIr ds iz'pkr fu;qfDr vkns'k fuxZr dj fn;s x;s gksrs A blls dkQh vf/kd la[;k csjkstxkjksa dks jkstxkj dh izkfIr gks tkrh D;ksafd bu lkjh dk;Zokfg;ksa esa izf'kf{kr csjsktxkj fdlh Hkh n'kk esa mRrjnk;h ugha gS vfirq 'kklu foHkkx rFkk p;u lfefr ds vf/kdkjh gh 'kklukns'k esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa ds rgr lek;kUrxZr vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ds fy, mRrjnk;h Bgjk;s tk ldrs gSa A p;u lfefr esa fuEufyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lfEefyr fd;k x;k gS %&

1& ftyk eftLV~sV Onkjk uke fufnZ"V

vij ftyk eftLV~sV dh iafDr dk dksbZ vf/kdkjh     v/;{k

2&ftyk csfld vf/kdkjh                          lnL;

3& ftyk eq[;ky; ij jktdkjh ckfydk b.Vj

 dkyst dh iz/kkukpk;Zk                          lnL;

4&ftyk vukSipkfjd f'k{kk vf/kdkjh                lnL;

5& ftyk efTkLV~sV Onkjk uke fufnZ"V ;FkkfLFkr

 fgUnh] mnwZ ;k vU; Hkk"kkvksa dk fo'ks"kK           lnL;

mi;qZDr fLFkfr ls Li"V gS fd p;u lfefr usa dsoy 40+++1=41 vH;fFkZ ;ksa dks gh fu;qfDr gsrq vuqeksfnr fd;k gS A bl vuqeksnu esa dksbZ izrh{kk lwph Hkh ugha gS A 'ks"k vH;fFkZ;ksa dh rS;kj dh xbZ lwfp;ksa ij p;u lfefr ds fdlh Hkh lnL; ds gLrk{kj ugha gS A ;gkW rd lwph Hkh ugha gS A 'ks"k vH;fFkZ;ksa dh rS;kj dh xbZ lwfp;ksa ij p;u lfefr ds lwph rS;kj djkusa dk tkWp djusa okys vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh ds Hkh gLrk{kj lwfp;ksa ij miyC/k ugha gS A bl dkj.k 'ks"k lwfp;ksa dk p;u lwph dh laKk ugha nh tk ldrh gS A ;g lnL; lfpo dk nkf;Ro curk gS fd os lwfp;ksa dks fu;ekuqlkj rS;kj djkosa rFkk  mu ij rS;kj djus okys ,oa tkWp djusa oky vf/kdkfj;sksa @deZpkfj;ksa ds gLrk{kj djk;as A"

The enquiry officer has concluded that candidates having C.P.Ed degree could not be appointed at that point of time.

Admittedly, it appears that had appointment been not delayed, the petitioner could have been appoitned in accordance with existing rules at that time. It has not been denied that there is no defect in the select list.  The petitioner has not been appointed only due to the ban imposed by State Government, which was not retrospective.

As a last opportunity, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari - respondent no. 3 is allowed 10 days time and no more to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit may be filed within 10 days thereafter.

In case, no counter affidavit is filed, the Court may consider imposition of heavy costs upon the concerned authority.

List this case on 7.5.2007 peremptorily.

Dated 16.4.2007



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 |

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