Allahabad High Court
Suresh Prasad Gautam Son Of Sri Chandra ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Basic ... on 4 March, 2008
Author: Tarun Agarwala
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. A Government Order dated 10.7.2007 was issued proposing to hold a Special B.T.C. Training Course for such candidates who were eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers. It was proposed that the candidates who are graduate and have a B.Ed, degree could apply for the Special B.T.C. Training Course. In paragraph 18 of the Government Order dated 10.7.2007, 10% seats were reserved for those candidates who were working as Shiksha Mitra and had an experience of three years as a Shiksha Mitra and were also functioning as a Shiksha Mitra at the time when the applications were invited for the Special B.T.C. Training course.
2. Based on the aforesaid Government Order, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007. Paragraph 1 of the advertisement contemplated that a candidate, who held the requisite qualifications and who was working as a Shiksha Mitra and had the experience of three years, could also apply.
3. Paragraph 4 of the said advertisement contemplated that 10% of the seats would be reserved for Shiksha Mitra. Under Sub clause (4) of condition No. 7, it was stated that an experience certificate of three years had to be submitted by the candidate. The Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikchan, U.P. issued a letter dated 26.7.2007 clarifying that three years experience would mean three academic sessions. It may be stated hear that an academic session starts on 1st July of the year and concludes on 31st May in the subsequent year. Subsequently by an order dated 1 "October 2007 three years of experience as a Shiksha Mitra was clarified to mean three academic sessions but, Clause 1 of the aforesaid order further clarified that whenever a candidate joins the post of Shiksha Mitra, the date of such joining would be treated as completion of an academic session.
4. As a result of this clarification by an order dated 1.10.2007, various Shiksha Mitra who had completed two academic sessions and their appointments was renewed for the third academic session, namely, 2007-08 applied for the Special B.T.C. Training Course contending that they had three years experience since they have joined the third academic session 2007-08.
5. Based on this order, the respondents issued a list of eligible candidates, in which, it is alleged that the names of those candidates were included who had not completed three academic sessions and were, therefore, not eligible. The petitioners being one of the eligible candidates whose name was not included by the respondents is before this Court. For facility, Writ Petition No. 59584 of 2007, Suresh Prasad Gautam v. State of U.P. and Ors., is being treated as the leading case. The petitioners submitted that there are many candidates who may not have joined the post of Shiksha Mitra in July, namely, at the beginning of the academic session and may have joined at the fag end of the academic session and therefore, three years experience as a Shiksha Mitra should not be confined to three academic sessions but should be treated only when the candidate completes 36 actual months of training as a Shiksha Mitra. The second submission raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that Clause (1) of the order dated 1.10.2007 is patently erroneous and should be quashed and that the person cannot be treated to have completed an academic session the moment he joins the post of Shiksha Mitra at a particular point of time.
6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the order dated 1.10.2007 should be read as completion of three academic sessions and that an academic session would not be completed upon the date of joining of the candidate. This has been fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel Sri K.K. Chand. The learned standing counsel however submitted that three years experience should be treated as three academic session is completely fair and does not require any interference, inasmuch as, normally by the time a candidate joins one or two month elapses from the date of the selection.
7. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, this Court holds that a candidate who wants to apply in the Shiksha Mitra category for the Special B.T.C. Training Course 2007 must have the requisite qualifications as per the Government Order dated 10.7.2007, namely, a graduation degree and a B.Ed, degree. Further, the candidate should have an experience certificate of three academic sessions and should also be working in the academic session 2007-08, i.e., on date of applying for the 2007 BTC Training Course. If all these conditions are met, the candidate would be considered eligible for the B.T.C. Training Course of 2007. Clause (1) of the order dated 1.10.2007 cannot be taken into consideration and is quashed.
8. In the light of the aforesaid, the leading petition No.59584 of 2007 is partly allowed with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the list of eligible candidates and, if it finds that a candidate does not have three years experience which means three academic sessions, he would not be eligible to apply for the training course. The mere fact that a candidate is working as a Shiksha Mitra for the third academic session 2007-08 would not give the candidate a right to apply for the Special B.T.C. Training course of 2007. Necessary correction in the list would be made by the respondents within six weeks from today. Similarly, Writ Petition No. 59057 of 2007 is also partly allowed in terms of the leading writ petition.
9. In Writ Petition No. 63423 of 2007 the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not working as a Shiksha Mitra on the date when she applied for the training course since she had last worked upto 20.5.2005. In view of the fact, that one of the essential requirements for consideration in this context is that the candidate should be working as a Shiksha Mitra as on the date of applying for the B.T.C. Training course, her application was rightly rejected under the 10% category of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition is dismissed. In Writ Petition Nos. 12130 of 2008, 828 of 2008, 3992 of 2008,372 of 2008, 370 of 2008, 521 of 2008, 3539 of 2008 and 2739 of 2008the petitioners had worked for two academic session and renewal was granted for 2007-08 and in view of the order dated 1.10.2007, the said petitioners claimed completion of the third academic session and contended that they became eligible to apply for the B.T.C. Training course. Since I have already quashed Clause (1) of the order dated 1.10.2007, and in view of the fact that the said petitioners had joined the third academic session 2007-08 and had not completed the third academic session, the said petitioners do not have the requisite experience as contemplated in the Government Order dated 10.7.2007. Consequently, their applications were rightly rejected. The said petition does not have any merit and are dismissed accordingly.
10. In Writ Petition No. 5135 of 2008 the petitioner worked as a Shiksha Mitra from 25.3.2003 to 11.10.2006 and again was given an appointment on 11.9.2007. The petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that she was not found on duty and therefore, her application was rejected. The petitioner contended that she was on leave and that she had joined after availing her leave. In my opinion, the candidature of the petitioner was wrongly rejected. She has the requisite experience of three years and was working as a Shiksha Mitra on the date when she applied for the B.T.C. Training course. The fact that she was not on duty does not mean that she was not working as a Shiksha Mitra. Consequently, the rejection of her candidature by the respondent was unjustified. The writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to reconsider her application form and pass consequential orders within four weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
11. In Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2008, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she did not have three years experience as a Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner contended before the Court that her claim should have been considered in the General Female category 'Art' group and that her claim had wrongly been considered in the category of Shiksha Mitra. The learned Counsel submitted that a clerical error has crept in the application form which was submitted by her and instead of ticking the column of General Female category, by mistake she had been ticked in the column relating to Shiksha Mitra. In my view, the mistake was committed on the part of the petitioner, for which she is alone to be blamed. The respondents while rejecting her claim had not committed any error. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner at this stage cannot be considered afresh in a different category. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. A certified copy of this order shall be made available to the learned Counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within a week. A certified copy of the order shall be made available to Sri K.K. Chand, the learned standing counsel for the last within the same period.