Allahabad High Court
Shamim Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 January, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:5923 Reserved on 05.01.2024 Delivered on 12.01.2024 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** Court No. 36 *** Case :- Writ - A No. - 12136 of 2023 Shamim Ahmad ........ Petitioner Through :- Dr. S.B. Singh, Advocate Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others ........ Respondents Through :- C.S.C., Ms. Archana Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This is third round of litigation. The first round of litigation commenced when a selection criteria for Assistant Teacher Urdu language in primary school, enumerated in a notification dated 05.01.2016, was challenged before this Court in bunch of petitions which was disposed of by an order dated 30.01.2018 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-
"11. For the reasons recorded above, this bunch of writ petitions is disposed of by providing as under:-
(i) All the petitioners who had taken admission prior to 11.8.1997 in the Moallim-E-Urdu training course and have cleared it during academic session 1997-98 would be entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu in the primary institutions run by the Department of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, for which process had been initiated vide Government Order dated 5.1.2016.
(ii) Petitioners alongwith certified copy of this order would also submit proof of their admission in the course concerned prior to 11.8.1997 within a period of three weeks from today. It would be open for the concerned District Basic Education Officers to examine the question as to whether admission had in fact been obtained by the petitioners prior to 11.8.1997, as is asserted by them. It goes without saying that other educational certificates etc. would also be open to be examined in accordance with law.
(iii) Petitioners who have already participated in the counselling pursuant to interim orders passed in this bunch of writ petitions and have been selected would be considered for appointment and appropriate orders in that regard would be issued within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
(iv) In respect of those petitioners who have not participated in the counselling, it would be open for them to approach the District Basic Education Officer concerned and in case there are posts still lying vacant and the respondents are proposing to conduct further counselling, their claim shall also be considered in accordance with law. "
3. The petitioner has completed his degree by Moallim-E-Urdu and has taken admission on 28.11.1996 i.e. before cut off date i.e. 11.8.1997 and as such he claimed that he was qualified for appointment on post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu language) in terms of above referred notification as well as in view of above referred judgment, petitioner has already submitted an online application on 27.12.2016.
4. The matter in regard to aforesaid issue, degree has reached up to Division Bench of this Court where it was held that candidates who have taken admission on or before 11.08.1997 would be eligible for consideration on post of Urdu Teacher.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner along with others preferred a writ petition bearing No. Writ- A No.4936 of 2016 (Shandar Ahmad Khan and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) wherein petitioner was petitioner No.4. The order dated 04.02.2016 passed therein is mentioned hereinafter:-
"Six petitioners have joined this writ petition for a common relief being aggrieved by a Government Order dated 05th January, 2016, which provides that degree of Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh has been de-recognised from 1997. The petitioners claim that they were admitted to the said course prior to issuance of the Government Order for de-recognition, therefore, the effect of the said Government order cannot be applied to them as it cannot operate retrospectively.
This issue came to be considered by this Court in the case of Mohd. Asif Azeez and others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 3997 of 2016. In the said case, this Court, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, 1986 Law Suit (SC) 405, has granted the following interim relief on 29th January, 2016:
"In the meantime the petitioners may be allowed to participate in the selection process provisionally but in case they are selected their appointment letter shall not be issued without leave of the Court.
List the matter after expiry of the said period."
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the said fact.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the first respondent, Sri Daya Ram Yadav, learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the second and third respondents, and Sri Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned Advocate, has accepted notice and put in appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent.
As prayed by them, six weeks' time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List thereafter.
In the meantime, the interim protection granted in Mohd. Asif Azeez and others (supra) is extended to the petitioners also. "
6. In the aforesaid reference, the order passed in Mohd. Asif Azeez and others (supra) is also reproduced hereinafter :-
"The petitioners are five in number. They claim that they did their Moalim-e-Urdu course from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh.
It is stated that the said institution has been de-recognized by the State Government vide Government Order dated 11th August, 1997.
The submission of the learned Senior Advocate is that since the petitioner were admitted prior to de-recognition of the said institution therefore the Government Order would not be operative retrospectively and the students who have already been admitted prior to the said date, their degree should be treated as a valid degree. Sri Khare, learned Senior Advocate has relied on the judtment of Supreme Court reported in 1986 Law Suit (SC) 405, Suresh Pal vs. State of Haryana, which has been followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ -A No. 7779 of 2014 (Farrukh Sajjad and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 others). This Court while disposing of the said writ petition has issued the following directions:-
"The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal (Supra) as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Naseem (supra). A direction is issued to respondents no. 3,4, 5 and 6 to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu),2013 on the basis of Moallim-E-Urdu Examination, 1997, which course, they have joined in 1997 prior to enforcement of the G.O. dated 11.8.1997."
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The matter needs consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Sri Pradeep Kumar Upadhayay, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.5. Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel has put in apperance on behalf of respondent no. 2,3 and 4. They may also file counter affidavit within the same period.
In the meantime the petitioners may be allowed to participate in the selection process provisionally but in case they are selected their appointment letter shall not be issued without leave of the Court.
List the matter after expiry of the said period. "
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad communicated to all District Basic Education Officer by a communication dated 12.03.2016 referring reservation of seats for candidates in certain conditions. The said communication is reproduced in its entirety hereinafter:-
"प्रेषक, सचिव उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद इलाहाबाद सेवा में, समस्त जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी उत्तर प्रदेश पत्रांकः बे०शि०प०/22-08-221TI/2015-16 दिनांकः12.03.16 विषयः उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में सहायक(उर्दू भाषा) की नियुक्ति के सम्बन्ध में।
महोदय, उपर्युक्त विषयक परिषद के पत्रांक 12843-20021/2015-16 दिनांक 20.02.2016 एवं पत्रांक बे०शि०प०/20493-20662/2015-16 दिनांक 01.03.2016 का सन्दर्भ ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें। जिसके द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित परिषदीय प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में उ०प्र० सहायक अध्यापक (उर्दू भाषा) के पदों हेतु 02 चरणों में काउंसलिंग का आयोजन किया गया है।
उक्त के सम्बन्ध में निर्देशित किया जाता है कि उर्दू अध्यापक की नियुक्ति हेतु जनपद में आवंटित पदों के प्रति दो चरणों में काउंसलिंग अर्ह पाये गये चयनित अभ्यर्थियों की नियमानुसार दिनांक 12 मार्च 2016 की सायं तक प्रत्येक दशा में नियुक्ति पत्र निर्गत करते हुए परिषद कार्यालय को अवगत करा दिया जाए। इस सम्बन्ध में ज्ञातव्य है कि मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेशों के अनुपालन में जनपदों को काउंसलिंग में उपस्थित होने वाले एवं कट ऑफ मेरिट के अऩ्तर्गत आने वाले अभ्यर्थियों हेतु सम्बन्धित श्रेणी में पद सुरक्षित रखे जायेंगे तथा ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों को माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा पारित होने वाले अग्रिम आदेशों के उपरान्त ही नियुक्ति पत्र जारी किये जाने के सम्बन्ध मे पृथक से निर्देश दिये जायेंगे।"
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. The petitioner in pursuance of above referred order submitted a representation before District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sonbhadra who by a communication dated 22.03.2018 directed petitioner, along with all requisite documents to appear for hearing on 05.04.2018.
9. The District Basic Education Officer, Sonbhadra thereafter communicated a letter dated 01.03.2019 to Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, wherein details in regard to petitioners were referred at serial No.3 of a chart accompanied therein. It was noted that petitioner's candidature was not considered on two grounds, firstly, no seal was reserved and secondly, original mark-sheet of TET was not submitted and its photocopy was submitted online. The relevant part of chart is reproduced hereinafter:-
3.
4700005318 SHAMIM AHMAD SHAREEF AHAMAD 1969-04-11 56.28 GENERAL प्रथम 52.53 4938/2016 सीट सुरक्षित टेट का मूल अंक पत्र नहीं आनलाइन अंक पत्र की छाया प्रति।
10. The petitioner has not denied that he has not submitted the original certificate/mark-sheet of T.E.T. till that date. Meanwhile, the Secretary Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, has communicated to District Basic Education Officer, Sonbhadra in regard to the case of petitioner and others that since there is no vacancy and there is no provision of fresh counselling, therefore, no proceeding could be taken for appointment of petitioner and others. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-
" संदर्भित भर्ती प्रक्रिया में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित रिट याचिका संख्या 6004/2016 सरताज अहमद व 05 अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व 03 अन्य एवं अन्य सम्बद्ध याचिकाओं में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 30.01.2018 के अनुपालन में इस कार्यालय के पत्रांक बे०शि०प०/1043-1118/2018-19 दिनांक 28.04.2018 द्वारा समस्त जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारियों को आवश्यक निर्देश दिये गये।
अतएव स्पष्ट है कि उक्त भर्ती प्रक्रिया में परिषद/विभाग द्वारा एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित कतिपय रिट याचिकाओं मे पारित आदेश के क्रम में अभ्यर्थियों को चयन/नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में सम्मिलित होने के लिए पर्याप्त अवसर प्रदान करते हुए चयन/नियुक्ति से सम्बन्धित कार्यवाही पूर्ण की जा चुकी है।
आप द्वारा अपने कार्यालय पत्रांक दिनांक 01.03.2019 द्वारा स्वयं अवगत कराया गया है कि संदर्भित चयन प्रक्रिया में आपके पत्र में उल्लिखित अभ्यर्थियों हेतु पद रिक्त नहीं है, ऐसी स्थिति में आप द्वारा अऩावश्यक रूप से प्रकरण पर मार्गदर्शन मांगा गया है जो उचित नहीं है।
अतः स्पष्ट है कि संदर्भित भर्ती प्रक्रिया में चार चक की काउन्सिलिंग एवं रिट याचिका संख्या 6004/2016 में पारित माननीय न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 30.01.2018 के क्रम में भर्ती प्रक्रिया को अन्तिम रूप से पूर्ण कर लिया गया है, ऐसी स्थिति में जब आपके जनपद में पद रिक्त नहीं है, किसी भी अभ्यर्थी हेतु नवीन काउन्सिलिंग का आयोजन या चयन/नियुक्ति की कार्यवाही किया जाना विधि सम्मत नहीं है। "
11. It led to second round of litigation, when petitioner filed a Writ-A No.332 of 2021 before this Court with prayer to issue the original mark-sheet for TET examination 2016 to petitioner and others. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 25.02.2022 with certain observation and taking note that the original mark-sheet of TET examination of petitioner was provided during hearing. The order in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief :
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Prayagraj as well as order dated 05.09.2019 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Sonbhadra (Annexure no.11 & 12 of the writ petition)."
3. On 25.03.2021, the below quoted order was passed :
"Present petition was filed on 22.01.2021 and following order was passed on the same date :
"1. On oral prayer made, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead District Institute of Educational Training Centre, Budhanpur, Amroha and District Institute of Educational Training Centre, Ismailpur, Bijnor, as respondent nos. 4 and 5, during course of the day.
2. At present, it appears that the appointment of the petitioners got held up because respondent nos. 4 and 5 have not issued the original marksheets to the petitioners for their TET Examination.
3. Learned Standing Counsel represents State-respondents, may seek instructions as to the reason why such marksheets have not been issued to the petitioners.
4. It is further expected that in any case, the said marksheets may be made available to the petitioners on the next date, in Court.
5. Put up as fresh on 04.02.2021 before the appropriate Bench."
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on two occasions. On 18.03.2021, following order was passed :-
"1. Controversy is very short.
2. Petitioners have approached the Court since the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have yet not issued to the petitioners their original mark-sheets for TET Examination - 2016.
3. Matter has been listed on three earlier dates. Today, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted further time.
4. Put up this case as fresh on 25.3.2021, by way of last opportunity. Either full instructions be received by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel or the original mark-sheets of the petitioners be issued to them by the next date and that fact should be informed to the Court through written instructions or respondent no. 4 and 5 shall remain present in Court to explain their conduct, both as to the non issuance of the mark-sheets to the petitioners and also with respect to non compliance shown by the said respondents to the earlier orders passed by this Court."
Today, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced original marksheet of petitioner no. 1, Sartaj Ahmad. He has also produced scanned copy of the marksheet of petitioner no. 2, Shamim Ahmad bearing Roll No. 1330100332 and Certificate Serial No. 00927. It is dated 13.08.2013. It thus appears that the marksheets are ready and available with the respondents. Let those marksheets be issued to the petitioners not later than 5.4.2021. Also once marksheets are issued, consequential action may be taken accordingly.
Put up as fresh on 15.4.2021."
4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the marksheet have already been issued to the petitioners subsequent to the order dated 25.03.2021. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to approach the respondent no.2 with a proper written representation supported by their personal affidavits with regard to their claim of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. Subject to such representation being filed, within a period of two weeks from today, along with a copy of this order, the said respondent shall consider the position of vacancy available, if any and the scope of adjustment of the petitioners against such vacancies, is existing. If any approval is required from any higher authority, in that regard, it is expected that such approval be obtained within a period of one month from the date of representation being filed by the petitioners. In any case the final decision with respect to the outstanding claim of the petitioners may be made and communicated to the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months, from the date of representation being filed.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. "
12. The petitioner thereafter submits a representation dated 04.03.2022 before the Secretary Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, to grant appointment in pursuance of above referred order. The representation was decided under a threat of contempt and by order dated 30.12.2022, claim of the petitioner was rejected. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-
" जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी सोनभद्र ने अपने कार्यालय के पत्र संख्या बे०शि०/उर्दू नियुक्ति/17590/2018-19 दिनांक 01/03/2019 पत्रांक बे०शि०/3086-87/2019-20 दिनांक 05/09/2019 पत्रांक बे०शि०/3090-91/2019-20 दिनांक 05/09/2019, एवं पत्रांक बे०शि०/3082-83/2019/20 दिनांक 05/09/2019 द्वारा याचीगण के संबंध में स्पष्ट किया गया है कि दिनांक 29/08/19 द्वारा निर्देशित किया गया है कि संदर्भित भर्ती प्रक्रिया मे चार चक्र की काउंसलिंग एवं रिट याचिका संख्या 6004/2016 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 30/01/2018 के क्रम में भर्ती प्रक्रिया को अंतिम रूप से पूर्ण कर लिया गया है, ऐसी स्थिति मे किसी भी अभ्यर्थी हेतु नवीन काउंसलिंग का आयोजन या चयन/नियुक्ति किया जाना विधिसम्मत नही है।
सुनवाई के समय यह भी स्पष्ट हुआ कि श्री शमीम अहमद एवं श्री सरताज अहमद द्वारा काउंसिलिंग के समय टी०ई०टी० का मूल अंक पत्र प्रस्तुत नही किया गया था। जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी सोनभद्र द्वारा यह भी अवगत कराया गया कि उक्त अभ्यर्थियों हेतु कोई पद सुरक्षित नही है।
उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित परिषदीय विद्यालयों में 3500 सहायक अध्यापक उर्दू भर्ती के पश्चात उक्त में रिक्त रह गए पदों को अग्रणीत करते हुए शासनादेश संख्या 3301/79-5-2016-4127/2013 दिनांक 15 दिसंबर 2016 द्वारा सहायक अध्यापक (उर्दू भाषा) के 4000 पदों पर भर्ती प्रक्रिया की अनुमति प्रदान की गई। शासनादेश संख्या 1505/अड़सठ-5-2018-4127/2013 दिनांक 08/10/2018 द्वारा 4000 सहायक अध्यापक उर्दू (भाषा) की चयन/नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया/कार्यवाही को तात्कालिक प्रभाव से निरस्त किए जाने का निर्णय लिया गया।
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 25/02/2022 के अनुपालन में याचीगण श्री शमीम अहमद पुत्र श्री शरीफ अहमद निवासी मोहल्ला सराय कोहना, निकट राजो का कुँआ, थाना एवं जनपद अमरोहा एवं सरताज अहमद पुत्र श्री अब्दुल गफ्फार निवासी निकट रफुग्रान मस्जिद, मोहल्ला रमपुरा, थाना व तहसील नजीबाबाद जनपद बिजनौर का प्रत्यावेदन बलहीन होने के कारण सम्यक विचारोप्रांत एतातद्वारा निरस्त करते हुए उपरोक्तानुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है। "
13. The above order led to third round of litigation whereby by way of present writ petition, the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2022 is under challenge.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner was duly qualified and there is no dispute in regard to his degree. The claim of petitioner was rejected on a very technical issue despite a specific order passed by this Court and a seat was reserved in regard to petitioner also by a communication dated 12.03.2016.
15. Learned counsel also vehemently submitted that it was the fault of respondent not to grant original mark-sheet of TET Examination of 2016, expeditiously and for that he has to approach this Court, and only then it was provided. The delay if occurred was not due to any fault of the petitioner.
16. Learned counsel referred the relevant part of above refereed orders and directions. He also placed reliance on an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench in a case of Mohammad Inam Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ-A No.-1614 of 2022) that in a similar circumstances, claim of petitioners therein were directed to be considered.
17. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Aarav Jain Vs. The Bihar Public Service Commission and others (Civil Appeal No.4242 of 2022 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10776 of 2021, dated 23.05.2022) that if original certificates were not submitted at the time of interview, it cannot be a ground of rejection.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent -Board has also vehemently submitted that petitioner was allowed to participate in selection process provisionally by an order dated 04.02.2016 passed in writ petition filed by him with others i.e. (Writ-A No. 4936 of 2016). The petitioner has not denied that one of essential qualification i.e. original mark-sheet of TET Examination was not submitted by him as such he was not qualified for post at the time when he participated in counselling.
19. Learned counsel further pointed out that petitioner has much placed reliance on a communication dated 15.03.2016 that a seat was reserved for him also, however, the seats were reserved only for such candidates who have participated in counselling provisionally in pursuance of order passed by this Court as well as have fall within cut off merit, whereas petitioner being not eligible, therefore, he does not fall under said category and as such no seat was reserved for him.
20. Learned counsel also supported the impugned order and observation made therein that presently, no seat is vacant and she reiterated that all vacant seat of earlier process were included in fresh recruitment process which was later on cancelled. She further submitted that judgments relied by counsel for petitioner are distinguishable.
21. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
22. In the background of above referred rival submission and material on record, it would not be in dispute that petitioner was qualified so far as his degree is concerned, however, admittedly, he has not submitted original mark-sheet of his TET Examination, when he has appeared through counselling, therefore, according to settled law, he was not qualified for the post advertised as well as that he was only provisionally allowed to participate in counselling in terms of an order passed by this Court.
23. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a communication dated 15.03.2016 of Secretary Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, however, there is merit in the argument of counsel for respondent-Board that seats were reserved by said communication only for such candidates who have been allowed provisionally to participate in counselling and were within the cut off merit whereas admittedly, since petitioner was not eligible, since he has not submitted his original mark-sheet of TET Examination, therefore, said benefit was not provided to petitioner i.e. no seat was reserved by said communication in regard to petitioner.
24. The other argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that later on mark-sheet was provided to him in pursuance of an order passed by this Court in second round of litigation and delay if any, was due to fault of respondent and has placed reliance on order dated 25.02.2022 passed by this Court, in second round of litigation that it was a direction to appoint him as a seat was reserved.
25. In order to consider the above submission, I have carefully perused the operative portion of order dated 25.02.2022 passed in Writ No.332 of 2021 which states as follows:-
"Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to approach the respondent no.2 with a proper written representation supported by their personal affidavits with regard to their claim of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. Subject to such representation being filed, within a period of two weeks from today, along with a copy of this order, the said respondent shall consider the position of vacancy available, if any and the scope of adjustment of the petitioners against such vacancies, is existing. If any approval is required from any higher authority, in that regard, it is expected that such approval be obtained within a period of one month from the date of representation being filed by the petitioners. In any case the final decision with respect to the outstanding claim of the petitioners may be made and communicated to the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months, from the date of representation being filed."
26. From the above referred operative portion, it is absolutely clear that the co-ordinate Bench was aware that no seat was reserved for petitioner, therefore, it was directed to consider the position of vacancy available, if any, therefore, the respondent has conducted an exercise to consider the position of vacancy available and that a clear finding was returned that no vacancy was available since left vacancies were already forwarded for fresh recruitment, which was later on cancelled.
27. In the aforesaid circumstances, only issue left whether any seats are available or not and for that counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Mohammad Inam (supra) and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-
"Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner filed representation dated 5.5.2018 for the consideration of his claim. The claim were considered and rejected by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah vide order dated 28.11.2020 on the ground that the petitioner could not submit evidence of taking admission prior to 11.8.1997 and the State Government vide Government Order dated 8.10.201 has cancelled the selection proceedings of 4000 posts of Assistant Teachers against 4280 advertised posts.
From the record, it is borne out that out of 4280 posts selection process in respect of only 4000 posts has been cancelled and the selection process started on the basis of the Government Order dated 5.1.2016. Bare perusal of the Government Order dated 8.10.2018 reveals that selection process started on the basis of the Government Order dated 15.12.2016 has been cancelled. In the Government Order dated 8.10.2018 it has nowhere been stated that left out 1939 posts of Assistant Teachers in respect of which the recruitment process was initiated by the Government Order dated 5.1.2016 has been included.
For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 28.11.2020 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 3, District Basic Education Officer, Etawah is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh, and pass reasoned and speaking orders within six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
28. The aforesaid operative part of order only indicates that post left 1393 post was not part of fresh process. It was a tentative opinion as matter was referred to Authority for fresh consideration. The outcome of consideration is not on record whereas while rejecting the claim of petitioner by impugned order dated 13.12.2022, the Secretary Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, has specifically stated that vacant seats of earlier process were already forwarded and were included also in fresh recruitment though the fresh recruitment was cancelled but it does not mean that vacant seats are still available.
29. Petitioner was allowed provisionally to participate in counselling and that since he has not submitted his original mark-sheet of TET examination, therefore, no seat was reserved for him and later on when original mark-sheet was submitted, his representation was rejected by impugned order that no seat is available and as discussed above, all observations and reasons given in impugned order are supported by material on record. Petitioner has failed to bring on record any contrary material on record, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with order impugned and accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :12.01.2024 P. Pandey