Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Mishra And 25 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 22 January, 2019
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1044 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra And 25 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Pandey,Ram Kinkar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Ram Pandey Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
On 21.1.2019 in Writ A No.713 of 2019, Reena Singh and 74 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, this Court has passed the following orders:-
?When the matter was taken up on 18.1.2019 this court passed the following orders-
Sri Alok Trivedi and Sri Man Bahadur Singh Advocates have filed intervention application today, which are taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. K. Singh and Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner, Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General who appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav, leaned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3.
It is contented by learned counsel for the parties that in identical controversy arguments are going on before Lucknow Bench of this Court in Service Single No. 1188 of 2019 along with connected matters. An order was placed before the Court on 17.1.2019 by which status quo as on date was directed to be maintained till 18.1.2019. It is further contented that today the Court has extended the interim order till Monday i.e. 21.1.2019.
In the interest of justice, put up this matter, as fresh, along with connected matters (Writ A No. 730/2019, 736/2019, 738/2019, 740/2019, 742/2019, 744/2019, 747/2019, 750/2019, 753/2019, 760/2019, 765/2019, 768/2019, 770/2019, 782/2019, 784/2019, 802/2019, 803/2019 and 804/2019) on 21.1.2019. The record of Writ A No. 27461 of 2018 (Anoop Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) shall also be placed on that date."
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 18.1.2019 itself by which after giving cogent reasons order of status quo was granted till the next date of listing i.e. 21.1.2019. The order passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Service Single No. 1188 of 2019 (Mohd. Riwan and Others Vs. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Basic Eduction, Lkw & Ors) is quoted below-
"By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed validity of Government Order dated 7.1.2019 passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Basic Shiksha, Anubhag-4, Lucknow whereby the minimum qualifying marks for the examination of "Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019", which was advertised on 5.12.2018 and conducted on 6.1.2019 have been fixed as 65% for general category and 60% for all reserved category candidates, however, for the previous examination, the qualifying marks were fixed as 45% for general category and 40% for the other reserved category.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the examination in question has already taken place on 6.1.2019, no direction can legally be issued in respect of said examination subsequently. It has further been submitted that the rule of game neither can be changed nor re-fixed after start of the game.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, which is a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Anand Kumar Yadav and others, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 560, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to uphold the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, which was passed in the matter of Shiksha Mitras of the State of U.P., however, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to direct that in a peculiar fact situation, the Shiksha Mitras to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisement for recruitment for the next two consecutive recruitments and they may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience, as may be decided by the authority concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that till the Shiksha Mitras avail this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides.
On the strength of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Shiksha Mitras have got only two chance to appear in the examination and that two chance would be used in two consecutive recruitments. Undisputedly, for 68,500/- vacancies the examination has already taken place and appointments to certain Shiksha Mitras have been given, but those Shiksha Mitras, who could not qualify the previous examination, they appeared firstly in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and after qualifying the TET examination, they appeared in the examination in question, namely, Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019. There is no doubt on the fact that in the just previous examination the qualifying marks were 45% for the general category and 40% for the reserved category.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have also drawn attention of this Court towards Government Order dated 1.12.2018 and the guidelines issued by the State Government, which is contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, pursuant to which the present examination has been conducted. Item No.7 of the aforesaid guidelines says about result of the examination and perusal thereof reveals that it has nowhere been indicated about the cut off marks, rather it has been indicated that whosoever shall qualify the examination in question shall be entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.
Since nothing has been provided about the qualifying marks, therefore, it may safely be presumed that the qualifying marks in this examination would be the same as was in its previous examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2017, which categorically provides that the candidate should pass the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, but this Rule does not provide about the qualifying marks.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned Government Order dated 7.1.2019 has been issued having ulterior motive and extraneous design in the mind of the State authorities to accommodate other candidates like B.Ed. degree holders etc. ousting Shiksha Mitras from the seen by fixing such a high minimum qualifying marks. The State Authorities are fully aware that this is a second and last chance for Shiksha Mitras, who have been serving in basic schools of State of U.P. for couple of years and they might be ousted if such a high minimum qualifying marks is fixed, therefore, the impugned action, which has been initiated after the examination in question has taken place, would not be said to be a bonafide exercise of the State Government.
The matter requires consideration.
This matter was taken up in the morning and the learned Chief Standing Counsel was directed to seek instructions on the point as to whether the result of the examination in question can be declared ignoring the impugned Government Order dated 7.1.2019 and for that, learned Chief Standing Counsel requested that the matter may be taken up at 12:15 PM. When the matter was taken up at 12:15 PM, Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General has appeared for the State-respondents assisted by Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel and he has prayed that he may be granted two days' time to seek complete instructions in the matter.
On being confronted to the learned Chief Standing Counsel about the query of the Court being put in the morning, Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that no specific instructions have been received in his office by now, therefore, he has requested that the matte may be listed on 21.1.2019.
On the aforesaid request of Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General, list/ put up this matter on 21.1.2019 at 10:15 AM along with all other connected matters.
Till the next date of listing i.e. 21.1.2019, status quo pursuant to the order dated 17.1.2019 shall be maintained."
When the matter was taken up today it was informed by the State Counsel that before the Lucknow Bench of this Court 29.1.2019 is the date fixed in the matter and in the meanwhile State Instrumentalists were directed to file a reply. The order of status quo granted earlier was extended till that date, i.e., 29.1.2019.
I have perused the order dated 18.1.2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court in Service Single No. 1188 of 2019. The controversy involved in the present case is absolutely identical.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court also think it proper to grant similar relief to the petitioners of this writ petition also.
List along with connected matter on 31.1.2019 at the top of the list.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to file a reply on or before 29.1.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted two days thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in terms of the order dated 18.1.2019 passed in Service Single No. 1188 of 2019 till the next date of listing i.e. 31.1.2019 status quo as on today shall be maintained.?
Connect and List along-with Writ A No.713 of 2019 on 31.1.2019.
The controversy involved in the present case is absolutely identical to the aforesaid case and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, till the next date of listing, status quo as on today shall be maintained.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi