Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic ... vs Vikram Singh on 2 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1279
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 320 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education & Ors. Respondent :- Vikram Singh Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Neelesh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Neelesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein.
2. This special appeal filed by the appellants State is barred by 302 days.
3. On due consideration, as cause assigned in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal (C.M. Application No. 88756 of 2019) is satisfactory, C.M. Application No. 88756 of 2019 is allowed. Delay in filing this special appeal is condoned.
4. The writ petitioner/respondent herein had acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) by distant education mode from the Institute of Correspondence Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. The claim of the writ petitioner for her consideration for selection in the Special BTC Training, 2008 has been rejected and, therefore, he filed writ petition No. 7965 (M/S) of 2015 : Vikram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, praying therein that the issue is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the learned Writ Court in writ petition No. 5858 (M/S) of 2015 : Sangita Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 5.10.2015 as well as by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1271 of 2007 : Gyanendra Kumar Sharma and 49 others Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 3.10.2007, thus, the appellants cannot reject his claim inter alia on the ground that as per law laid down by the Division Bench in the matter of Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (Supra), the candidates who had acquired requisite qualification through distance education from University, namely, Indira Gandhi Open University and Rajarshi Tandon Open University, are only entitled to be considered for eligible candidates.
5. The learned Writ Court, on due consideration of the law laid down by the Division Bench in paras 25 to 27 of the Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (supra), came to the conclusion that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (supra) is that any candidate who has acquired the qualification of B.Ed. through distant education mode from any institution/University recognized by NCTE is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post for which the qualification is prescribed and, therefore, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 5.10.2015 (supra). The paras 25 to 27 of the Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (supra) reads as under :
"25. It is again material to note that when the Government sent its proposal on the first occasion on 22nd June, 2006, it proposed that those who have done their B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. be also permitted for this training. N.C.T.E. having given the clearance, Government went for excluding these categories. Later on they were permitted under High Court order.
26. Thus, the intention of the Government was to cover these categories in this course. It is therefore to be seen in the proper perspective. Those who have taken training for physical education are permitted to take this course. Thus if the physical teachers are to be permitted to take this course, there was no reason for exclusion of those who have done the B.Ed. course by a distant mode. It will amount to exclude those who are similarly situated and include those who are dissimilar for the object to be achieved. The interpretation by the Government Counsel will, therefore, make the Government Order violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
6. Considering the aforesaid, the learned Writ Court, while passing the order dated 5.10.2015 (Supra) has allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 21.5.2015 and has held that writ petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the observations/directions contained in the judgment dated 10.8.2015 passed in writ petition No. 4525 (M/S) of 2015.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the learned Writ Court, while recording the specific finding that it has been agreed between the parties that the benefit of the judgment and order passed in writ petition No. 5858 (M/S) of 2015 will be applicable in the case of the petitioner, allowed the writ petition in terms of the judgment and the ratio laid down in Sangita Gupta (supra).
8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
9. The special appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)
Order Date :- 2.8.2019
Ajit/-