Back
2006 Supreme(All) 1168
[2006(4) ADJ 244 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : V.K. SHUKLA, J.
VINOD KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS, ETC. ETC. ...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, ETC. ETC. ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69091 of 2005 Connected with many other writ petitions, decided on 24th April, 2006)
Counsel :
Ashok Khare, S.K. Srivastava, Shailendra, P.S. Baghel, K. Shahi, O.P. Mishra and Rajiv Mishra for the Petitioners; C.B. Yadav, C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Examination—B.T.C. Course, 2001—Cancellation of, by State Government—Writ petition against—Recommendation of Vigilance Establishment for its cancellation to State Government—Vigilance Establishment had to make an enquiry and investigation into cases of corruption, bribery, misconduct, misbehaviour, or of malpractices, was not disputed qua public servants and to keep Government informed of same—In instant case, validity of examinations were not being investigated, rather conduct of authority, who had conducted examinations, was being looked into—And while conducting aforesaid enquiry/investigation, validity of examinations, was also necessary to be examined—Therefore, it cannot be said that Vigilance Establishment had no jurisdiction to look into question of validity of examinations, and made consequential recommendations to State Government, for action against erring officials, and for cancellation of examinations—Therefore, it cannot be said that power of cancellation was not exercised within a reasonable period—Hence, State Government has not committed any error, in accepting said recommendations—As examination was cancelled on ground of malpractices and other factors, Court directed to hold re-examination—Therefore, petitions liable to be dismissed. [U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965—Sections 2 and 4]. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 19, 30 and 31]
(B) Promissory estoppel—And legitimate expectation—Principles of—Are based on equitable considerations—And while applying said principles, facts and circumstances of case, and peculiar characteristics of case, was to be seen. [Evidence Act, 1872—Section 115]. [Para 29]
Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present bunch of writ petition has been filed by the candidates who had been pursuing their B.T.C. Course 2001 questioning the validity of the decision taken by the State Government by means of communication dated 20.10.2005 passed by Secretary Basic Education cancelling the aforesaid examination of B.T.C. course 2001.
2. Vigilance report dated 23.7.2005 has also been questioned and further prayer has been made that petitioners’ final result be declared and consequential benefit attached to the same be also extended.
3. Brief background of the litigation is that on 26.11.2001 the State Government issued Government Order notifying the procedure required to be followed for conducting the Basic Teachers Certificate Training Entrance Examination. The said Government Order was issued pursuant to National Education Policy 1986 and as per said Government Order the Basic Teachers Certificate Training Course was to be for two years and further it was mentioned therein that for the purpose of entrance examination application would be invited by means of news item to be published in the month of December/January. Eligibility criteria was also prescribed therein providing therein that applicants should be resident of the same District from which they are moving application for getting training and further before filling up the form the candidates ought to have passed graduation or some equivalent examination and further age of the incumbent on 1st July in the year when training was to commence should not be less than 19 years and not more than 30 years. Relaxation in age was accorded to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class category candidate as well as candidates from Dependent of Freedom Fighter category and Physically Handicapped category and Ex-Army man category as well as to female category candidates for period of five years. Procedure for selection was also provided for and qua High School, Intermediate and Graduation quality point marks has been prescribed and further weightage mark was also provided for qua acquiring of N.C.C. certificate. Written examination was also to take place comprising two papers of 100 marks each. First paper was to comprise subject of General Knowledge and second paper was to comprise subject relating to educational qualification. It was categorically mentioned therein that computation of marks would be done through computer. It was also mentioned therein that selection would be based on merit and therein requirement of minimum percentage of marks has been dispensed with. Thereafter on the basis of total marks obtained by computing quality point marks in lieu of essential qualification; in lieu of weightage and in lieu of written examination then District wise list was to be prepared strictly in merit and separate list was to be prepared qua Reserved category candidates through computer and thereafter same was to be transmitted to Registrar Departmental Examination. After said list has been finalized then said list as mentioned above was to be transmitted to District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) and thereafter Principal of the institution was to verify the marks as well as certificates and thereafter to accord admission after satisfying himself. Alongwith the said list wait list was also to be prepared comprising 20% of the total seats. For conducting the Entrance Examination four members Committee was constituted. Said Examination was to be conducted by the Director, State Council for Education Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow (SCERT) through Registrar Departmental Examination U.P. at Allahabad. Pursuant to this Government Order, advertisement was issued on 1.12.2001 by the State Council for Education Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow notifying B.T.C. Entrance Examination, 2001 and inviting applications from eligible candidates for participating in the same. Pursuant to this advertisement each and every petitioner claims to have appli
