The court emphasized that academic matters are best left to academics and that the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.

JUDGMENT :

Irshad Ali, J.

1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhinav Narayan Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants-State and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 06-03-2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.28222 (S/s) of 2017, Mohd. Rizwan and 103 others Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Single Judge issued mandamus commanding the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority to make fresh evaluation of all the answer sheets of the candidates by deleting 14 questions as stated in paragraph Nos.85 and 86 of the order from total questions of the question papers and the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority was directed to declare the result on the basis of above direction, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one month and thereafter, the examination of the post of Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2018 shall be conducted and it was observed that it is needless to direct that till the completion of aforesaid exercise, the examination of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 be postponed for further date.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge by the Shikshamitras, who were reverted as Assistant Teachers of primary schools run and managed by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. during the period 19.02.2006. The Shikshamitras were appointed and were imparting education to the children of the State in the primary schools run and managed by the Board of Basic Education.

4. After enforcement of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 the National Council for Teacher's Education (NCTE) was declared the academic authority by the Central Government. The NCTE laid down the minimum qualification for a candidate to be appointed as Teacher in Class 1st to Class 8th vide notification issued on 23.08.2010, wherein passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (herein after referred as "TET") to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE was made one of the minimum qualification.

5. Thereafter, NCTE issued detailed guidelines on 11.02.2011 for conducting the TET and structure and contents of examination papers and nature and standard of questions etc. were also provided in the said guideline.

6. The State Government issued a Government Order on 24.12.2014, wherein the detailed guidelines relating to syllabus, structure and contents of examination papers and standard of question etc. were issued.

7. The petitioners, who were Shikshamitras had been given appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the primary schools run by Board of Basic Education, therefore, the absorption was nullified by the Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2015 in Writ-A No.34833 of 2014; Anand Kumar Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others. The judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.08.2017, however, the Supreme Court directed to the State Government to provide opportunity of participation of two consecutive recruitments in case the Shikshamitras acquire the requisite qualification of TET.

8. In compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Full Bench of this Court as well as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government issued direction to the Examination Regulatory Authority to conduct the U.P. TET, 2017 providing certain conditions of relaxation in age and weightage of experience of the post of Shikshamitras upto 25 marks in the recruitment process. In pursuance thereof, the U.P. TET Examination, was held on 15.10.2017, wherein the respondents-writ petitioners app