Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Mohit Kumr Dwivedi – Appellant
Versus
Ram Janak Maurya And Ors. – Respondents
Special Appeal No.613 of 2018, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 609 of 2018, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 617 of 2018, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 619 of 2018, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 634 of 2018, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 670 of 2018, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 193 of 2020, SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 92 of 2020, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 207 of 2020, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 276 of 2021, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 13 of 2022, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 267 of 2022, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 65 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 68 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 377 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 379 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 387 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 399 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 413 of 2023, SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 450 of 2023
Decided on : 31-10-2023
The Court upheld the validity of the circular issued by the Board of Basic Education allowing candidates from zero vacancy districts to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teachers. The Court held that the circular was in consonance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and the notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The Court also held that the circular did not violate the provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21-A of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a circular allowing candidates from zero vacancy districts to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teachers. Several candidates challenged the circular, arguing that it was in violation of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (1981 Rules). The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the challenge and set aside the circular. The State Government and the candidates who had been selected in the selection process appealed against the Single Judge's order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the circular issued by the Board of Basic Education was in consonance with the RTE Act and the notifications issued by the NCTE. The Court also held that the circular did not violate the provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21-A of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Single Judge had erred in setting aside the circular.
Issues: 1. Whether the circular issued by the Board of Basic Education allowing candidates from zero vacancy districts to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teachers was valid? 2. Whether the circular violated the provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21-A of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the circular issued by the Board of Basic Education was in consonance with the RTE Act and the notifications issued by the NCTE. The Court also held that the circular did not violate the provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21-A of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Single Judge had erred in setting aside the circular.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the validity of the circular issued by the Board of Basic Education allowing candidates from zero vacancy districts to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teachers. The Court also directed the authorities concerned to take a decision to fill-up all the posts inclusive of residual 6,470 by preparing a common merit list of all the eligible Assistant Teachers as per NCTE Notifications read with Notification/Circular dated 26.12.2016 in the respective districts as discussed here-in-above, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
JUDGMENT :
PRELUDE
(1) Heard extensively at length Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 613 of 2018, Dr. L. P. Mishra assisted by Sri Onkar Singh and Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants in Special Appeals Nos.609 of 2018 and 617 of 2018, Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal No. 634 of 2018, 670 of 2018, 193 of 2020 as also in Special Appeal Defective Nos. 276 of 2021, 13 of 2022, 267 of 2022 387 of 2023 and 413 of 2023, Sri Vinay Prakash Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants in Special appeal No. 92 of 2020, Sri Dilip Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal Defective No. 207 of 2020, Ms. Shreya Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal Defective No. 65 of 2023, Sri Priyam Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal Defective No. 68 of 2023, Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal Defective No. 377 of 2023 and 379 of 2023, Sri Sushil Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Special Appeal Defective No. 399 of 2023 and Sri Durga Prasad Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellants in Special appeal No.450 of 2023, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents in Special Appeal No. 319 of 2018 and Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in most of the Special Appeals, who were the original writ petitioners.
(2) In Special Appeal Defective Nos. 276 of 2021, 13 of 2022, 267 of 2022, 65 of 2023, 68 of 2023, 377 of 2023, 379 of 2023, 387 of 2023, 399 of 2023, 413 of 2023 and 450 of 2023, applications for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit have been filed on account of appeals being instituted with an inordinate delay.
Without delving into the merits, all the parties have urged that the applications may be allowed.
In view of above, all the applications for condonation of delay filed in Special Appeal Defective Nos. 276 of 2021, 13 of 2022, 267 of 2022, 65 of 2023, 68 of 2023, 377 of 2023, 379 of 2023, 387 of 2023, 399 of 2023, 413 of 2023 and 450 of 2023 are allowed and the delay in filing the appeals are allowed.
(3) An application for leave to file Special Appeal has been filed in Special Appeal No. 634 of 2028, Special Appeal No. 670 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 92 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective No. 193 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective No. 207 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2021, Special Appeal Defective No. 267 of 2022, Special Defective No. 68 of 2023, Special Appeal Defective No. 377 of 2023, Special Appeal Defective No. 379 of 2023, Special Appeal Defective No. 399 of 2023, Special Appeal Defective No. 413 of 2023 and Special Appeal Defective No. 450 of 2023 for the reason that either the appellants could not succeed in the selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher or the appellants belong to D.Ed./B.El.Ed and all of them have not filed writ petition before this Court. In these circumstances, they have prayed that they may be granted leave to file Special Appeal as they have not been heard before the Writ Court.
Since sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants/appellants, the application for leave to file Special Appeal moved in Special Appeal No. 634 of 2028, Special Appeal No. 670 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 92 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective No. 193 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective No. 207 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2021, Special Appeal Defective No. 267 of 2022, Special Defective No. 68 of 2023, Special Appeal Defective No. 377 of 2023
The circular issued by the Board of Basic Education allowing candidates from zero vacancy districts to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teachers was valid as it was in c....
Point of Law : Executive action to escape wrath of Art. 14 has to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism, in pursuit of appointment and eq....
It is well-established that an authority cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the number of posts advertised, even if there were a larger number of posts available than those advertised.
The Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for all candidates seeking appointment as teachers in elementary education, effective from the notification date of 23.08.2010, and can....
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that candidates who have secured more marks than the last selected candidates are entitled to be considered for counseling and appointment, especia....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
