The prescription of essential qualifications for public employment is the exclusive prerogative of the employer. Courts cannot expand eligibility criteria or deem unprescribed qualifications as equivalent unless the governing rules explicitly allow, as the failure to meet essential recruitment criteria constitutes an incurable illegality.

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Writ-A No. 8780 of 2016 has been filed with a prayer to direct respondent No.2 District Basic Education Officer, to permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling to be held on 26.02.2016 pursuant to the notifications dated 05.01.2016 and 19.01.2016 regarding the selection and appointment against 3,500 posts of Assistant Teachers (Urdu) in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and to prepare the select list in accordance with law.

3. Writ- A No.22451 of 2016 has been filed with the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned list dated 02.03.2016 issued by District Basic Education Officer, District Kushinagar respondent no.4 so fat it relates to petitioner by which his name has been placed amongst the ineligible candidate for the selection and appointment against the 3500 posts of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in the State of U.P.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the selection and appointment of the petitioner, pursuant to his counselling held on 26.02.2016 at District Kushinagar, against the Notification dated 05.01.2016 and Advertisement dated 11.01.2016 issued for the selection and appointment against 3500 posts of Assistant Teacher in the State of U.P.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the two years Primary Teachers Training Course (P.T.T.) acquired by the petitioner from Primary Teachers Education College, Gumma, District Godda, conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), as equivalent to the two years Educational Training Examination conducted by the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Uttar Pradesh, and accordingly modify the eligibility criteria for the selection and appointment against 3500 posts of Assistant Teacher in the State of U.P. to that extent.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had completed his two years Primary Teachers Training Examination Course from an institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and had obtained the requisite certificate from Primary Teacher Education College, Gumma, District-Godda, Jharkhand conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. He further submits that petitioner was eligible for being considered for appointment in view of the notifications dated 05.01.2016 and 19.01.2016 on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu).

5. The Court, by order dated 25.02.2016, permitted the petitioner provisionally to participate in the counselling in view of the orders passed in Writ-A No.5938 of 2015 (Md. Nesar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others), wherein the Court, relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harsh Kumar and another vs. State of UP and others , 2014 (2) 870 (All) as well as Special Appeal Defective No.130 of 2014, had allowed the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counselling in respect of the notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended on 29.07.2011.

6. Subsequently, a list dated 23.02.2016 was issued by the concerned District Basic Education Officer, wherein the petitioner was declared an ineligible candidate. Challenging the said list, Writ-A No.22451 of 2016 has been filed.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds the qualification as