Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses essential qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Basic School run and managed by the U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad. The State Government issued an order dated 16.6.2016 issuing directions to the concerned authorities for the recruitment of 16448 Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Board. The petitioner made an application against the said advertisement. It is admitted situation that at no point of time, the petitioner was called for counselling. It is alleged that he has been denied counselling on the ground that he has done his BTC Course through correspondence. He submits that in the similar circumstances this Court has already disposed of Writ A No.42680 of 2017 ( Meenu Rani Chauhan and 4 others vs. State of UP and 2 others ) on 13.9.2017, relying upon the judgement of Lucknow Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by Service Single No. 15314 of 2016 ( Anjali and another v. State of U.P. & others ), wherein a circular dated 9.4.2016 issued by the respondents has been considered wherein it has also been clarified that untrained Shiksha Mitras, who have been subjected to two years BTC training through correspondence, shall also be considered for selection to the posts of Assistant Teachers as the said training course is recognized by the State Government. In the said case, learned counsel for the petitioners had also relied on a judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav and others v. Union of India and others , 2015(8) ADJ 338 (FB), wherein this issue has also been considered and the said training has
