Allowed

Vikram Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2019WRIA/23691/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitioner challenged, seeking appointment letters as Assistant Teachers. The respondent objected to the petitioner's diploma obtained prior to graduation, citing Rule 2(q). This court held that the course prospectus allowed Intermediate passed candidates and the respondent could not establish a restriction to graduates, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

petition was allowed and respondents commanded to process the candidature of the petitioners.

Vikram Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23691 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Vikram Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balwant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Khare

¶5

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Khare who appears for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

The principal relief which is claimed in this petition is for the issuance of appointment letters in favour of the petitioners who had participated in a recruitment exercise for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in district Chitrakoot. Although the petitioners were shortlisted an issue appears to have been raised by the respondents with respect to the validity of the Diploma in Education (Special Training) and Diploma in Education as obtained by them. The objection raised was that the Diploma had been obtained by the petitioners prior to the completion of their graduation. The objection itself stems from the perceived interpretation liable to be attributed to Rule 2(q) of the 1981 Rules which reads thus:-

¶8

“”Training” means training course recognized by the Government from time to time to teach children from class I to VIII for which graduates are eligible for admission.”

¶9

According to the respondents the aforementioned Rule contemplates only graduates appearing in the training course and obtaining a Diploma on completion thereof. However the petitioners contend that the minimum qualification which is required for enrollment in the diploma program in question is for a candidate having passed the Intermediate examination with at least 45% marks. The attention of the Court in this connection is invited to the prospectus issued by the U.P. Shravan Viklang Sansthan and from which the petitioners obtained the

¶10

¶11

Diploma in question. The relevant clause of that prospectus prescribing the educational qualification reads thus:-

¶12

“1- नयूनतमशैिककयोगयता (10+2) इंटरमीिडएट 45% अंककेसाथउतीणर होनाचािहए। 2008 केउतीणरयाइनटरकीपरीकामेसिममिलतअभयथीपवेशहेतु पातनहीहोगे। ”

¶13

From a bare perusal of that clause, it is evident that the eligibility of a candidate to seek enrollment in the Diploma course is not restricted to graduates. This position is further clarified when one reads the procedure for preparation of the merit list which is prescribed in that prospectus in the following terms:-

¶14

" पवेशपरीकामेपापअंकतथाइंटरमीिडएटकेपापांकका 50 पितशतको सिममिलतकरयोगयतासूचीबनायीजाएगी, िजसमेमेिरटकेअनुसारचयनिकया जायेगा।"

¶15

From this clause also it is evident that the only criteria which is put in place in order to assess the merit of a candidate are the marks obtained in the entrance examination and those obtained in the Intermediate examination as conducted by the Board. In neither of these clauses is the eligibility of a candidate linked to him being either a graduate or to the marks obtained by him in a graduation course.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has been unable to draw the attention of the Court to any material which may even remotely evidence or indicate that the entry to the Diploma course of Education Special or otherwise is restricted to graduates. The Court further notes that the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court since rather than taking a final decision in this respect, the further consideration of their candidature was postponed awaiting clarification and guidance from the Secretary of the Board. Learned counsel for the respondents concedes and admits that no such clarification has been received by him till date.

¶17

Be that as it may and since respondents have failed to establish on merits that the petitioners could not have pursued the Diploma course prior to completion of their graduation, the Court finds itself unable to

¶18

¶19

sustain the act of the respondents. The petition is consequently allowed. The respondents are commanded to process the candidature of the petitioners consequently. Order Date :- 17.4.2019 faraz

Vikram Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Tomer and 28 Others Vs Vinay Kumar Gill, Principal D.I.E.T.

Smt. Indrawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Khurshid Mansoori Vs State of U P and 19 Others

Prem Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Awadh Shahi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others