In a contempt application, the court considered compliance with a prior writ order regarding teacher appointments. Finding substantial compliance despite technical debates on eligibility, the court consigned the petition to record and discharged notices.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1226 of 2010
Applicant :- Furqan Ali And Others Opposite Party :- Sri Anup Chandra Pandey Secy. Basic Education And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra, D.K.Singh, Jyoti Prakash, Sudeep Harkauli, Swati Agrawal, V.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Yatindra, B.P.Singh, K.S.Kushwaha, Ramesh Upadhyaya, S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Yusuf and Mrs. Swati Agarwal, Advocates, for the applicants; Sri K.R. Singh and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsels, Sri Dhruv Narayan, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Yatindra, Advocate, for opposite parties at length; and, perused the material placed on the record.
The Writ Petition No.1393 of 2009 filed by the applicants came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2009, operative part whereof reads thus:
"Writ petition is allowed and the respondents are commanded to consider the claim of the petitioners and such other candidates possessed of Diploma in Teaching granted by the Aligarh Muslim University provided they satisfy all other conditions for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Basic School against the posts covered by Rule 8(4) of 1981 Rules. The respondents are further directed not to make appointment on the posts covered by Rule 8(4) of 1981 Rules from the candidates who have or who may obtain training under the Special BTC Training (Urdu).
In the facts of this case it is further necessary to direct the State respondents to initiate proceedings for appointment of Assistant Teachers in primary institutions for teaching Urdu language qua posts covered by Rule 8(4) inasmuch as it is admitted to the State Government that large number of such posts are lying vacant as per the letters dated 16.02.2005 and 12.04.2005 on record, of the Secretary of the Department. It is to be noted that these letters were written prior to addition of Rule 8(5) to 1981 Rules and, therefore, posts referred to as Urdu teachers therein, are those covered by Rule 8(4) only. The petitioners will be at liberty to apply.
Let the entire exercise as indicated above qua both the directions be completed by the respondents concerned from the date a certified copy of this order is filed."
A compliance affidavit came to be filed by Special Secretary, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow wherein in paragraph-7 and 8 it has been stated that some of the candidates lack essential qualification, i.e., bachelor degree with one subject in Urdu. Out of 16 applicants, 12 have qualified, 2 did not appear and other 2 candidates failed to secure qualifying/cut of marks. This fact has not been denied by the applicants in their affidavit/objection.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that Teachers
Eligibility Test (TET) was made an essential qualification which was not subject matter of controversy before the writ court, therefore, some of the candidates were deprived from applying. The controversy with regard to TET as an essential requirement is being raised for the first time in contempt jurisdiction. Only question before the writ court was whether the diploma obtained by the applicants from Aligarh Muslim University is equivalent to training certificates awarded by State Government or different educational bodies provided in the Rules. The controversy was answered in favour of the applicants that diploma is equivalent to training certificate. It is admitted that in compliance of the judgment, an advertisement came to be issued in 2013 and pursuant thereof 14 out of 16 candidates applied, 12 have been selected and 2 were found ineligible on quality point marks. On specific query, learned counsel for the applicants submits that diploma in Urdu was a part of qualification published/notified in the selections of 2013.
In view thereof, this Court would not enter into technicalities, there is substantial compliance of the writ court order.
Petition is consigned to record.
Notices discharged.
Order Date :- 24.3.2021 P. Sri.
Furqan Ali
Sri Anup Chandra Pandey
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
