It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were initially appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher and currently working in various unaided, recognized privately managed Institutions and all the petitioners had requisite qualification being appointed as Assistant Teacher. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Rule 6 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981, the criteria has been laid down, which the petitioners do not fulfill and as such they want age relaxation as per Rule 6 of the Rules 1981 on the post of Assistant Teacher from 21 to 40 years and apart from the other qualifications, a Basic Teachers Certificate of two years is also mandatory. It is next submitted that in view of the Government Orders dated 6.9.1994 as well as 13.6.1995, the petitioners are entitled for the relief as claimed. It is also contended that identical controversy has already been settled in Service Single No. 1152 of 2012 decided on 30.7.2014 which was affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 2056 of 2022 vide judgment dated 23.2.2022. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioners have jointly represented the matter before respondent no.2 Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Directorate of Education, Prayagraj on 20.12.2021, which remain pending till date.
