Devendra Singh & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  Insc 548 (11 May 2007)
Tarun Chatterjee & B. Sudershan Reddy
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2450 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(c) No. 16232 of 2004) With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(c) No. 26109 of 2004)
2. These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order
of the Allahabad High Court dated 14.5.2004 passed in Special Appeal No.
461 of 2004.
3. We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned judgment and the material made available on record.
4. The facts leading to filing of these appeals are not required to be
noticed in detail for a very short and simple question falls for consideration
viz. as to whether the authorities were right in not selecting the appellants
to undergo B.T.C. Training Course, 2004.
5. The State of Uttar Pradesh as a measure of policy decision has decided to
arrange the Special BTC Training Course for a period of six months to as many
as 46,189 candidates possessing B.Ed./L.T. course. The National Teachers
Education Board accorded its approval to the proposal submitted by the State of
Uttar Pradesh for arranging the Special BTC Training Course for a period of 6
months to all those candidates with a requisite qualification of B.Ed./L.T.
course. The Government order dated 14.1.2004 makes it abundantly clear it is a
Special BTC Training Course, 2004 which is a programme of training for six
months, including a three months practical schedule and in no manner deals with
any selection and appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Schools run by
the U.P. Basic Education Board in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Be it noted that
none of the appellants in these appeals could secure admission to Special BTC
Training Course, 2004. Their case is that they should be given preference in
admission to Special BTC Course inasmuch as they had already appeared for
selections in Special BTC Course, 2001. Their further case is that the
appointments should be made on the basis of year wise training course passed by
the candidates, and the candidates who had passed the required training course
earlier be placed above than those who had passed the training later.
6. In order to resolve the controversy it is just and necessary to notice
the salient features of the policy decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh
dated 14.1.2004. It is clear from a bare reading of the policy that the
Government had resolved to arrange the Special BTC Training Course spread over
a period of six months to all those 46,189 B.Ed./L.T. qualified candidates. The
selection is for the purposes of imparting training and not recruitment into
any service as such. Only such candidates who completed their training of B.Ed./L.T.
as regular students in universities recognized by the National Teachers
Education Board, recognized colleges and training institutes conducted by the
State Government/Central Government alone were eligible for the selection into
the course. The policy provides the age of the applicant must be minimum of 16
years and not more than 35 years as on 1st July, 2004. However, some relaxation
has been made in favour of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, backward class
candidates and others with which we are not concerned in this case. The most
important feature of the policy is that a State level merit list is required to
be prepared on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in High School
considering the rules regarding reservation. The policy directs the payment of
stipend of Rs. 2500/- per month to the selected candidates for the special BTC
training until "he is duly appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in
the basic school after passing the written and practical examinations conducted
by the Registrar, Departmental Examinations, Uttar Pradesh and obtaining the
required certificate, under the control of State Council for Education Research
and Training, on completing the required training in the merit process."
7. The Government order dated 14.1.2004 was amended vide Government order
dated 20.2.2004 even while the writ petition filed by the appellants herein
pending before the learned Single Judge. The amendments made C.P.Ed., B.P. Ed.
qualified candidates also to be eligible along with B.Ed.
and L.T. candidates provided they have taken training as institutional
candidates from recognized universities and the State colleges, training
colleges. The maximum age limit was extended to 40 years with exemption to
reserved category candidates.
8. The record discloses that the primary contention of the appellants before
the learned Single Judge was that the maximum age should be 45 years as
provided for in the 1998 selections of Special BTC and that those candidates
who were eligible to appear in the 2001 selections should be given exemptions
on the ground that National Council had not imposed any restriction with regard
to the maximum age while granting approval to the said course. These
contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division
9. In these appeals the said contentions are not pressed. The learned
counsel for the appellants mainly argued that the merit list should be arranged
in such a manner so as to provide year wise list on the basis of B.Ed. training
course or the other training courses as the case may be for the purposes of
selection to the Special BTC Training Course, 2004. The learned counsel mainly
relied upon the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981 ( for short 'the Rules') in support of his submission. Rule 14 of
the Rules provides for determination of vacancies and preparation of list for
appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Mistress of Nursery Schools
and Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools. Rule 14 was
amended by Notification dated 28.6.1993. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 as it stood
prior to its substitution provided that the names of the candidates in the list
prepared under sub-rule (2) shall be arranged in such manner that the candidates
who have passed the required training course earlier in point of time shall be
placed higher than those who have passed the said training course later, and
the candidates who have passed the training course shall be arranged in
accordance with the quality point marks specified in the appendix. The High
Court while dealing with the rules in response to the submissions made by the
appellants found that sub- rules (3) to (6) were deleted by Notification dated
6.8.1997 and the amended rules do not provide for any exemption and the
selections were required to be based only upon the training qualification. It
is for that reason the High Court found that there is no question of arranging
the list in such a manner that the candidates who have passed the required training
course earlier in point of time shall be placed higher than that of those who
have passed the said training course later.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the statement made
in the counter affidavit filed in these appeals wherein it is conceded that
sub-rules (3) to (6) of Rule 14 are not deleted submitted that the matter
should be sent back for re-consideration of the High Court by duly applying the
effect of sub-rules (3) to 6 of Rule 14 of the Rules. The submission was that
the merit list is required to be prepared in accordance with sub-rules (3) to (6) of Rule 14 of the Rules. The submission in our considered opinion is totally
misconceived. We have already noticed that the U.P.
Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 deal with the post training
scenario. The Rules deal with the selection and appointment of teachers from
amongst the candidates already possessing the training qualifications.
The Rules do not deal with the selection of the candidates into Basic Training
Course. The reliance placed upon the said Rules by the appellants in support of
their contention is totally untenable and unsustainable. These Rules do not
have any bearing in the matter of selection of candidates into Basic Training
Course, 2004. The policy decision of the Government dated 14.1.2004 deals with
the arrangement of the Special BTC Training Course for the period of six months
for those 46,189 B.Ed./L.T. qualified candidates. The process of selection of
the candidates for the said training and the arrangement of the training is
required to be conducted in accordance with the guidelines, directions,
conditions and restrictions incorporated thereunder. None of the appellants
qualified themselves for undergoing the said training course inasmuch as they
were not selected as they were not found meritorious or over aged as the case
may be. It is not demonstrated as to how the appellants were entitled for
selection to undergo Special BTC Training Course, 2004. The validity of the
policy decision dated 14.1.2004 is not impugned in these appeals.
11. No other contention is urged.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in these appeals and they
are accordingly dismissed.
13. We make no orders as to costs.