Hem Singh and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Reserved on 14.05.2025 Delivered on 21.05.2025 Court No. - 6

¶1Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5045 of 2016 Petitioner :- Hem Singh And 21 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar,Shyam Krishna Gupta

¶2Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3721 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sudesh Kumar Tiwari And 8 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- ,C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav,Vikram Bahadur Singh

¶3Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3773 of 2016 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pal And 10 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1In the present bunch of writ petitions petitioners have set up a case that they have participated in BTC Training Course-2008, however, their training were conducted only in the year 2010-11 and finally they were permitted to appear in examination in the years 2011 to 2013 and certificates were issued thereafter. Due to such huge delay, petitioners were not considered for appointment and they claimed that they can still be considered.

¶2In some of the writ petitions there is challenge to a notification dated

21.08.2015 passed by Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow whereby in similar circumstances an opportunity was granted to Special BTC Trained candidates to participate in recruitment process of 15000 Assistant Teachers having qualifications in terms of relevant provisions.

¶3Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Kauntey Singh, Advocate and Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Advocate for petitioners, submitted that delay was due to State and petitioners were not on fault. They should be considered in terms of qualification as in the year 2004 though some of the petitioners have passed subsequently UP TET also. However, it is not on record, whether the petitioners have participated in recruitment process of such Special BTC Training for recruitment of 15000 Assistant Teachers.

¶4Aforesaid submissions are opposed by Sri Ashish Kumar Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, Sri Vijendra Mani, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh and Sri Vikram Bahadur, Advocates for Respondents have opposed the aforesaid submissions.

¶5I have considered the above submissions and is of the opinion that the issue involve in this writ petition has already been considered by this Court in Krishna Kushwaha and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:65788 and for reference the judgment in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Heard Sri Yash Singhal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for State.

¶2In the present case, petitioners are harping on a lost battle on factual as well as on legal grounds. The petitioners have set up a case that they have applied for Special B.T.C. in the year 2004, however, initially their candidature was rejected on ground that they have passed B.Ed. from a correspondence course.

¶3The position was clarified and petitioners were allowed to participate in Special B.T.C. in 2014 and thereafter their claim for appointment of post of Assistant Teacher was rejected by an reasoned order dated 23.06.2015 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- "उ०्ቚ० बेसि क शि ्ቌा (अध्यापक) ेवा नियमावली- 1981 में निवनि त न्यूतम

ैቌኌ्ቌक एवं ्ቚशि ्ቌण अ )ता एवं मा० उ्ሴ न्यायालय की वृ द पीठ ्ቛारा टी०ई०टी० को अनिवाय) योग्यता मान्य निकये जाे के प्ቐात निबा टी०ई०टी० अ )ता के निक ी अभ्यቕኍ9 की नियुनि; परिरषदीय जूनियर बेसि क स्कूलों में ायक अध्यापक के पद पर निकया जाा म्भव  ीं ै। निव०बी०टी० ी० 2004 की चय काय)वा ी पूण) ो चुकी ै और इ के उपरान्त भी रिर; पदों को भरे ेतु मय- मय पर निवभाग ्ቛारा निव्ሺनिL ्ቚकाशि त कर अध्यापकों की भቔኌतयां की गयी ै। पुऩः वष) 2014 में ्ቚाቕኍनिमक निव्ቕालयों में ायक अध्यापकों के अव ेष रिर; पदों को भरे ेतु15000 रिरनि;यां निव्ሺानिपत की गयी ै। य्ቕनिप इ निव्ሺाप के ापे्ቌ आलाइ आवेद करे की अंቌኌतम ቌኌतशिቕኍ माL ो चुकी ै निकन्तु अभी चय ूची बाे की काय)वा ी ्ቚारम्भ  ीं ुई ै। ऐ ी ቝኌस्ቕኍቌኌत में ऐ े याचीगण जो टी०ई०टी० उ्ቈीण) ो, वे वत)मा में परिरषदीय जूनियर बेसि क स्कूलों ेतु 15000 ायक अध्यापक के पदों पर गቌኌतमा उपरो; चय ्ቚनिWया में, यनिद इच्छुक ों, आवेद कर कते ै। उके लिलए आलाइ आवेद निकये जाे ेतु अवቌኌ[ बढाे ेतु ቌኌचव, बेसि क शि ्ቌा परिरषद, उ०्ቚ० इला ाबाद ्ቛारा ा  े अुमቌኌत ्ቚाL की जायेगी और ए०आई० ी० े म्पक) कर ऐ े याचीगणों के लिलए आलाइ आवेद की ुनिव[ा उपलब्[ करायी जायेगी। ततWम में याचीगण ्ቛारा आवेद निकये जाे पर अन्य अभ्यቕኌቕኍयों की भांቌኌत नियमाु ार उके चय पर निवचार निकया जायेगा। एतद्ቛारा याቌኌचका ं०-10018/2015 राजीव वमा) व 102 अन्य में मा० उ्ሴ न्यायालय ्ቛारा पारिरत आदे निदांक 19.02.2015 के मादर में याचीगण का्ቚ त्यावेद उपरो;ाु ार निस्तारिरत निकया जाता ै।"

¶4The aforesaid order is impugned in the present case. The petitioners have also challenged a recruitment process, initiated by a circular dated

11.12.2014 to fill up the remaining post on 15000, which also included an eligibility of T.E.T. Certificate.

¶5Learned counsel for petitioners has tried to convince the Court that petitioners were before this Court since 2004 and ultimately after 10 years he was allowed to pass Special B.T.C., therefore, his eligibility as required in the year 2004 be considered to be sufficient and he may be considered against still vacant posts in said recruitment process

¶6However, a judgment placed by counsel for respondent, recently passed in case of Ankita Thakur & Ors. Vs. The H.P. Staff Selection Commission and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472, the submission that petitioners still have a right even after 20 years, has no legal basis. For reference, paragraph No.39 of it is mentioned hereinafter :- "58. It is well settled that an employer cannot be forced to fill all the existing vacancies under the old Rules. The employer may, in a given situation, withdraw an advertisement and issue a fresh advertisement in conformity with the new or amended Rules [See : State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav (supra)]. Even a candidate included in the merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if the vacancy exists (See : Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India,

(1991) 3 SCC 47). Issue No. (vii) is decided accordingly."

¶7The other argument that there are remaining vacancies, is also factually incorrect since in impugned order itself, it was specifically mentioned that for remaining vacancies of Special B.T.C. 2004 a fresh recruitment process was initiated by impugned advertisement for 15000 vacancies, however, since TET was also included as one of eligibility, therefore, despite petitioners were granted liberty to apply in said recruitment process, however, probably on ground that petitioners have not passed TET, they have not applied and challenge the same in writ petition. There is no substantial reason to challenge it and as referred above petitioners have already lost legal battle, therefore, no case is made out to grant relief as sought and accordingly, writ petition is dismissed."

¶6Aforesaid reasons are squarely applicable in the present cases also, however, against the petitioners. Petitioners have lost opportunity which was granted when State come up with a recruitment process to fill up 15000 vacancies from such Training Special BTC candidates, therefore, after such a long time claim of petitioners cannot be considered.

¶7Otherwise also, it appears that petitioners must have crossed maximum age of appointment. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 21.05.2025 AK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad