IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1121 of 2008 Harish Chandra Joshi …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Sri Kishore Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri N.K. Papnoi, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Sri Abhishek Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate present for respondent no. 6. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Kishore Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Sri Abhishek Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Government Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner moved an application for appointment against the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade which was advertised vide advertisement dated 10.8.2006 (annexure no. 2 to the writ petition). According to the petitioner, he had obtained 82.71 quality points as per the formula given in the advertisement and further asserts that the candidate who has been given quality points upto 75 has been selected as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade whereas he has not been selected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. The reason for not selecting the petitioner is contained in the letter of the Additional Director of Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital dated 7.1.2008 2 (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has obtained B.Ed. degree from Annamalai University which is not recognised by National Council for Teacher Education (from hereinafter referred to as N.C.T.E.) and hence as per Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006 he is not being considered for selection/appointment of a trained teacher L.T. grade. In other words, the petitioner has not been selected solely on the ground that he has done his B.Ed. from Annamalai University which is not recognised by N.C.T.E. N.C.T.E. in its counter affidavit has stated that since the petitioner has done his B.Ed. from Annamalai University prior to N.C.T.E. coming into force whether the said degree was recognised will depend upon factors such as the University being recognised on the said date by the State or Centre or Union Territory, as the case might be. There is no specific reply to this effect by the State Government that Annamalai University was not recognised prior to N.C.T.E. coming into force. There was no occasion for the Annamalai University being recognised by the N.C.T.E. in the year 1994 when the petitioner took admission in B.Ed. course as N.C.T.E. was not existing at that time. Based on these reasons, the rejection of petitioner’s candidature on the ground that he is not having a B.Ed. degree from a university recognised by N.C.T.E. does not seem to be proper in fact the said order dated 7.1.2008 has been passed without any application of mind. In paragraph 10 (a) of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that Annamalai University was established in the year 1929 by an Act of the State Legislature and is empowered to award Degrees specified by the University Grants 3 Commission under Section 22 of UGC Act and, therefore, the degrees granted by the said University cannot be said to be from a non-recognised University. This assertion has not been categorically denied by any of the respondents. Based on this admitted fact, the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the Additional Director of Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. Respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade for the selection made in the year 2006-07. It is, however, made clear that the writ petition is only being allowed on the ground that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the ground that he was not having a valid B.Ed. degree is a ground which is misplaced. In case there are other grounds for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, the same has neither been placed on record nor has been pleaded, the respondents must act in accordance with law, while deciding the candidature of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.3.2011 Avneet