HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 1152 of 2002 (SB) W.P. No. 1735 of 2001 (S/S) W.P. No. 1487 of 2003 (S/S) Surendra Singh and others. vs. State and another. Approved for reporting. _______________________ Date of decision: 31.07.2004 Initial of Judge 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 (SB) Sri Mohan Singn & others …….. Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ……… Respondents Writ Petition No. 1735 of 2001 (SS) Sri Surendra Pal & others ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ………. Respondents Writ Petition No. 1487 of 2003 (SS) Sri Virendra Singh Negi ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ………. Respondents Sri S.N. Babulkar, Sr. Advocate, Sri V.B.S. Negi, Advocate & Sri Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: July 31, 2004 2 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. By the present writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.10.1992 issued by the Basis Shiksha Adhikari District Chamoli for recruitment Basic Teachers, the petitioners submitted their applications for the said posts but the said applications were not entertained by the Basis Shiksha Adhikari on the ground that the applicants obtained B.T.C. certificates from Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur which has now been de-recognized in U.P. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have obtained certificate from Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur. He referred a letter issued by the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Allahabad dated 16.3.1986, extract of which is reproduced below: i=kad lkekU; ¼3½@20490-639@15-3¼25½@85-86 fnukad 16-3-1986 egksn;@egksn;k vkids lwpukFkZ vU; izkUrksa@ns”kksa ds mu izf”k{k.k izek.k i=ksa@fMIyksek dh lwph izsf’kr dh tk jgh gSA ftUgsa mRrj izns”k ds izf”k{k.k izek.k i=ksa@fMIyksek ds led{k ekU;rk iznku dh tk pqdh gSA ;g lwph ,sls izek.k i= fMIyksek ftUgsa blds iwoZ ekU;rk iznku dh tk pqdh gS dks fujLr ugha djrhA 3 ___________________________________________ vU; izkUrksa@ns”kksa ds izf”k{k.k izek.k i=@fMIyksek mRrj izns”k ds ,sls izf”k{k.k izek.ki=@fMIykskek ftuds led{k ekU;rk iznku dh xbZ gSA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________ 1- --------------------------------------- 2- --------------------------------------- 3- ----------------------------- 4- ---------------------------- 5- -------------------------------- 6- ---------------------------------- 7- ------------------------------ 8- ----------------------------- 9- ------------------------------------ 10- --------------------------------------- 11- -------------------------------------- 12- ----------------------------------------------- 13- ------------------------------------ 14- fcgkj dh ,p0 Vh0 lh0 ,0Vh0lh0 vFkok iqjkuh ih0Vh0lh0 ___________________________________________ As will appear from the above letter that H.T.C. certificate obtained from Bihar is equivalent to A.T.C. of Uttar Pradesh. The counsel for the petitioners has also referred the order of Allahabad High Court dated 4.2.1997, passed in Writ Petition No. 4089 of 1997 where directions were given to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chamoli to consider the case of the petitioner treating the certificate obtained by him as a recognized certificate. “In the circumstances, I dispose of the present writ petition finally directing the respondent no. 2 District Basis Shiksha Adhikari, Chamoli to consider the case of the petitioner treating the certificate obtained by him as a 4 recognized certificate and to consider his claim for appointment in accordance with the prevailing Government policy.” The counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, number of persons were appointed as Assistant Teachers and they are still continuing to work in various Primary Schools in District Chamoli and Rudraprayag. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chamoli/Rudraprayag is directed to consider the selection/ appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher in the Basic Schools and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the prevailing Government policy. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 31.7.2004 Dhyani