IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1148 of 2008 (S/S) Anita Waliya ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1250 of 2008 (S/S) Manoj Kumar and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2008 (S/S) Sidh Gopal Saini and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 73 of 2009 (S/S) Mukesh Chauhan and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 74 of 2009 (S/S) Girish Chandra and another ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 76 of 2009 (S/S) Smt. Vijay Kumar Sharma and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 77 of 2009 (S/S) Naresh Chandra Bijlwan & others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents 2 With Writ Petition No. 83 of 2009 (S/S) Sunita Rani ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 112 of 2009 (S/S) Rohtash Kumar and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 113 of 2009 (S/S) Uttam Singh Bhandari ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 679 of 2009 (S/S) Bhagat Singh ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 769 of 2009 (S/S) Puran Singh and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Shri Parikshit Saini, Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajendra Singh, Shri D.S. Patni, Ms. Geeta Parihar, Shri Sanjay Bhatt and Shri G.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder and Shri Sudhir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents. Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel for the interveners. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. This group of petitions, more or less, raise a common issue and the same is being decided together. All the petitioners have a B.Ed. degree through a correspondence course and are aggrieved basically by the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 by 3 which the candidates having a regular B.Ed. degree were called for counselling pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006. Some of the petitioners are also aggrieved by the order of the Director Education dated 30th August, 2008 by which the counselling held on 22nd and 23rd May, 2008, inviting candidates holding correspondence B.Ed. degree, was cancelled. Some of the petitioners have alleged that they have not been invited for counselling and, therefore, a mandamus should be issued to consider their applications. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that on 9th July, 2006, an advertisement was issued for holding a Special B.T.C. inviting candidates having regular B.Ed. degree. Some of the candidates having a B.Ed. degree through correspondence course, being aggrieved by this advertisement dated 9th July, 2006, filed various writ petitions before the Court in which interim orders were passed directing the respondents to consider their application. Based on the interim orders, the State Govt. issued a Government Order dated 14th November, 2006 inviting application from candidates possessing B.Ed. degree through correspondence course who could apply pursuant to the advertisement of 9th July, 2006. It was made clear in the said G.O. that their candidature would be subject to the result of the writ petition. It transpires that these writ petitions were eventually dismissed against which a special appeal was filed which was disposed of by an order dated 20th November, 2007 and the State Govt. was directed to take an independent decision and that it should not be influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition relating to the candidates holding B.Ed. degree through correspondence course. Pursuant to the direction of the Court dated 20th November, 2007, the State Govt. issued a Government Order dated 12th December, 2007 inviting applications from candidates possessing 4 B.Ed. degree through correspondence course which would be considered in the advertisement of 2006. Based on the aforesaid Government Order dated 12th December, 2007, an advertisement dated 20th May, 2008 was issued inviting candidates for counselling having B.Ed. degree through regular course and through correspondence course. Some of the petitioners before this Court holding B.Ed. degree through correspondence course appeared in the counselling which was held on 22nd and 23rd May, 2008 but before any action could be taken pursuant to the counselling held on 22nd and 23rd May, 2008, a writ petition No.402 of 2008 was filed questioning the candidature of those candidates possessing B.Ed. degree through correspondence course. An interim order dated 5th June, 2008 was passed directing that the seats not filled so far would not be filled up from candidates possessing B.Ed. degree through correspondence course. This writ petition No. 402 of 2008 was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution on 29th March, 2010. At this stage, the court notices that in another writ petition No.436 of 2008, filed by those candidates who had a B.Ed. degree through correspondence course but were not invited for the counselling, an interim order dated 7th July, 2008 was passed directing the respondents to consider their representations. This writ petition was subsequently dismissed. However, pursuant to the interim order dated 7th July, 2008, the Director Education by an order dated 30th August, 2008 cancelled the counselling held on 22nd and 23rd May, 2008 on the ground that list of candidates prepared was not in accordance with the Government Order dated 12th December, 2007 nor was it in accordance with the interim order dated 5th June, 2008 passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 402 of 2008. The aforesaid order of the Director Education dated 30th August, 2008 has been challenged by some of the candidates which is being considered in this group of petitions. 5 It further transpires that the Principal DIET, Roorkee issued an advertisement dated 17/11/2008 again inviting candidates holding regular B.Ed. degree for counselling pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006. Some of the candidates holding B.Ed. degree through correspondence degree have filed various writ petitions questioning the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 which is also being considered in this group of petitions. Heard Shri Parikshit Saini, Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajendra Singh, Shri D.S. Patni, Ms. Geeta Parihar, Shri Sanjay Bhatt, Shri G.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder and Shri Sudhir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents and Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel for the interveners. Admittedly, the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006 for the Special B.T.C. invited the candidates holding B.Ed. degree through a regular course. The candidates having B.Ed. degree through correspondence course were not eligible but on account of a hue and cry raised at their behest, an interim order was passed in their writ petitions. The State Govt. re-considered their policy decision and issued a Government Order dated 12th December, 2007 inviting candidates having a B.Ed. degree through correspondence course to be considered in the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006. This Government Order dated 12th December, 2007 is still in force. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that irrespective of various interim orders which has been passed in various writ petitions, namely, 402 of 2008 and 436 of 2008, which as on date have been dismissed for want of prosecution, the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 inviting candidates for counselling from candidates having regular B.Ed. degrees appears to be in direct violation of the Government Order dated 12th December, 2007. The learned Brief Holder admits that the 6 Government Order dated 12th December, 2007 is still in force by which the candidates having a B.Ed. degree through correspondence course are included and eligible for the special B.T.C. course and could apply in the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006. In view of the aforesaid, the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 only inviting candidates holding regular B.Ed. degree for counselling pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006 is arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of the Government Order dated 20th November, 2007. In so far as the challenge to the order dated 30th August, 2008 passed by the Director Education is concerned, this Court does not find any cogent reasons to interfere in the said order. The Director Education submitted that the list of candidates was not in accordance with the Government Order dated 12th December, 2007 and, consequently, the counselling held on 22nd and 23rd May, 2008 was not only in violation of the Government Order but also in violation of the interim order dated 05/06/2008. No cogent reasons have been given by any of the petitioners which would invite the Court to interfere in the said order. Consequently, no interference is required in the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the District Education. Some of the petitioners who were not invited for counselling have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to invite them for the said course. Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel has filed an intervention application on behalf of ten candidates holding regular B.Ed. degrees and submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 they were invited for counselling and have been selected and undergone the training. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as they are concerned, their candidature and consequent selection for the special B.T.C. course should not be disturbed. As held earlier, 7 this Court has held that the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 was arbitrary and discriminatory since candidates holding B.Ed. degree from the correspondence course were not invited and, to that extent the Government Order was in contravention to its earlier Government Order dated 29th November, 2007. Since the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 has been acted upon and candidates have been selected and sent for training, their selection would be protected as per the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006 and 12th December, 2007. Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder submitted that pursuant to the order dated 30th August, 2008 cancelling the counselling dated 22nd and 23rd May, 2008 and pursuant to the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008, various seats were filled up amongst the candidates having regular B.Ed. degrees and that approximately 60 seats are still available to be filled up from candidates having B.Ed. degree through correspondence course. In view of the aforesaid, the advertisement dated 17th November, 2008 is not being quashed and all the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to initiate the process of filling the remaining seats from candidates possessing B.Ed. degree through correspondence course in terms of the G.O. dated 12/12/2007 and advertisement dated 09/07/2006. This exercise shall be carried out within three months. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 19.05.2010 Shiv