COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 497/2008 (Old No. 44609 of 2000) Km. Meena Kumari & Others …….Petitioners Versus State of U.P. through the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. & Others …….Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 12th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. A large number of teachers were required to be recruited at basic and primary levels. These teachers required special kind of training known as Basic Teaching Certificate (B.T.C.). Looking to the paucity of B.T.C. trained teachers, the State Government came out with a scheme to impart Special B.T.C. training course to such teachers who were having B.Ed./L.T./CP Ed./DP Ed. Degrees. Accordingly, an advertisement dated 8.3.1998 was issued, whereby all the candidates who had B.Ed./L.T./CP Ed./DP Ed. Degrees were asked to submit their applications for Special B.T.C. training course at DIET institutions. 2. Petitioners have obtained their B.Ed. degrees from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. Pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement dated 8.3.1998, 2 petitioners applied for being admitted in B.T.C. course. Petitioners’ name figured in the merit list but they were denied the admission in the said course on the ground that the petitioners had obtained their B.Ed. Certificates under vocational course and, therefore, their B.Ed. Certificates were contrary to the terms and conditions as mentioned in the advertisement. Queries were made from the Registrar of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in this regard, who vide his letter dated 19.5.1999 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) replied that Regular Vocational Course is identical to regular course run by the University. But the petitioners were not sent for training. Thereafter petitioners preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23816 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court. The Hon’ble Court issued an interim order dated 7.6.1999 commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to join the course and their joining was made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Thereafter petitioners were admitted at DIET, Roorkee, District Haridwar and completed their B.T.C. training. But when the final examination had to take place, petitioners were not permitted to appear in the said examination. Petitioners’ representations in this regard were also rejected by the authorities. Hence, petitioners preferred this writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which has been transferred to this High Court. 3. On 17.10.2000, an interim order was passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of Allahabad High Court directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination of the B.T.C. course. The relevant extract of the interim order dated 17.10.2000 is reproduced as under: 3 “Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the representation of the petitioners have been rejected by the Director on erroneous grounds that the petitioners were not regular students in the B.Ed. course. He has further drawn my attention to the marksheets issued in favour of the petitioners by the University, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, and submitted that both the petitioners were regular students of B.Ed. course at K.L.D.A.V. College, Roorkee, District Haridwar. It has also been stated that the petitioners have already completed their classes and training of B.T.C. course but the respondents are not permitting them to appear in the examination on a nonest show. Considering the submissions and looking to the facts of the case, in the meanwhile, it is provided that if the examination of the B.T.C. Course is held, the petitioners shall also be permitted to appear in the same provided they have attended the required number of classes and completed the training. However, their results shall be subject to the final result of this petition.” 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, petitioners appeared in the final examination of B.T.C. course. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that 4 petitioners have successfully passed the said examination, but their certificates are not being issued. 5. In view of the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioners have successfully completed the Special B.T.C. course, respondents are directed to issue the certificates of the said course to the petitioners. Thereafter they shall be considered for appointment in accordance with law, if they have not been given appointment so far. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 12.8.2008 Prabodh