AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Vikram Nath, J.—Heard Sri Shailendra, Learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.S. Kushwaha, Advocate appearing for the opposite party. The applicants claimed to possess Diploma in Teaching from Aligarh Muslim University and further claimed that it is equivalent to BTC (Urdu). This equivalence was claimed under a Government Order dated 26.9.1994. Lateron the Government withdrew certain equivalence with regard to BTC and accordingly denied the applicants of their equivalence with the BTC (Urdu) vide Government Order dated 11.8.1997. The said Government Order dated 11.8.1997, was subject matter of challenge. Further in 2001 an advertisement was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, district Bulandshahr inviting applications from such candidates who had obtained BTC from Bulandshahr district. Against the said advertisement the applicants were not allowed to apply on the ground that they did not possess BTC from Bulandshahr district. Aggrieved, Writ Petition No. 32760 of 2001 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 17.11.2006, in the following terms-
This writ petition is on behalf of 22 persons. The petitioners claim that they are holder of Diploma in Teaching from Aligarh University. Reliance has been placed upon a Government Order dated 26th of December, 1994 filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition wherein the State Government has treated the Diploma in Teaching of Aligarh Muslim University equivalent to B.T.C. (Urdu). Shri Shailendra, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since fresh advertisement has been issued by the State Government inviting applicants from persons holding B.T.C. (Urdu), therefore, the claim of the petitioner may be considered against the said advertisement. He also informed the court that the petitioners have applied for their appointments under the aforesaid advertisement. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner''s application shall not be rejected only on the ground that they have obtained Diploma In Teaching from the Aligarh University for the post of B.T.C.(Urdu). The authority shall consider the claim of the petitioners accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pursuant to the said order the District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahr passed an order dated 25.1.2007, rejecting the claim of the applicants on the ground that they were not eligible as they had not obtained BTC Training from Bulandshahr district and further that the applicants possessing Diploma In Teaching from Aligarh Muslim University were not eligible to apply and as such they could not be appointed on the posts of Assistant Teachers.
According to the Learned Counsel for the applicants the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahr, on 25.1.2007, was in gross violation and in teeth of the order of the Writ Court dated 17.11.2006.
Notices were issued, affidavits have been exchanged.
From a reading of the order of the writ Court it appears that the writ Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider the claim of the applicants against the advertisement issued subsequently in the year 2006 with a further direction that their applications would not be rejected only on the ground that the applicants had obtained Diploma In Teaching from Aligarh Muslim University.
In the counter affidavit the stand taken is that the advertisement issued in the year 2001 was with regard to the appointment of Assistant Teachers against vacant posts in the district Bulandshahr to be filled up from such candidates who had obtained BTC Training from Bulandshahr district. Since the advertisement clearly provided that only such candidates who had obtained their BTC Training from district Bulandshahr would be eligible, the applicants had been rightly denied consideration. Further case is that by the advertisement issued in the year 2006 applications were invited for undergoing two years Special BTC (Urdu) Training. The applicants who are allegedly claiming equivalence with the BTC (Urdu) Training on the strength of their Diploma in Teaching from Aligarh Muslim University, it was not necessary for them to apply against the said advertisement. Before the writ Court the advertisement of 2006 was indicated to be a fresh advertisement superceding the 2001 advertisement but it was not so as the 2001 advertisement was for appointment of assistant teachers and the 2006 advertisement was for two years Special BTC (Urdu) Training. In either case the applicants could not have applied against both the advertisements.
Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that may be the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 25.1.2007 was not happily worded or the reasons given may have been not so sound but substantially the decision taken was correct decision and if the applicants were aggrieved, they could have assailed the correctness of the said order in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum but a contempt application would not be the proper remedy. He has further submitted that the District Basic Education Officer in his wisdom has passed the order for the reasons stated in the order without any malice or disrespect or disregard to the order of the writ Court and as such no willful or otherwise disobedience can be alleged.
The facts as recorded above are not disputed specially with regard to the two advertisements being for separate purpose.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to hold that there has been any willful disobedience on the part of the opposite party in passing the order dated 25.1.2007.
The notices are discharged and the application is consigned to record. Any observations or finding recorded in this order will not come in the way of the applicants'' consideration for the posts for which they are otherwise eligible under law.