Narendra Singh And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

It is the case of the petitioners that for two years D.El.Ed. Training Programme for the year 2021-22, the petitioners applied; their names were not recommended for admission in the Select List. It is the case of the petitioners that all the seats for D.El.Ed. Training Programme were to be filled up by the respondent no.2/the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). The respondent no.2 after two counselings on 16th and 18th of January, 2024 invited candidates for counselling from Waiting List of 190 candidates and, thereafter, 91 candidates were selected, but they did not issue further Wait List and left many seats vacant. It is the case of the petitioners that seats cannot be kept vacant. Instant petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to conduct counselling while issuing the Wait List for filling up the unfilled seats of D.El.Ed. Training Programme.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all the seats for D.El.Ed. Training Programmes are required to be filled up as per Government Order, but the respondents for the year 2021 did not fill up all the seats after initial counselling on 16th and 18th January, 2024; one Wait List of 190 candidates were issued, but still many seats are vacant. They are not filled-up. Second Wait List was not published.

Learned State counsel would submit that after two counselling the course began from 30.01.2024. He would submit that one Wait List was issued and after counselling admissions were taken. He would submit that some of the students have left the course in the midway; therefore, there are other vacancies also. He would submit that now, three Semesters have already undergone and, if any admission is to be given or any Wait List is to be issued, it may be effected from the Fourth Semester, whereas in each Semester 110 days attendance is necessary, whereby a Trainee has to undertake 440 working days. He would submit that in last Semester, it is not possible for a candidate to undergo 440 days Training. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition has no substance.

While arguing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be given the liberty to make a representation to the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioners, so that if, in the next Batch of D.El.Ed. Training Programmes, any seat is left vacant, the case of the petitioners may be considered.

Learned State counsel would submit that if such a representation is given by the petitioners, that may be decided within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondent no.2 within a period of one week with further directions to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation within a period of four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law.