Rajeshwar Singh vs State of U.P. and others

Shri Narayan Shukla, J.

In the State of U.P. for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools, it is necessary for the candidates to possess the certificate of B.T.C. or B. Ed. or equivalent one.

Appointments and selections are made in pursuance to Basic Education Act and rules framed thereunder. The State Government while regulating the selection and appointment of Assistant Teacher provided that only those candidates shall be eligible who have obtained their certificate of B. Ed. or B.T.C. from an institution situated within the State of U.P.

Feeling aggrieved by the condition imposed by the State Government, writ petitioner approaches under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

During the course of hearing, attention of Court was invited to two Division Bench judgments of this Court, namely, Upendra Rai vs. State of U.P., reported in 2000(2) UPLBEC 1340 and Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and others versus State of U.P. and others, reported in (2003)3 UPLBEC 2211.

In the case of Upendra Rai, a Division Bench of this Court held that the candidates, who had obtained the B.T.C. Training Certificate from outside the State of U.P., shall also be entitled for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the primary schools situated in the State of U.P. Condition imposed by State Government washeld to be violative of N.C.T.E. Act.

In the case of Vijai Kumar Kushwaha (supra), a Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the Government Order dated 9.1.1998 ruled that being a policy matter, it is not open for this Court to interfere with the regulatory process provided by the State Government for appointment of Assistant Teachers in primary schools as well as Special B.T.C. Training.

The Division Bench upheld the right of the State Government to impose embargo with regard to B.T.C. or B.Ed. certificate from an institution situated in the State of U.P. When these two conflicting judgments of Division Bench of this Court (supra) were placed before the Single Judge, the controversy was referred to Full Bench by order dated 16.7.2004. The operative portion of term of reference is reproduced below :

"In Upendra Rai''s case, reported in 2000(2) UPLBEC 1340, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the restrictions imposed by the State Government are not valid and B.T.C. certificate for appointment on the post of Assistant teacher issued by an institute situated outside the State of U.P. but recognized by the N.C.E.R.T. is valid. The other Division Bench''s judgment of this Court reported in (2003)3 UPLBEC 2211 in Vijai Kumar Kushwaha''s case, upheld the government rights as well as Government Order which provides that the State has got right not to admit a candidate for appointment as Assistant Teacher in case the training certificate is provided by an institute situated outside the State of U.P. The proposition of law as per Vijai Kumar Kushwaha''s case have been reiterated in Lalit Kumar Dixit''s case reported in (2004)1 UPLBEC 754 which division bench out of two lay down the correct law."

Duving the course of hearing, the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (2008)3 SCC 432 Basic Education Board, U.P. versus Upendra Rai and others, has been cited, in which the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of Upendra Rai (supra) passed by a Division Bench of this Court and upheld the finding of other Division Bench judgment in the case of Vijai Kumar Kushwaha (supra).

In view of above, the term of reference referred to this Full Bench seems to be settled by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment referred hereinabove.

Keeping in view the fact that the Supreme Court has settled the law with regard to terms of reference, no further adjudication of controversy is required by this Full Bench.

The refernce is answered accordingly.

Let the paper book be sent back to the Bench concerned to decide the writ petition in accordance with law.