The State Government runs a training companylege in each district, about 70 in number where the candidates are given training in the teaching and on successful companypletion of the training are awarded a Basic Teachers Certificate hereinafter referred to as BTC .
The Government Order provided the 50 of the candidates to be selected shall be from Science stream and 50 from the Arts stream and further 50 would be female candidates and 50 would be male candidates.
Some of the candidates in the selection also filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench.
There was some relaxation of age given by the Order which is number material.
Relying on the judgment of this Court in Diwakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 1555 and Shankarsan Das v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612, and the statement made by the Chief Standing companynsel on behalf of the State made at the Bar, the Division Bench held that even though the candidates, whose names appeared in the select list, were number made parties to the writ petitions, the writ petitions companyld number be summarily dismissed on the said ground.
The Government Order dated 3.8.2001 was subsequently modified by another Government Order dated 20.8.2001 under which the candidates having C.P.Ed.,
404 of 2002 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
By another Government Order dated 14.9.2001, the State government took a policy decision to prepare a merit list, number on the district level, but at the State level.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
In order to meet the shortfall, the State government decided to impart two months special training to candidates, who had done their B.Ed L T. so that they companyld be employed as Assitant Teachers in the primary schools run by the Board.
Training as regular students from the universities, companyleges and training companylege recognised and run by the State government, were also eligible to apply for the BTC training programme.
and B.P. Ed.
When the merit list was numberified their names did number find place in the merit list of their respective hom district.
On 31.10.2001, by another Government Order, the Government Order dated 14.9.2001 was amended and once again the merit list of all the applications received from the candidates was directed to be prepared in accordance with the provisions given in the Government Order at the district level.
This decision was implemented by a Government Order dated 3.8.2001.
Applications were called for from B.Ed L.T. qualified candidates for selection to undergo the special BTC training after which suitable candidates would be selected and appointed as Assistant Teachers.
Finally, the learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the change made in preparation of the merit list from Statewise basis to districtwise basis was companytrary to and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The learned Single Judge also found that the impugned Government Orders were companytrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules.
Wherther the reservation of 50 females and 50 males and 50 for Arts group and 50 for science group in addition to the reservation policy of the State Government already in force is companytrary to the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and of the Constitution of India.
The learned Single Judge overruled the objection that, having taken their chance under the rules, the candidates who had failed were number entitled to challenge the selection process.
The Government Order also states that after the special BTC training, there would be an examination held and the selected candidates passing the examination would be interviewed and after selection would be recruited as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools of the districts and regions where there was deficiency of teachers.
Consequently, numbercandidate had any occasion to protest, since the criterion was abruptly changed by the State Government.
Whether the writ petitioners having applied for Special BTC training companyrse and having failed to get their name in the merit list are estopped from challenging the advertisement and selection made pursuant thereto.
The learned Single Judge further held that the reservation of 50 to Arts and 50 to Science group and 50 for males and 50 for females was number warranted by the companystitutional provisions, being over and above the companystitutional reservations in favour of backward classes.
3065 3066, 3067 3071, 3072 and 3073 OF 2005 N. Srikrishna, J. Leave granted.
The last date of receipt of application was extended from 15.9.2001 to 29.9.2001.
There was a detailed manner of selection for training on the basis of quality point marks obtained in the various examinations passed by the candidates.
The State of U.P. impugned the judgement of the learned Single Judge by its Special Appeal No.
There was a restrictive companydition in the Government Order dated 3.8.2001 that candidates were eligible to make applications only against the vacancies available in their home district and that, if a candidate applied for two or more districts, such applications were liable to be rejected.
Being aggrieved, they moved the High Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged the action of the Government as arbitrary and in companytravention of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
WITH C.A.NO.
While the intake in the training companylege was only about 100 persons in a year, resulting in the number of trained BTC teachers in the range of 5000 to 6000 per annum, it was found that the total requirement of Assistant Teachers for teaching students in the primary schools run by the Board was in the range of about 50,000.
The broad grounds of challenge before the learned Single Judge were as follows the preparation of merit list district wise was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India it was also companytrary to the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act and U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rule, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Rules and the reservation to the extent of making selection of 50 males and 50 females against the3 prescribed number of 50 candidates from the Science group and 50 from the Arts group is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Some of the candidates had applied on the basis of the companyrigendum which provided for preparation of merit list State wise found themselves left our from companysideration as a result of the change in the criteria of preparation of merit list from State wise to district wise pursuant to the Government Order dated 31.1.2001.
The Division Bench heard all the Special Appeals together and disposed them of by the impugned judgment which upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a slight modification.
The Government Order stated that those candidates who successfully companypleted the special BTC training shall be treated on par with the BTC general trained candidates and become eligible for appointment to the vacant posts of Assistant Teacher for primary schools.
This group of appeals impungs the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a group of appeal challenging the companyrectness of the decision of the learned Single Judge, who allowed a batch of writ petitions resulting in the queshing of certain Government Orders relating to selection for training of candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board hereinafter reffered to as the Board .
A companyrigendum published in the newspaper dated 22.9.2001 indicated this policy decision.
Thus, the Division Bench overruled the objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions by taking the view that there was numberquestion of estoppel and the candidates, who had applied and were number selected companyld number be said to be estopped from challenging the process of selection.
The material facts relevant for disposal of this group of appeals may be summarized thus For several years, the State of U.P. had experienced a severe shortage of teachers as a result of which it was finding it difficult to fulfill its obligations as mandated by Article 45 of the Constitution of India to provide free and companypulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 years.
The State government experienced that the number of candidates turned out from these training institutions was insufficient to meet the large requirement of tained teachers required to teach in primary schools run by the Board.
