V. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner a candidate for Special Basic Training Certificate Course (in brief (S.B.T.C.) has approached this Court by way of second writ petition for redressal of his grievance. The basic facts cannot be disputed, as they are clear from the documents filed by the petitioner before the respondents at one or the other stage. They are also mentioned in the Impugned order passed by the Director. Therefore, this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage, without calling for any counter-affidavit, but after hearing the learned standing counsel.
(2.) An advertisement was Issued on 8.3.1998 by the respondents inviting applications from eligible candidates for S.B.T.C. as large number of vacancies were existing. Last date of receipt of application was 30.3.1998. Petitioner belonged to general category. He was eligible, therefore, he applied on 16.3.1998. Along with his application, he claims to have submitted mark sheets of the examination passed by him, from High School to B.Ed, but his name did not find place fn the first list. In the first week of May, 1999, a news-item was published permitting candidates of all categories to make representations with complete details, if they, had secured more than quality point marks mentioned In the news-item but their names did not appear for any reason, for inclusion in second list. Since the petitioner had secured 55.22 quality point marks which was much more than 52.99 the quality point marks determined for general candidate, he made representation along with documents Including the mark sheets but it was not accepted as his name did not find place in the district list as is clear from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23660 of 1999, and prayed that he may be permitted during pendency of the writ petition to undergo S.B.T.C. training. Interim order was passed in the petition on 1.6.1999 permitting him provisionally to join the course. He completed his training with effect from 8.6.1999 to 30.6.1999. He was also issued a certificate on successful completion of training. By letter dated 12.7.1999, he was sent for practical training but before its completion, he was relieved from training by the Basic Education Officer. He was not permitted to appear in the examination of S.B.T.C. training as the Director had issued a general order on 11.8.1999 in furtherance of an order dated 28.7.1999 passed by this Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 27948 of 1999, Ghanshyam and others a. State of V. P. and others, vacating interim order, in not only the writ petition. but all other petitions. The petitioner's writ petition was finally disposed of along with 248 other writ petitions. The learned Judge categorised the petitions in three groups one, where the candidates had obtained their degrees from outside the State, second where the candidates had obtained degrees by correspondence course or from parallel institutions and the remainder were placed in the third category. The writ petitions of the first two category were not decided. The third category was further divided in four groups on the nature of controversy involved. The leading decision was delivered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19715 of 1999. Smt. Manju Devi v. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan Parishad, Uttar Pradesh and others, decided on 9.12.1999. The petitions were disposed of with a direction that petitioners shall make a fresh representation by 21.1.2000, which shall be decided by the Director by a speaking order. The learned Judge further framed a detailed scheme about the manner in which a representation should be made, what it should contain, who should make it and how it should be decided. The petitioner in pursuance of the directions given in the decision made a fresh representation before respondent No. 1 on 11.1.2000 along with copies of 14 documents including marks sheets from high school to B.Ed. examination and other relevant documents. This representation has been rejected by the Director by order dated 31.3.2000. A copy of the order has been filed as Annexure-4 to this petition. It has been challenged In this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard at length Sri Ashok Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. C. Verma, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.;