R.R.K.Trivedi, J. - (1.) In this bunch of cases, the question for determination by the Court is as to whether the candidates possessing certificates of physical training could be considered for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools run by the Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) or recognised by the Board under the provisions of Basic Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) In order to properly appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to mention the facts in brief in which the special appeal and the writ petitions have arisen. The submissions have been made in Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997. The facts are accordingly mentioned from the aforesaid special appeal and the writ petitions. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997. Petitioners of this petition claimed that they passed intermediate examination conducted by U. P. High School and Intermediate Board and they also obtained certificate in physical education course from Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, District Amrawati. State of Maharashtra. For obtaining the aforesaid certificate, they completed training in academic session 1995-96, photocopies of the mark-sheets have been filed as Annexures-I and II. It is claimed that State Government by an order dated 24th August 1978 recognised the certificate issued by Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal. District Amrawati equivalent to the certificate of physical education granted by the institutions run by the State Government. It appears that District Basic Education Officer, Mau. respondent No. 5 issued an advertisement on 7.6.1997 (Annexure-IX) inviting applications for appointment as assistant teachers in the institutions run and managed by the Basic Education Board. Petitioners claimed that they in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement dated 7.6.1997 applied for appointment but their applications have not been entertained on the ground that they possessed certificate of physical training course from Amrawati. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 5, petitioners filed writ petition in this Court and claimed relief that respondent No. 5 should be directed to accept the application forms of the petitioners for being appointed as assistant teachers in Junior basic schools treating petitioners as eligible for being appointed as assistant teachers in Junior basic schools situated within District Mau. They also claimed that Government Orders dated 28.2.1996 and the letter of the Director of Education dated 28.11.1996, Annexures-VII and VIII respectively to the writ petition, may be quashed to the extent that they refused to consider the claim of petitioners for appointment on the ground that they possessed certificate of physical education course from the institution situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. It appears that during the course of hearing before the learned single Judge on behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on the judgment of learned single Judge dated 11.2.1997 in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997. Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of U, P. and others. Learned single Judge hearing the writ petition, however, expressed disagreement with the Judgment dated 11.2.1997 mentioned above and after stating his reasons for disagreement, vide order dated 10.7.1997 directed that record be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting larger Bench for reconsideration of the Judgment dated 11.2.1997 given in Writ Petition No. 4945 of 1997, Hon'ble the Chief Justice by his order dated 8.8.1997 nominated this Bench for deciding the writ petition. This is how this petition has come before us. Other writ petitions involving similar facts and circumstances have been connected with this writ petition. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997.
(3.) This writ petition has been filed by 27 petitioners. It appears that Basic Education Officer, Allahabad by advertisement dated 18.1.1997. Annexure-VI to the writ petition, invited applications from the candidates possessing B.T.C. training certificate and other training certificate recognised by the State Government as equivalent to B.T.C. for appointment as assistant teachers in primary schools in rural areas run and managed by the Basic Education Board. In pursuance of this advertisement, applications were submitted. It appears that all petitioners obtained C.P. Ed. certificate from the institutions run by the State of U. P. except petitioner No. 21 who obtained C.P. Ed. certificate from Amrawati. It is claimed that petitioners were called for interview and they appeared before selection committee. List of selected candidates was finalised and notified by the Basic Education Officer, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-VII to the writ petition. Petitioners claim that they were selected for appointment and select list (Annexure-VII) included their names also. Basic Education Officer, however, issued fresh advertisement on 17.8.1997, Annexure-VIII to the writ petition, inviting fresh applications. The petitioners have not been given appointment on the basis of the aforesaid selection. Aggrieved they filed present writ petition claiming relief for quashing the advertisement dated 17.8.1997 and selection proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto. They have also claimed quashing of the G.O. dated 11.8.1997, Annexure-X to the writ petition. It has been further claimed that direction be given to the respondents to appoint petitioners as assistant teachers in junior basic schools run by the board. (In both the aforesaid writ petitions counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.) Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998.;