Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vivek Tripathi holding brief of Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant -petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) IT is submitted that by order dated 29.11.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 5787 (M/S) of 2004, this Court had disposed of the writ petition in terms of the Division Bench decision passed in Special Appeal No. 346 of 2004 Shashi Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 26.10.2007. The said special appeal was allowed with the following observations: We are in respectful agreement with the reasons given in the aforesaid Judgment given in special appeal as nothing could be argued, so as to dislodge the findings recorded by the aforesaid Bench. Since the controversy involved in the present special appeals is squarely covered by the judgment in the aforesaid special appeal of Gyanandra Kumar Sharma and 49 others, we, for the aforesaid reasons, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.9.2004 and direct the State to proceed further in accordance with law with respect to the present appellants. We are informed that one seat each is reserved for all the appellants, which are lying vacant, therefore, immediate action be taken for considering the case of the appellants, ignoring the condition that they have not passed their B.Ed./L.T. course, as a regular candidate. It is submitted that against the judgment dated 26.10.2007 passed in the special appeal, the State had filed S.L.P. before the Hon. Supreme Court in which the operation of the judgment passed in the aforesaid special appeal was stayed on 4.4.2008. However, subsequently by order dated 23.4.2010, the Hon. Supreme Court has directed that the petitioner shall be sent for six months training as per the procedure.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress the Court that in view of the subsequent order of the Hon. Supreme Court, the petitioner was entitled to be sent on training and the opposite party is responsible for disobedience of the Court's order.;