- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2808 of 2003 Adesh Kumar Dwivedi V. Board of Basic Education and others. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that he is entitled to be considered by respondent No. 2 i.e. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah against the existing advertised vacancies in Junior High Schools run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P., Allahabad as he possesses B.A. Degree with training for which he has been awarded, 'BUNIYADI PRASHIKSHAN PRAMANPATRA PARIKSHA (DWITIYA PATHYAKRAM)' in the year 1995 from MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA MANDAL, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL. It is stated that as the aforesaid training qualification of the year 1995 is equivalent to BTC training qualification in the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, he cannot be denied consideration in view of the government order dated 11.8.1997, but his lordship sitting singly in the writ petition overlooked to consider this fact in the impugned order for granting reliefs sought therein to the petitioner. The appellant has vehemently argued that his claim is covered by the decision of a division bench of this Court in the case of Upendra Rai and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1340, as well as the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Suresh Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 2027. He has lastly argued that the appellant has the requisite qualification as provided under Rule 8 (i) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) service Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as Service Rules, 1981, as such, he is legally entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Teachers against any one of the advertised existing vacancies in Junior Basic School run by the Board of Basic Education in District- Etawah. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment in Upendra Rai (supra) has been overruled subsequently by the Apex Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai and others, 2008(1) BSC 160 (SC) wherein the Court has held that persons holding diploma in education (D.Ed.) awarded after two years' course from DIET and claiming fulfilment of second qualifications of training were not eligible for appointment under Rule 8 of the Service Rules, 1981 as this qualification was not equivalent and recognized in the State of U.P. in view of the government circular dated 11.8.1997 by which the recognition to Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) from Bhopal was rescinded with immediate effect. Moreover, grant of equivalence or its revocation is also a policy matter and administrative decision. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere in policy of State. Furthermore, from the impugned judgment it appears that the Court has also considered the case of Upendra Rai (supra) which refers to Section 17 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 pursuant to which all those training qualifications recognized by National Council of Teachers' Education have been given equivalence all over the country, but in the present case the petitioner has passed BTC by correspondence from Bhopal prior to the enforcement of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 not as a regular student, which is no not recognised as equivalent to B.T.C. Course in U.P. The Court further considered the case of Lal Kumar v. State of U.P., 2000 1 UPLBEC 7952 wherein the Court after considering Rule 8 (1) of 1981 Service Rules dismissed the writ petition and also distinguished the case of Upendra Rai v. State of U.P. It appears from the judgment that in the State of Uttar Pradesh B.T.C. by correspondence course, Bhopal is not recognized as equivalent to regular B.T.C. Course in the State of U.P. This training is only for untrained teachers of special categories namely those candidates who have been appointed on compassionate grounds or appointed as Urdu teachers. Therefore, the appellant has rightly been held not to have the essential qualification for appointment.
(3.) IT may be noted that the advertisement was published on 30.4.2002 by the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teachers having qualification of B.T.C. and Special B.T.C. The advertisement dated 30.4.2002 as published in 'Dainik Jagran' reads thus- JUDGEMENT_786_ADJ1_2012Image1.jpg It is settled principles of law that respective employer has a right to invite applications from candidates having particular qualification. The appellant was not having the specified qualification for the post as required in the advertisement. Not only he has undergone training through correspondence course which may not be equated with regular practical training, but the advertisement requires a candidate who has undergone training course from colleges managed by State of U.P., Hindustani Adhyapak Praman Patra and Junior Adhyapak Praman Patra. The State Government has not only restricted application except from these training courses but has dercognized a number of courses from other States by Govt. Order No. 2657/15.5.97- 127-97 T.C., dated 11th August, 1997 which is appended as Annex-ure 9 to the writ petition. The claim of the appellant is based only on equivalence of the training qualification recognized earlier in the State of U.P.. Moreover, the appointment was to be made in the year 2002. However, now as more than 9 years have passed and the posts advertised must have also been filled from the candidates having requisite qualification as there is nothing to the contrary brought on record by the petitioner. It cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of this case that having of Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra Pariksha (Buniyadi Pathyakram), 1995 issued by Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal having been derecognized in 1997 by the State of U.P., is therefore, equivalent to the qualification of B.T.C. from Govt. Institutions. ;