Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the applicants and standing counsel.
(2.) NON-compliance of order dated 28.2.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 9603 of 2003 is alleged in this contempt application. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in Writ Petition No. 9603 of 2003, following ad-interim order dated 28.2.2003 was passed : "Connect with Writ Petition Nos. 3684 of 2002, 4231 of 2002 and 42149 of 2002. All the respondents are represented through learned counsel and are granted a months time to file counter-affidavit. The petitioners shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. List immediately thereafter along with the connected writ petitions. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is similar to the one in the aforesaid writ petitions, in which interim orders have been passed. In such view of the matter, it is directed that in case sufficient number of B.T.C. trained candidates are not available for appointment as Assistant Teacher in basic schools for which advertisements have been issued, the petitioners, who have applied in pursuance of the advertisement and possess B.Ed. B.P.Ed and I.T. certificate shall be considered for appointment against such vacancies, if otherwise found suitable and eligible. The appointment if any made shall be subject to further orders of the Court in this writ petition. Sd. Vineet Saran. 28.2.2003." It is alleged by the applicants that the aforesaid interim order dated 28.2.2003 was served on the respondent, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, district Basti. It is further alleged that when the applicants along with original papers appeared before the Selection Committee at Basti, their candidature have not been considered and they were told that since they does not hold Basic Teachers Certificate (B.T.C.) qualification as per advertisement, they are not been eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. According to the applicants this amount to non-consideration and cancellation of their candidature by the respondents, illegally, arbitrarily and on wholly non-existence grounds. It is also submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari also refused to acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid order of the Court dated 28.2.2003. An advertisement was issued by the respondent inviting applications for appointment of the assistant teacher in primary schools in the rural areas prescribing qualification of B.T.C. Pursuant to the advertisement, the applicants having B.A., B.Ed. qualification applied for the post.
(3.) THE applicants had qualification other than Basic Teachers Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the B.T.C.) required for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools in rural areas. The State Government has framed "The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981, in exercise of power under Section 19 (1) of the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1972). These rules are applicable to Basic Schools, Juniors Basic Schools and Nursery Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education. Parts III and IV of the rules deal with the recruitment and qualification required for appointment of teachers in basic schools. Rule 8 laying down essential qualification is as under : "Rule 8 (2) The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in sub-sections (iii) and (iv) of Clause (h) of Rule 5 for the teaching Science, Mathematics, Craft or any language other than Hindi and Urdu shall be as follows : (i) A bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto with Science, Mathematics, Craft or particular language as the case may be as one of the subject ; and (ii) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto." ;