Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the applicants and standing counsel.
(2.) NON-compliance of order dated 3.11.2000, passed in Writ Petition No. 47043 of 2000 is alleged in this contempt application. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in Writ Petition No. 47043 of 2000, following ad interim order dated 3.11.2000 was passed : "The controversy involved in this petition is covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U. P. Allahabad and others v. Rajendra Singh and others, (2003) 3 ESC 1894. This petition is finally disposed of on the same terms and conditions as provided in Secondary Board of Basic Education Allahabad and others v. Rajendra Singh and others. This order shall be complied by respondent No. 3 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Sd. V. M. Sahai, J. 3.11.2000." It is alleged by the applicants that the aforesaid interim order dated 3.11.2000 was served on the respondent, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Gorakhpur. It is further alleged that when the applicants along with original papers appeared before the Selection Committee at Gorakhpur, their candidature were not considered and were told that since they do not hold Basic Teachers Certificate hereinafter referred to as B.T.C. qualification as per advertisement, they are not eligible for appointment on the post of assistant teacher. It is also submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari also refused to acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid order of the Court dated 28.5.1999. According to the applicants this amounts to non-consideration and cancellation of their candidature by the respondents, illegally, and on wholly non-existent grounds. An advertisement was issued by the respondent inviting applications for post of the assistant teacher in primary schools in the rural areas prescribing qualification of B.T.C. Pursuant to the advertisement, the applicants having C.P.Ed. qualification applied for the post. It is alleged that the qualification of C.P.Ed. is equivalent to the B.T.C. qualification required for appointment to the post of assistant teacher in primary schools in rural areas and hence they are qualified for the post.
(3.) 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) which has been amended from time to time. THEse rules are applicable to Basic Schools, Juniors Basic Schools and Nursery Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education. Part III and IV of the rules deal with the recruitment and qualification required for appointment of teachers in Basic Schools. Rule 8 lays down essential qualification is as under : "Rule 8 (2). THE essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in sub-clauses (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." The aforesaid Rule, 1981, amended from time to time is to be read with the provisions of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the provisions of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993, for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in the petition.;