- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioners admittedly were not trained upto 1981 and claimed that they were sent for inservice training in 1983 though such training was meant for only those teachers who were validly appointed at the time when statutory rules providing minimum qualification including training were not existed.
(3.) This aspect has been considered in the light of relevant Government order by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was a member) in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2007, State of U.P and others Vs. Shailesh Kumar Dwivedi and others, decided on 17.12.2008. This Court held as under: "In view thereof, this appeal is disposed of directing the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners-respondents in the light of two conditions provided in the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge, impugned in this appeal, as well as in the light of the conditions provided by the Division Bench in its judgment in the case of Kali Charan Singh Arya. Further, if the petitioners have been appointed after the enforcement of 1975 Rules of 1970 Rules in Junior Primary School or Junior High School, as the case may be, in violation of the provisions thereof and without possessing training qualification, such petitioners cannot be allowed to undergo training pursuant to the Government Order dated 6.9.1994. Thus, only those petitioners-respondents, who fulfill all the aforesaid requirement and directions, shall be allowed to complete their training and their result shall also be declared.";