- (1.) HEARD Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Joshi appearing for the respondent no. 6.
(2.) A detailed order was passed by this Court on 5.9.2014. The same is quoted hereinunder: - "Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Rajeev Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent no.6, the National Council for Teachers Education. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that in pursuance of the direction issued by the appellate Court in Special Appeal No. 29 of 2013(Ashok Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), the petitioner does not have any claim. He however, relied the relevant para 20 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein below: - "20. In view of the above discussion, we do not find that the directions issued by learned Single Judge to put the selection process for Special BTC Course 2008 to close by 31.7.2012, require any interference in appeals. Learned Single Judge has in his brief order after considering the entire facts and circumstances relying upon the affidavit of the Director, SCERT, Allahabad has issued directions, which are neither arbitrary nor illegal. Every recruitment has to come to an end at some point of time. With the change in the scenario after enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the prescription of Teachers' Eligibility Test as qualification for applying for the posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary School, which has also been incorporated under the UP Basic Education Teachers Act, 1981, it is no longer possible for the Court to issue directions to the State Government to fill up all the seats of Special BTC Course 2008, and to continue to appoint the Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools on the basis of such qualifications indefinitely." Learned counsel for the petitioner produce a document before this Court, the same is undated, issued by the Principal, DIETs, Ghaziabad (Hapur), by which it reveals that the candidates those were invited have completed training of BTC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document, which he has placed before the Court would also be filed alongwith affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks time to file necessary counter affidavit in the matter, rejoinder affidavit, be filed within one weeks thereafter. List this matter after three weeks. Order Date : - 5.9.2014"
(3.) THE present petition has been filed with the following prayer: - "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade in pursuance of the advertisement published in Newspaper dated 23/01/2004 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). (b) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." In view of the aforesaid, as the scenario has changed after enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as observed by Hon'ble Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 29 of 2013 (Ashok Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), no relief can be granted to the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement published in newspaper dated? 23.1.2004 regarding issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade.;