V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition the issue is as to whether petitioners who hail from physically handicapped category are entailed for age relaxation benefit or not as has been extended to persons from Dependent of Freedom Fighters category and Ex-serviceman category.
(2.) BRIEF facts, as has been mentioned in the writ petitions is that advertisement was issued on 21.1.2004 and 21.2.2004, respectively inviting applications forms eligible candidates for undergoing Special B.T.C. Course, 2004. In the said advertisement 40 years age limit was prescribed for candidates, however relaxation in respect of upper age limit was provided to SC/ST/OBC, Ex-Serviceman and D.F.F. category candidates, however most surprisingly physically handicapped category candidates have not been extended afoementioned benefit of age relaxation. Petitioners submit that by virtue of being physically handicapped category candidates, they are entitled for horizontal reservation and are fully entitled for age relaxation and non-extension of the same is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. In Special Appeal No. 461 of 2004 (Devendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22141 of 2004 (Niranjan Stngh and others v. State of U.P. and others), this Court has noted in detail, the provisions which cover the field and the object of promulgation aforementioned scheme of Special B.T.C., 2004. Facts noted therein are to the effect that there has been acute shortage of teachers in Basic school run by the Board. The Central Government and State Government have been enjoined and obligated to offer free and compulsory education to all the children upto age of 14 years in order to fulfill objectives as enshrined under Article 21-A and Article 45 of the Constitution of India and as per directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Uni Krishnan case, State Government lacks infrastructure and facilities to fill up almost 10,000 vacancies which arises every year. There are fifty six District Institutes of Education and Training run by the State Government having total capacity of providing training to 5600 persons in the two years regular course of Basic Teachers' Training in order to meet out this situation and overcome this crisis, State Government in its wisdom in the year 1998 proceeded to adopt a special condensed bridge course for basic teacher's training to B.Ed./L.T. qualified graduates. Pursuant to the same about 8000 candidates were selected, trained and were given appointments. Said vacancies rapidly increased, in this background State Government resolved that 20,000 graduates with teaching qualification like B.Ed./L.T. be provided condensed course. Subsequent to the same candidates who possessed B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. Degree Diploma and certificates were also made eligible. This scheme failed on account of the fact that course in question was not recognised under the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 and was not at all one of the recognised qualification provided under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981. Thereafter vacancies in question were recomputed and same came to 46,189. State Government applied to National Council of Teachers Education for permission to conduct the special bridge course, Said permission was accorded on 29.3.2002 giving approval to Special B.T.C. Programme of six months duration including three months' practical training, by means of letter dated 24.7.2003. After said clearance was accorded, Government Order dated 14.1.2004 was issued providing for Special B.T.C., 2004. State Government issued another Government Order dated 20.2.2004 and therein age was extended from 35 to 40 years and qualification of B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. Degree Diploma and Certificates alongwith graduation were included in the field of eligibility alongwith B.Ed, and L.T degree holders for Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Said advertisement was questioned before this Court and writ petitions were dismissed on 5.3.2004 in Writ Petition No. 5452 of 2004 (Pramod Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others). This judgment was upheld in Special Appeal No. 461 of 2004, decided on 17.5.2004.
(3.) IN Special Appeal No. 461 of 2004 (Devendra Singh v. State of U.P.), it has been categorically observed that Government was conscious of the fact that there are large number of vacancies far above the trained persons, and that all the trained graduates should be offered appointment immediately after completing their training. Thus, there is no question of arranging them year wise and giving preference to those who are trained earlier and for this reasons no written examination was provided. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22141 of 2002 (Niranjan Singh v. State of U.P.) it has been observed that Government Order dated 12.1.2004 and 20.2.2004 shows that selection is for training and not for appointment and there is no assurance given, nor there is any compulsion for appointment after completing the training. Every candidate who completes the training is to appear in a written examination to be conducted by the Registrar, Departmental Examination, making him to be eligible for appointment under the Rules of 1981. The preparation of list and procedure for direct recruitment will be applied subsequent to and amongst the candidates who are successful in the examination conducted by the Registrar, Departmental Examination. It is only after the candidate succeeds in the examination then he shall be enlisted in accordance with Rule 14 and a list shall prepared for the purpose of appointment. In this background it has been mentioned that procedure for appointment was not necessary to have been followed at the time of enlistment for the training course namely Special B.T.C. Course, 2004. Further in this judgment itself, it has been noted that large number of persons with teaching qualifications, other than Basic Teachers Course are available. Almost half of the Basic Schools in the State are being run by single teacher, termed as 'Ekal Vidalya' and there are large number of school without teachers. In such emergent situation, it was felt necessary to provide bridge course for Basic Teacher Training and to appoint those who are successful in such training and examination Assistant Teachers.;