- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Present bunch of writ petition has been filed by the candidates who had been pursuing their B. T. C. Course 2001 questioning the validity of the decision taken by the State Government by means of communication dated 20-10-2005 passed by Secretary Basic Education cancelling the aforesaid examination of B. T. C. course 2001.
(2.) VIGILANCE report dated 23-7-2005 has also been questioned and further prayer has been made that petitioners' final result be declared and consequential benefit attached to the same be also extended. Brief background of the litigation is that on 26-11-2001 the State Government issued Government Order notifying the procedure required to be followed for conducting the Basic Teachers Certificate Training Entrance Examination. The said Government Order was issued pursuant to National Education Policy 1986 and as per said Government Order the Basic Teachers Certificate Training Course was to be for two years and further it was mentioned therein that for the purpose of entrance examination application would be invited by means of news item to be published in the month of December/january. Eligibility criteria was also prescribed therein providing therein that applicants should be resident of the same District from which they are moving application for getting training and further before filling up the form the candidates ought to have passed graduation or some equivalent examination and further age of the incumbent on 1st July in the year when training was to commence should not be less than 19 years and not more than 30 years. Relaxation in age was accorded to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class category candidate as well as candidates from Dependent of Freedom Fighter category and Physically Handicapped category and Ex-Army man category as well as to female category candidates for period of five years. Procedure for selection was also provided for and qua High School, Intermediate and Graduation quality point marks has been prescribed and further weightage mark was also provided for qua acquiring of N. C. C. certificate. Written examination was also to take place comprising two papers of 100 marks each. First paper was to comprise subject of General Knowledge and second paper was to comprise subject relating to educational qualification. It was categorically mentioned therein that computation of marks would be done through computer. It was also mentioned therein that selection would be based on merit and therein requirement of minimum percentage of marks has been dispensed with. Thereafter on the basis of total marks obtained by computing quality point marks in lieu of essential qualification; in lieu of weightage and in lieu of written examination then District wise list was to be prepared strictly in merit and separate list was to be prepared qua Reserved category candidates through computer and thereafter same was to be transmitted to Registrar Departmental Examination. After said list has been finalized then said list as mentioned above was to be transmitted to District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) and thereafter Principal of the institution was to verify the marks as well as certificates and thereafter to accord admission after satisfying himself. Alongwith the said list wait list was also to be prepared comprising 20% of the total seats. For conducting the Entrance Examination four members Committee was constituted. Said Examination was to be conducted by the Director, State Council for Education Research and Training, U. P. Lucknow (SCERT) through Registrar Departmental Examination U. P. at Allahabad. Pursuant to this Government Order, advertisement was issued on 1-12-2001 by the State Council for Education Research and Training, U. P. Lucknow notifying B. T. C. Entrance Examination, 2001 and inviting applications from eligible candidates for participating in the same. Pursuant to this advertisement each and every petitioner claims to have applied for consideration of their respective candidature strictly in consonance with the advertisement. Registrar, Departmental Examination, U. P. On 12-12-2001 corrigendum was issued to the advertisement whereby candidates were exempted from filing the relevant documents alongwith the application and they were required to submit application, data sheet alongwith Bank Draft of Rs. 100 per candidate. Last date for submitting the examination form was extended to 22-12-2001 and date fixed for holding the Entrance Examination was changed and next date fixed for holding the Entrance Examination of B. T. C. 2001 was 28-4-2002. On 20-12-2001 issued circular specifying therein the modalities for finalizing the said examination in question was published on 20-12-2001. Petitioners have contended that each one of the petitioner was issued Admit Card for appearing in the said written examination conducted at the State Level. Petitioners have contended that each one of the petitioner undertook the examination but result of said examination was not declared immediately. The reason for withholding of result of the examination was on account of litigation which had commenced before Hon'ble the Apex Court qua the validity of the amendment effected to U. P. Public Service Commission (Reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 whereby the scheduled caste and other backward classes were further sub categorized into several categories for purposes of reservation. In the said litigation which commenced before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted the interim order restraining the implementation of the amendments to U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994. In view of the interim order granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, State Government issued general directives placing in abeyance all selection proceedings in the entire State. Subsequently amendments which were effected to in U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 were withdrawn by State Government and effect of the same was that litigation before Hon'ble Apex Court become infructuous and consequential Government Order had been issued. In spite of the fact that Government had withdrawn aforesaid amendments in U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 and had clarified the same no action whatsoever was being taken by authorities qua offering appointment and in this background various writ petitions were filed before this Court by the candidates who had appeared in the different selection for filling up Group C posts. Said writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 4-10-2002 being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31852 of 2002 (Ajit Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. [since reported in 2003 (1) LBESR 168 (All)] ). Thereafter Government Order was issued on 12-4-2003 followed up in another Government Order dated 25-4-2003 and this particular Government Order was also addressed to Director State Council for Education Research and Training, Lucknow directing for declaration of result of the B. T. C. Entrance Examination 2001. While taking steps for finalizing the result of the entrance examination the Registrar, Departmental Examination, U. P. felt certain difficulties which were highlighted by him by means of communication dated 17-5-2003 and 23-5-2003 addressed to the State Government as well as Director, State Council for Education Research and Training, U. P. Lucknow. By means of said communication dated 17-5-2005, Registrar, Departmental Examination, U. P. Allahabad pointed out that there existed 26,946 such candidates whose bank drafts for the examinations fee was not available with the application form as also the fact that 21,219 candidates had been allotted their roll numbers provisionally but full details pertaining to them were not available, as such enquiry is essential but even then attempt is being made to get the result declared. Thereafter by means of communication dated 23-5-2003 it was pointed out that after contacting computer firm large scale discrepancies have been found, the application forms of 1,11,136 candidates were such whose quality point marks awarded have been wrongly awarded and this is inclusive of those candidates who have been provisionally permitted and whose percentage of marks are not available. The said communication further pointed out that 21,219 candidates were such whose forms and bank drafts pertaining to examination fee were not available but who had been permitted to appear provisionally. Negligence by Computer Firm while entering date was also noted insulting in incorrect punching. Discrepancy in the date complied in computer disc made available from the computer firms qua statistics supplied by Firm "c" and in view of the aforesaid factual situation directions from the State Government with regard to the declaration of the result. After the said communication has been sent, State Government issued Government Order dated 2-6-2003 directing the removal of the discrepancy highlighted in the letters of the Registrar, Departmental Examination, U. P. Allahabad and for declaration of the result of the B. T. C. Entrance Examination 2001 after comparing the physical and computer details within a period of two weeks. It was also asserted that thereafter pursuant thereto Registrar, Departmental Examination, U. P. Allahabad proceeded to finalize the result of B. T. C Entrance Examination 2001 and declared the result in July 2003. Petitioners have contended that said declaration of result was widely published. Petitioners have contended that they have been validly selected and after being validly selected, petitioners submit that they appeared before the respective Institute of district and thereafter documents which was inclusive of original certificates etc. have been deposited and thereafter petitioners submit that they have been accorded admission in B. T. C. Course 2001. Petitioners have contended that they have completed first year training and also pursued their second year training course and after completing successfully first year, petitioners have contended that they appeared in the second year examination but the result of the same has not been declared. It has also been contended that petitioners while were pursuing their course it appears that various complaints were received by the State Government with regard to holding of the Entrance Examination. State Government in its turn directed vigilance inquiry to be conducted by the U. P. Vigilance Establishment. The U. P. Vigilance Establishment completed the inquiry and submitted report on 23-7-2005. Pursuant to the said report dated 23-7-2005 First Information Report was lodged on 19-9-2005 at Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/109, IPC read with Section 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. State Government proceeded ahead to take disciplinary proceedings against the erring persons. State Government on 20-10-2005 proceeded to cancel the entire Entrance Test B. T. C. 2001 with further direction. At this juncture present bunch of writ petitions have been filed for according relief as has already been mentioned in the opening part of the judgment. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government and therein averments have been made to the effect that State Government vide Government Order dated 26-11-2001 authorized the Director, State Council for Education Research and Training, U. P. Lucknow to take B. T. C. Entrance Examination 2001 consisting of 5600 vacancies. Pursuant to said directives the Director, State Council for Education Research and Training, U. P. Lucknow invited the applications from the eligible candidates by issuing advertisement in various newspaper having wide circulation in U. P. By means of aforesaid advertisement the candidates were required to submit their application forms alongwith necessary documents as required and the last date for submitting the examination form was 15-12-2001. On 12- 12-2001 corrigendum to the advertisement dated 1-12-2001 has been published whereby the candidates were exempted for filing their relevant documents alongwith application and they were required to submit their application form, date sheet alongwith bank draft of Rs. 100 per candidate. By means of aforesaid corrigendum last date for submitting the application form was extended up to 22- 12-2001. Date of written examination was adjourned from time to time and finally written examination was conducted on 22-4-2002 and after judgment has been delivered on 4-10-2002 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31852 of 2002 (Ajit Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. [since reported in 2003 (1) LBESR 168 (All)]) circular was issued by the Department of Personal, U. P. on 12-4-2003 and thereafter result was directed to be declared with regard to the B. T. C. Entrance Examination 2001. It was also contended that complaint has been received in respect of holding of the examination as was reflected from the aforesaid two communications dated 17-5-2003 and 23-5-2003 and Government Order dated 2-6-2003 but discrepancies which had been pointed out were never removed and result was declared on 3-7-2003. After result has been declared various complaint has been received and thereafter letter was sent by the Special Secretary to Director, State Council for Education Research and Training, U. P. Lucknow on 26-7-2003 directing/asking him as to who was responsible for permitting the candidates to appear in the B. T. C. Entrance Examination 2001 who are 21219 in number whose application and bank draft has not been found placed in the record. The Director, State Council for Education Research and Training was required to submit the complete record by 29-7-2003. The Director, State Council for Education Research and Training vide communication dated 28-7-2003 has submitted the report containing 10 documents and clear cut mention was made that alongwith the application forms bank draft of Rs. 100 was mandatory and necessary to be sent and further mention was made that application forms and bank draft was required to be maintained by the Registrar, Departmental Examination. It has further been stated that apart from irregularities, and illegalities detailed in the letter dated 26-7-2003 and 28-7-2003, various other irregularities and illegalities were pointed out by various complaints and Minister of Basic Education vide letter dated 6-12-2003 issued directions for holding inquiry and pursuant thereto Secretary Basic Education vide letter dated 2-1-2004 directed the Director State Council for Education Research and Training, U. P. Lucknow to appoint Sri Ravi Pratap Verma, Joint Director of Education as Inquiry Officer to hold the inquiry into the charges of irregularities, illegalities and malpractice and manipulation committed in the B. T. C. Entrance Examination 2001 and thereafter submitting its report within 15 days. Sri R. P. Verma thereafter held detailed inquiry and submitted report to the Director, State Council for Education Research and Training on 8-4-2004 and subsequently to the Government Order on 30-4-2004. Sri R. P. Verma found various irregularities, illegalities, malpractice, manipulation cutting/over writing in answer sheets having been committed by the officers including the Director, SCERT and two Registrar Departmental Examination namely Mohd. Sayeed and C. L. Chaurasiya in collusion with five computer firms which were employed by the Registrar for preparation of result of pre and post examination and recommended for holding high level enquiry. The report was submitted to the Government on 30-4-2004. The Secretary of the department vide recommendation dated 7-7-2004 recommended for holding vigilance enquiry. The aforesaid recommendation has been finally approved by the Chief Minister of the State vide its approval dated 16- 7-2004. On 3-8-2004 the entire matter was submitted to the Vigilance establishment and the Vigilance establishment after holding the detailed open enquiry submitted its report to the Government on 23-7- 2005. The entire report has been placed before the Chief Secretary on 3-8-2005, again on the aforesaid report final approval has been granted by the Chief Minister on 17-8-2005 and thereafter the matter was placed for approval to the cabinet. Cabinet has further approved and only thereafter decision was taken by the Government on 20-10-2005 for cancellation of the entire selection of B. T. C. Entrance Examination 2001. While cancelling the entire selection Government has taken into account the 90% malpractice, manipulation, cutting/overwriting in the answer sheets and other kind of sorts/methods adopted by the authorities for admitting the candidates of their choice with the ulterior motive and with the collusion of firms employed by the Registrar for preparation of the result of pre and post examination. Firms employed adopted the entire process including the opening of the forms, separating the applications and bank drafts, putting the same in database computer and preparation of admit cards and list of the candidate and therefore, the entire result has been finally cancelled on 20-10-2005 from the report of vigilance department it is crystal clear that out of 5600 candidates 4674 candidates have been admitted on the basis of the malpractices adopted by three authorities and the five computer firms employed therein by cutting/over writing of the marks on answer sheets on account of misconduct committed by the authorities. In this background Joint Director held preliminary enquiry and thereafter the vigilance establishment conducted open enquiry to find out the person/candidates who have been rightly selected or wrongly selected but it was impossible and therefore, the Government in exercise of its power cancelled the entire B. T. C. 2001 entrance examination after seeking due approval from the Cabinet. However taking into account some other factors lenient view was taken and following benefits have been extended to the candidates : (i) The candidates who have undergone the training of two years are entitled to sit in B. T. C. entrance examination 2005 if they applied without paying entrance fee. (ii) The candidate to have further granted relaxation in the age if in the meanwhile they are said to be over aged. (iii) If the candidates appeared in BTC entrance examination 2005 are selected they are not required to go for further two years training course and also they will be given appointment directly with the approval of N. C. T. E.
(3.) THE two reports one submitted by Joint Director of Education, Sri R. P. Verma and other submitted by the vigilance department clearly indicate that the authorities who were entrusted with sacred public office in fact has misused the office in place of using it. In this background it has been asserted that there is no infirmity in the decision which has been taken and no interference be made by this Court. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been disputed and therein it has been asserted that at no point of time candidates who had accorded admission had even been informed that their admission was in any manner provisional or subject to any on going enquiry and to the contrary all the candidates were granted admission and they were pursuing their training course with no such likelihood of being thrown away from training. Grievance has also been raised qua the violation of natural justice. It has been asserted that corrigendum which was issued dispensing with requirement supplying of documents was a rightful decision taken by the authorities and said benefit was extended universally and no one was discriminated, in this background it has been suggested that decision for notifying the corrigendum in no manner affects the merit of the selection and adverse inferences drawn in the vigilance report and the counter-affidavit are wholly unwarranted. It has also been contended that no capital can be made out on account of non-availability of bank draft of various candidates and by means of the inquiry qua the said candidates rightful conclusion could have been arrived at. Qua inquiry conducted by Sri R. P. Verma it has been contended that he is much junior officer qua the Director State Council for Education Research and Training, Lucknow, thus, decision of authorizing him to conduct the inquiry was perverse and arbitrary. It has further been contended that report of Joint Director of Education dated 30-4-2004 has never recommended for cancellation of entire selections. Report of vigilance establishment dated 23-7-2005 has not been preceded by any proper enquiry and said report takes misconceived objections into account. It has also been contended that enquiry has been conducted with closed mind and does not refer to various facets of the selection peculiar to the selection in question. THE following factors have been alleged to have been ignored in the Vigilance Report : (1) THE applications were invited district wise and the preparation of the select list is also with reference to individual district. In such view of the matter the select list pertaining to individual district required individual examination and in the absence of such examination the select list or a selection could not be set aside. (2) That the vigilance establishment in submitting the report has failed to appreciate the form of the answer sheets on account of which any overwriting or cutting committed subsequently can be detected to be a subsequent interpolation. This is on account of the fact that the examination compromised of objecting type questions with multiple choice answers bearing numbers ranging from 1 to 4. THE answer sheets comprised of cage in which in each question the number of the correct answering from amongst the multiple choice had to be specified. For example either one or two or three or four, in the last column of the caging provided for purposes of answering both horizontally as also vertically the addition of the numerical mentioned against each has to be aggregated and specified. THEre also existed a further requirement of the aggregate of the horizontal and vertical lines being specified at the end of the answer sheet. In view of the aforesaid precautions any subsequent interpolations cutting/overwriting in the answer sheet is early detectable as the same would totally alter the aggregate specified at the end of the vertical or horizontal column or at the end of the answer sheet. (3) That the vigilance establishment has failed to notice that each of the selected candidates was required to produce all his original certificates for comparison with the details mentioned in the computerized select list as also for verification of such testimonials. On the basis of such original certificates the requisite verification of the entries pertaining to weightage was conducted before admitting a student at the respect District Institute of Education and Training. Further custody of all original certificate was to retain by the Principal of the college and continued to be retained during the currency of the entire course. During this period verification of the authenticity of the certificate was also obtained from the concerned institutions from which the same had been issued. On account of the procedure so adopted the various discrepancies highlighted in the vigilance establishment on account of non-obtaining of the original certificate alongwith application form, some discrepancy existing in the weightage filled up in the data sheet, the non-availability of the data sheet and/or application forms of loose any significance. It is further necessary to state that there existed a large number of such cases at each institute in which even though a candidate figured in the select list but he was denied admission either on account of any discrepancy in his original certificate, or the entries in the data sheet not co- relating with the original certificates as also any discrepancy detected with regard to the authenticity of the certificates. Two such examples are at Sarojbala Roll No. 609064 and Jyoti Dubur both of Agra having been denied admission at the state of verification. THEre also exist several such cases in which the candidature itself has been subsequently cancelled after admission on account of adverse report declining verification of the original certificate having been received. (4) That the vigilance report fails to advert to the question of actual admissions. All enquiry and report is limited to the stage of preparation of the select list. No enquiry has been conducted with regard to actual admissions. THE report takes objection against inclusion of several candidates in the select list who have in fact never been admitted. For example on page 37 of the report reference has been made to a candidate of Agra namely Sarojbala with Roll No. 609064 who has in fact never been admitted. Similarly on page 39 reference exists with regard to Devendra Kumar with Roll No. 613476 and Varun Kumar with Roll No. 620807 both candidates of Mainpuri. In fact Varun Kumar was never admitted while the admission of Devendra Kumar was cancelled by the Principal himself. Further in the report at the end there exists a list from amongst 110 candidates pointing out discrepancies with regard to them. Out of the aforesaid the candidates with Roll Nos. 267939 and 270492 (both the District Mirzapur) candidates with Roll Nos. 003654, 511224, 516331 and 516410 (all of District Gorakhpur); candidates with Roll No. 358936 (District Gonda), 404651 (District Meerut) 375732 (District Bahraich); 531640 (District Deoria); 219081 (District Baduan); 296609 (District Bhadohi); 236646 and 337194 (District Meerut); 455520 and 488888, 489219, 292455, 494510 (all District Jaunpur) and 375732 and 432516 (both District Bulandshahar) do not stand included either in the select list or the waiting list nor anyone of these candidates have been granted admission. 0 (5) THE objections with regard to candidates considered provisionally is misconceived. THE candidates issued provisional admit cards were governed by the letter of the Registrar dated 12-1-2002 (Annexure 5 to the counter-affidavit ). Such candidates were allotted Roll Nos. separately, and their answer sheets were packed separately and separately evaluated. In view of this the entire selection cannot be stood vitiated on any such ground. (6) THE answer sheets of 4768 selected candidates are available even according to the vigilance report. (page 16 of the report) (7) Some candidates against which objections are taken in the vigilance report have been admitted under Court orders. Attention is drawn to the case of Anita Verma Roll No. 290753 District Bhadohi who has been admitted in pursuance to order dated 16-4-2004 passed in writ petition No. 979 (M/s) of 2004. (8) THE decision fails to take into account the fact that each of the selected candidates has materially altered his position by wasting several years of his life in pursuing the B. T. C. Training course on account of which the respondents were stopped from taking a decision to cancel the selection. (9) THE decision fails to take into account the fact that during the period the petitioners have been pursuing the B. T. C. Training Course the State Government formulated a scheme known as Special B. T. C. Training Course and admission was granted thereto to a large number of candidates on the basis of academic qualifications without holding any written examination or interview. Such candidates were imparted instructions of studies in theory for three months and in practical for three months. No endeavour has been made for examining the candidates admitted to B. T. C. Training Course 2001 with reference to the cut of marks specified for admission in Special B. T. C. Training Course for different categories. In this background it has been contended that no exercise whatsoever has been done and error if any was there, the same could have been rectified and situation could have been remedied in stead of annulling the entire process of examination.;