- (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of In dia, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-06-2006 (Annexure-7 to the petition), passed by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the petitioner has been denied the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) even after get ting selected in the merit list.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts of the case, as nar rated in the petition are that the peti tioner possesses necessary qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in a Junior Basic School. He had ob tained certificate of passing Adeeb-E-Kamil examination from Jamla, Urdu Aligarh University in the year 1994. He also holds Moallim-E-Urdu training cer tificate from said University, which is alleged to be a recognized qualification equivalent to B. T. C. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District'udham Singh Nagar and belongs to Other Back ward Castes (herein after referred as O. B. C.) category. The Government is sued order dated 27-01-2004, for fulfillment of 217 vacant posts of Assist ant Teacher (Urdu) for Primary Junior Basic Schools. The petitioner was one of the candidate, who applied for the same and appeared in the test con ducted for the purpose. A list of selected candidates was prepared under Rule 17 of U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Serv ice Rules, 1981. The petitioner's case is that he got selected and his name fig ured among the selected candidates in; general category. But the respondent re fused appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he was applicant of O. B. C. category. Alleging that the ap pointment has been refused to the peti tioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner, this petition is filed. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents for the reasons best known to them.
(3.) BEFORE further discussions, it is pertinent to quote here the impugned order, which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1 :- @ Hinde Aforesaid mentioned impugned or der itself shows that what the peti tioner is stating in the petition is true. Apart from this, Annexure-5, the result declared and published in the newspa per, also corroborates the fact that the petitioner stood at serial number 8 in order of merit in the list of the selected candidates and his name was shown in the general category. Learned Standing Counsel failed to explain if the petitioner ap plied in the O. B. C. category then why his name was shown in the general category if there was any bar for the candidate of said category to be con sidered in the general category. Oth erwise also, there cannot be a bar for a candidate of reserve category to qualify in the general category. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's marks were less than any of the candidates, who figured in the list of the selected candidates of other backward castes. That being so either the petitioner should have been treated on top of the list of the O. B. C. candidates or must have been given the appointment as a general candidate.;