H.L.GOKHALE, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Mansoor Ahmad for the appellant in support of appeal No. 1294 of 2007. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 14.9.2007 rendered by a learned Single Judge on a group of writ petitions. One of them is Writ Petition No. 47044 of 2006 (Smt. Reshma and others Vs. State) wherein Qamar Raza was one of the petitioners. The appeal seeks to challenge the judgement for non-consideration of appellants' prayer that the cer­tificate of Muallim-e-Urdu be considered equivalent to B.T.C. (Urdu). Mr. O.K. Arora, Additional Advocate General appears for the State, to oppose this appeal. Mr. Shashi Nandan has appeared in support of the impleadment application moved in Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2007.
(2.) WE allow the impleadment application filed by Aaisha Parveen and seven others for joining in Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2007. Mr. Shashi Nandan ap­pears for these applicants. They are students who have their graduation with Urdu as a subject. They are opposing the prayer of appellant in Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2007, which seeks to join Basic Teacher Certificate (ETC) Course (Urdu) on the basis of Muallim-e-Urdu Certificate. This appeal arises out of the common judgment rendered by Single Judge on 14th Septernber, 2007 on a group of matters concerning admission to Urdu BTC Course run by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Single Judge has dis­posed of those petitions but it was not clear whether those petitions are allowed or dismissed. He has held the BTC Urdu Course to be illegal. The petitioners who wanted admission to the Urdu BTC Course felt aggrieved by the judgment and so also the State Government. All of them filed appeals against that judgment. As far as the appeals filed by the State Government are concerned, those of them which were concerning the scheme floated by the State Government were separated, heard and decided by judgment rendered by this Court in Special Appeal No. 1330 of 2007: State of U.P. and others v. Km. Sumbul Naqvi. This Court by its judgment dated 28.11.2007 has already held that the Government Order dated 18lh March, 20Q6 and the advertisement dated 26lh March, 2006 are valid and there is no diversion of any seat from the regular BTC Course (through Hindi medium) to BTC (Urdu) course. This Court has already perused the correspon­dence between the State Government and NCTE and has held in its judgment in the above matter that wherever there are ten or more students opting for basic education through Urdu medium they have to be provided the facility and for that purpose this course is being conducted for teachers training for primary educa­tion through Urdu medium. The judgment dated 14.9.2007 has been set aside
(3.) (i) As far as appeal No. 1294 of 2007 is concerned, this is filed by one such candidate, namely, Qambar Raza. He has two prayers in his petition. One prayer is to set aside the government Order dated 18th March, 2006 and the advertise­ment dated 26th March, 2006. Inasmuch as the said Government Order and the advertisement has already been held to be valid, this prayer does not survives and stands rejected. (ii) The second prayer in the petition is for direction to the respondents authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner and similarly situated persons directly for the post of Assistant Teachers in Urdu Language in Jun­ior Basic/Senior Basic Schools against the existing vacancies. As far as this prayer is concerned, the submission of the appellant has been that the peti­tioners have qualification of Muallim-e-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. These petitioners have placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 13th Sep­tember, 1994 and Government Notification dated 16im February, 2005 which provides the equivalence to Muallim-e-Urdu to BTC Urdu. It is, therefore, sub­mitted that since the Government decision is in their favour their prayer may be allowed. Reliance has also been placed upon Rule 14(1) and 14(4) of the UP. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and it is contended that since they have a prior degree they ought to be placed higher than those who have obtained such qualification subsequently in the matter of employment. ;