SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) ALL these intra-Court appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 24.4.2006 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing writ petitions of all these appellants. Since the questions of fact and law involved in all these appeals are similar, as requested and agreed by the learned Counsels for the parties, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) ADMISSION to Basic Teaching Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'BTC') Course 2001 has given rise to this mass litigation. Experience of the Court in the last few years has shown that any selection or examination leading to employment has not been allowed to be finalized without being involved in a chain of litigation for one or the other reason. No doubt, often the authorities conducting examination, have been found responsible for such a situation, but it is really unfortunate that a large number of cases are coming to this Court everyday involving such matters consuming a good amount of time of this Court in dealing with such matters though the situation could have bee avoided by the authorities, if they act with more caution, uprightness, honesty and straight forwardness in conducting such examinations. We are constrained to make these observations since the present one is a glaring example case showing how lack of fairness and honesty by those, responsible for conduct of a fair selection has resulted in spoiling an entrance examination wherein lacs of candidates have participated, and, particularly when about five thousands candidates, after being declared successful have already undergone training for almost two years and now facing dilemma about the validity and correctness of their training and also likely to lost a golden period of their life by undergoing such unfruitful training. The facts in brief are that the State Government notified BTC Training Entrance Examination, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'entrance examination') vide Government Order dated 26th November, 2001 authorizing State Council for Education, Research and Training, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'SCERT') to conduct the said entrance examination. The candidates who succeed in the said entrance examination were to admit for two years' BTC training course to be imparted at District Institute of Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as 'DIET'). The said qualification is recognized for appoint-ment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools hence the candidates after completion of training would have been entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools maintained by Board of Basic Education. SCERT, accordingly, published advertisement on 1.12.2001. The last date for submission of examination form was 15-12.2001. Written examination was held on 28.4.2002. Since there was some delay in declaring result of the said examination, it appears that some candidates, namely, Ajeet Kumar Singh and others approached the Court and this Court directed the State Government to take a final decision in the matter. Consequently, a letter was issued by the State Government on 12.4.2003 directing the authorities to finalize selection at the earliest. On 3.7.2003, the result of entrance examination was declared wherein all the appellants were declared successful. The principals of various DIETs were directed to admit successful candidates subject to verification of their testimonials from original record. The candidates including the appellants got admission in DIETs and were imparted ETC training. Written examination at the end of first year of training course was held in May, 2004 and the result was declared on 17.8.2004. All the appellants were successful therein and thereafter, were imparted training for the second year course of BTC training. After completion of second year training, written examination as well as practical examination have been held in January, 2005, but, thereafter, the result of second year examination was not declared. In the meantime, it appears that some complaints were made regarding large number of irregularities and illegalities in the entrance examination. It appear that the State Government got the matter investigated by Vigilance Department, which submitted its report on 23.7.2005. Pursuant to the Vigilance report, wherein large scale of manipulation and irregularities by the officers responsible for conducting the said entrance examination was observed, the State Government suspended the then Director, SCERT vide order dated 29.9.2005 and lodged a first information report on the same date. Further, acting on the said report of Vigilance Department, the State Government issued an order dated 20.10.2005 cancelling entrance examination but directing that the candidates who have already undergone BTC training course, would not be required to undergo a fresh training course if they succeed in the fresh entrance examination to be conducted in 2005. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2005, whereby the entrance examination itself was cancelled resulting in automatic revocation of entire training course undergone by the appellants unless they appear and succeed in the fresh entrance test to be conducted by the State Government, the appellants preferred a number of writ petitions before this Court, which have been dismissed by Hon'ble Single Judge after hearing the parties vide judgment impugned in these appeals.
(3.) SR . V. K. S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P. N. Tripathi appearing in Special Appeals Nos. 1367 of 2006 and 947 of 2006 assailed the impugned judgment and the State Government's order dated 20.10.2005 contending that since the pre-examination irregularities stood condoned by the State Government's policy decision dated 2.6.2003 accepting where to the SCERT declared result of the entrance examination on 3.7.2003, therefore, the respondents are estopped from taking a contrary decision subsequently and that too after almost two years when the appellants have already undergone and virtually completed the entire training of BTC course. The impugned order is vitiated being against the principle of estoppel. The report of Vigilance could not have been acted upon since it was not an enquiry in respect to the alleged irregularities of entrance examination and even otherwise the matter was beyond the purview of the Vigilance Establishment Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Act'). Since the impugned order has been passed by the State Government solely relying upon the Vigilance Department report though it is outside the purview of the 1961 Act, the order is wholly without jurisdiction.;