D.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Pleadings have been exchanged and they agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. This petition is directed against an order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being sent for B.T.C. Training.
(2.) THE petitioners alleged to have been appointed in Shivaji Social Welfare Children School, Nishaniya, Paikawali, in District Deoria which was granted recognition on 31 3.1995. Admittedly, they were untrained teachers but claiming that they were working prior to the recognition of the institution, they claimed the benefit of a Government order dated 6.9.1994 by which facility to untrained teachers of B.T.C. Training was extended, with certain conditions. It is claimed that on the basis of the aforesaid Government order the Basic Shiksha Adhikari forwarded the name of the petitioners to the District Institution of Education and Training but they were not allowed to complete their training in view of the Government order dated 18.3.1996. It is further pleaded that though similarly placed several persons approached this Court and were granted the relief of training, they could not file the writ petition earlier and having come to know about an order dated 4.3.2003 passed in Special Appeal No. 731 of 2002 in the case of Kali Charan Singh and Anr. v. The Registrar, Departmental Examination Allahabad, they filed a Writ Petition No. 47919 of 2005 which was finally disposed off vide order dated 11.7.2005 directing the respondents to consider their claim keeping in mind the decision in the aforesaid appeal of Kalicharan. In pursuance thereof, the present impugned order has been passed holding that the name was never recommended for training on the basis of the Government order dated 6.9.2004 prior to 18 3.1996. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that since their names were mentioned in the return submitted by the Management seeking recognition of the institution, they were entitled to be sent for training on the basis of the decision in Kalicharan's case. It is the own case of the petitioner that they were untrained and allegedly appointed in the institution prior to its recommendation. Under the Basic Education Act 1972 only trained incumbents are entitled to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers. The State Government finding that a large number of such untrained teachers where the institution had been subsequently recognized were continuing as untrained teachers, therefore, it issued the Government order dated 6.9.1994 for extending the benefit of allowing such teachers to undergo B.T.C. Training through correspondence course. Clause (1) of the aforesaid Government order exempted such untrained teachers from training who had completed ten years of continuous service or were to retire within two years of the promulgation of the aforesaid Government order. Clause (2) provided two periods of training of 20 days each to those Assistant Teachers who held B.Ed., or L.T. Degrees. The relevant Clause (3) which could have applied to the case of the petitioner postulates that teachers not covered by Clause 1 and 2 would be permitted to complete two years B.T.C. training through correspondence course and after clearing the examination they would be treated as trained teachers and would be entitled to the trained grade. However, by another Government order dated 18.3.1996 clause 3 of the Government order of 1994 was amended and the facility of B.T.C. Training through correspondence course was made applicable only to those untrained Assistant Teachers who were working in Primary Junior High Schools controlled and managed by the Board and whose name has been approved or recommended by the competent authority. Later the facility of B.T.C. Training through correspondence course was withdrawn by the Government order dated 27.3.1998. After enforcement of the Government order dated 18.3.1996 large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court when either their training was stopped midway or even after selection they were not sent for training they approached this Court. A learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Rekha Devi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 (1) E.S.C. 255 held that those teachers whose names were sent for training prior to 18.3.1996 would be entitled to complete their training. One Kalicharan and another who were untrained Assistant Teachers in a recognized institution approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 18602 of 2002 when they were nominated for training in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.9.1994 but were not allowed to complete their training in view of the Government order dated 18.3.1996 but the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide is order dated 10.4.2002. They preferred Special Appeal No. 731 of 2002 where the admitted case was that though the appellant therein had been nominated for training in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.9.1994 they were not allowed to complete their training on the basis of the Government order dated 18.3.1996. In these circumstances the writ petition was allowed holding that once their names had been recommended for training in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.9.1994, they ought to have been allowed the complete the training irrespective of the Government order dated 18.3.1996 and thus, remanded the matter for reconsideration.
(3.) APPLYING the aforesaid ratio, it would be evident that the benefit of the aforesaid appellate order dated 4.3.2003 was applicable to only those persons who complete the twin requirement of: 1. Their names are mentioned in the returned submitted by the management seeking recognition of the institution, and 2. Their names were also approved for training in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.9.1994. In the case at hand though the petitioner allegedly satisfies the first requirement, it is evident from the record that his name was never recommended for training in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.9.1994 till it was amended by the Government order dated 18.3.1996. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted.;