- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. S. Kushwaha learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) ALL these writ petitions raise common issues of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common judgment by consent of parties. Writ Petition No. 54049 of 2007 in which pleadings are complete is being treated as leading case and for deciding all these writ petitions, it is sufficient to refer to the pleadings of Writ Petition No. 54040 of 2007. The principal prayer made in all these writ petitions is to quash the Government order dated 10th July, 2007 (paragraph 3 (1) of the Government order) in so far as it provides for district-wise selection and preparation of district-wise merit list. A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to prepare State-wise merit list. The further prayer made in the writ petition is for commanding the respondents to adopt the criteria of selection by adding the percentage of marks of B. Ed. , practical and theory instead of taking the percentage by adding marks obtained in theory and practical of the training qualification. Brief facts of the case, necessary to be noted for deciding the issues raised in the writ petitions are; a large number of post of teachers in the primary institutions are laying vacant in the State of U. P. Due to non-availability of teachers having basic training certificate, the State of U. P. decided to impart a Special Basic Training to those candidates who have passed B. Ed. , so as to make them eligible for selection and appointment as Assistant Teachers in the primary institutions. After obtaining approval for running the Special Basic Training Course-2007 from the N. C. T. E. under the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993, a Government order dated 10th July, 2007 was issued by the State Government for imparting Special Basic Training to 60, 000 candidates possessing B. Ed. , qualification of six months training. The paragraph 3 of the Government order dated 10th July, 2007 lays down conditions and directions under which the Special Basic Training is to be imparted. Paragraph 3 (1) of the Government order provides that selection for imparting Special Basic Training Course-2007 shall be made on the basis of district- wise merit. The Government order further provides that it is necessary for the candidates to be original resident of the district from where they are making applications. Paragraph 11 of the Government order also provided that merit index shall be prepared on the basis of percentage of marks received in High School, Intermediate, Graduation and B. Ed, and for B. Ed, examination percentage of total marks received by the candidates shall be taken into consideration. Another Government order dated 13th July, 2007 was issued by which it was decided to give opportunity to all the candidates to apply from desired districts and no restriction be placed on the basis of place of birth or residence of the candidates. The Director, State Council of Education, Research and Training issued a letter dated 15th June, 2007 issuing instructions to all District Magistrates, which also contained instructions for computation of merit index of the candidates for selection for training. By an order of this Court passed in Writ Petition of Arvind Kumar Singh the candidates who have passed B. P. Ed. , C. P. Ed, or D. P. Ed, were also permitted to apply for Special Basic Training Course-2007. The State Government also issued an Government order dated 6th August, 2007 permitting the candidates having passing B. P. Ed. , C. P. Ed, or D. P. Ed, to apply for Special Basic Training Course-2007. In pursuance of the Government order notices were published by various Principals of the D. I. E. T. s that the candidates having B. P. Ed. , C. P. Ed, or D. P. Ed, can also apply. The respondents have proceeded for preparation of the merit list for selecting the candidates for Special Basic Training Course-2007. In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 52429 of 2007 (Arun Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others) a schedule has been annexed which mentioned the publication of interim select list on 20th December, 2007 prior to which other process including verification of marks were scheduled to be completed. Several writ petitions were filed making the averments as noted above on different dates, e. g. Writ Petition No. 54049 of 2007 was filed on 13m October, 2007 and other writ petitions were filed on different dates. All having been filed prior to issue of interim merit list, by an order passed on 19fh December, 2007 in these writ petitions, this Court directed that issuance of merit list be deferred till 2nd January, 2008.
(3.) THE submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners can be grouped in two heads. THE first submission pressed in these writ petitions is challenge to preparation of district-wise merit list with the prayer that direction be issued to prepare State-wise merit list. THE Government order dated 10th July, 2007 in so far as it directed preparation of district-wise merit list has been challenged. THE submission of Counsel for the petitioners is that preparation of district-wise merit list was quashed by this Court vide its judgment in Anant Kumar Tiwari v. State of. U. P. and others, 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1527 in which writ petition the advertisement dated 14th August, 2001 pertaining to Special Basic Training Course-2001 was challenged. THE Government order dated 3rd August, 2001 on the basis of which advertisement was issued on 14th August, 2001 provided that a candidate can apply for Special Basic Training Course- 2001 from his home district only and in the event no vacancy is available in the home district he can apply to any other district of the region. By a subsequent corrigendum dated 22nd September, 2001 it was provided that the list shall be prepared State-wise and there shall be one merit list in the entire State. Again before two or three days of the declaration of result it was directed that merit list shall be prepared district-wise. Anant Kumar Tiwari and others filed writ petition challenging the advertisement, which confined the selection to a particular district. THE prayer was also made for directing the respondents to prepare a fresh State-wise merit list considering the candidature at State level. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition quashing the Government order as well as the advertisement. It was left open to the State to go for fresh process of appointment. THE said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in State of U. P. and others v. Anant Kumar and others, 2003 (3) A. W. C. 2060. Against the judgment of the Division Bench appeal was filed in the Apex Court which too was dismissed, which judgment is reported in (2005)5 S. C. C. 172, Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others v. state of U. P. and others. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the district-wise merit list having been frowned upon in the aforesaid judgment, the State cannot resort to district-wise merit list and it was obligatory for the State to have prepared the State-wise merit list, it is further contended that even if liberty is given to a candidate to apply from any district, the said procedure is inconvenient and cumbersome unnecessary burdening the candidates for making application in large number of districts. It is submitted that in certain districts persons having lower merit may be selected whereas persons having higher merit in some other district may not be selected. THE second plank of argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the methodology adopted by the respondents in computing the merit index of teaching qualification, i. e. , B. E. d. , B. P. E. d. , C. P. Ed. , D. P. Ed, or L. T. is arbitrary. THE petitioners have contended that total marks of theory and practical in the above examinations defers from University to University. Prior to 2004 the practical and theory marks of above teaching qualifications were less and after 2004 the maximum marks of theory and practical have been increased. It is further contended that maximum marks in theory and practical for B. P. Ed. , C. P. Ed:, or D. P. Ed. , are much more as compared to those candidates who have passed B. Ed. , and in adding marks obtained in practical and theory and then obtaining the percentage leads to arbitrariness and discrimination among the candidates having identical merits. Further in the writ petition it has been explained by giving illustration, which shall also be considered while considering the submissions in detail. The petitioners' submission is that instead of taking percentage of marks obtained by candidates, by adding marks obtained by a candidate in theory and practical, at best the percentage of marks obtained in practical and theory ought to have been separately added. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the methodology adopted by the respondents candidates having identical merit as disclosed in theory and practical of a teaching qualification, there is a lot of difference in merit index depending on the maximum marks of practical and theory allotted by different Universities. The submission is that by this method the true merit of the candidates is sacrificed and those candidates who have passed the examination having more maximum marks in theory and practical are in advantageous position.;