- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. In all these writ petitions the questions of fact and law are common and therefore, as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties all these matters are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 10th July, 2007 whereby qualification for admission to Special B. T. C. Course 2007 has been prescribed as "b. Ed, degree having obtained from an Institution/university duly recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as 'ncte')" on the ground that it amounts to creating two classes namely those who have valid. B. Ed, degree but not recognized NCTE and those who have B. Ed, degree recognized by NCTE and this classification is irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended that the said classification is' wholly irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the orders passed by the Director. State Council for Education Research and Training, Nishatganj Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as SCERT),. rejecting candidature of petitioners on the ground that they do not possess requi site qualification/. e. B. Ed, degree recognized by NCTE and the consequential order of the Principal of District Institute of Education and Training, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to 'diet') are also illegal. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the matter is squarely covered by Division Bench decisions' of this Court in Special Appeal No. 392 of 2008, Sanjai' Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others, and Special Appeal No. 391 of 2008 reported in, Smt. Sunita Upadhyay v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 13th March 2008 reported in 2008 (4) ADJ 672 (DB), whereby persons not fulfilling the requisite qualification have been held to be ineligible for admission to Special B. T. C. Course, 2007. He thus contended that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid judgments. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Ekta Shukla and others v. State of U. P. and others, 2006 (1) ESC 531, contended that the matter has not been consid ered correctly in the other Division Bench judgments of this Court and therefore, needs to be considered by a larger Bench and till then, as an interim measure, the petitioners be allowed to continue their training for Special B. T. C. Course in the concerned DIET.
(3.) I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. In writ petition No. 27578 of 2008 the petitioner. Manjusha Arora holds the qualification of L. T. Certificate which she has obtained in the year 1991. In Writ Petition No, 27579 of 2008, there are eight petitioners who have obtained B. Ed, degree in the years 1993, 1994 and 1998 from different institutions affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya, Varanasi and Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. In writ petition No. 27577 of 2008, the petitioner Anjana Singh has ob tained B. Ed degree from Sankeertan Brahmacnariashram Mahavidhalaya, Jhunsi, Allahabad affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi in the ses sion 1995-96. It is not in dispute that none of the aforesaid courses are recog nized by NCTE.;