- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri R. K. Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan learned Counsel appearing for re spondents No. 6 and 7 and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in B. T. C. Corre spondence Course in the year 2007 in pursuance of the Government order dated 27th December, 2004. It has further been prayed that respondents be commanded to take action against respondents No. 6 and 7 as they have deleted the name of the petitioner from the letter dated 24th July, 1995 and inserted the name of Dharmendra Kumar to get training of first year B. T. C. Correspondence Course. The facts of the case, as emerge from pleadings of the parties, are; the petitioner was appointed as untrained teacher on 24th August, 1992 in a primary institution, namely, Bhootpurva Sainik Shree Kalluwala Adarsh Vidya Mandir. The State Government decided to impart training to untrained teachers, who were working in recognised primary/junior high school by giving two years B. T. C. Cor respondence Course training. Petitioner's case is that in pursuance of the Gov ernment order dated 6th September, 1994, letter dated 24th July, 1995 was written by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bijnor to the Principal Training School, Nagina, Bijnor to provide training to the petitioner and three other untrained teachers of the institution. Petitioner's case further is that he could not participate in the B. T. C. Correspondence Course training in the year 1995-96 due to some unavoidable circumstances but name of one Dharmendra Kumar was inserted in the letter dated 24th July, 1995. Petitioner stated that Dharmendra Kumar was not appointed in the institution. He further stated that Dharmendra Kumar was appointed on 25th January, 1996 in the institution and was not eligible for training. The Government withdrew the B. T. C. Correspondence Course and subsequently issued Govern ment order on 27th December, 2004 providing that those candidates whose names were forwarded prior to 18th March, 1996 be imparted B. T. C. Correspondence Course training. Petitioner's case is that after coming to know about the Govern ment order dated 27th December, 2004 the petitioner submitted an application before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for being sent for training. Petitioner's case further is that thereafter the petitioner has sent several applications for being sent for training but when no action was taken, he had no remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1,2 and 3 stating that petitioner has passed Intermediate examination only in the year 1997 and he had not passed Intermediate examination in the year 1995. It has been stated that petitioner was only High School passed due to which the petitioner was deprived of the training by Rajkiya Diksha Vrdyalaya, Nagina. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents No. 6 and 7 it has been stated that petitioner was not qualified for being sent for training he being only High School in the year 1995-96. It has further been stated that petitioner has passed the Intermediate Exami nation in the year 1997, copy of the mark-sheet of the Intermediate of the peti tioner from U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad has been filed asannexure-5 to the said counter affidavit. The respondent No. 7 claimed to be appointed as As sistant Teacher on 30th December, 1991 and has joined on 1st January, 1992. A letter dated 1st August, 1995 is claimed to have been written by Basic Shiksha Adhikari to the Principal, Rajkiya Piksha Vidyalaya for registering the name of respondent No. 7 for B. T. C, Correspondence Course training. The counter affida vit further states that petitioner played fraud at the time of his appointment since he had not even passed Intermediate examination.
(3.) REJOINDER affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been claimed that petitioner has passed Madhyama Pariksha from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in the year 1990, which is equivalent to Intermediate, hence he was fully entitled for B. T. C. Correspondence Course training. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, con tended that petitioner's name having been forwarded by Basic Shiksha Adhikari to the Principal, Rajkiya Diksha Vidyalaya by letter dated 24th July, 1995, the petitioner was entitled to be sent for training and in view of the Government order dated 27th December, 2004 the petitioner is entitled to be sent for training. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner having passed Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, which is equivalent to Interme diate Examination, he was fully eligible for being sent for B. T. C. Correspondence Course training. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that name of respondent No. 7 was not mentioned in the letter dated 24th July, 1995 and he got his name inserted illegally and obtained training to which he was not entitled.;