Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.A. Khan for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Since pleadings are complete, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage and is being decided.
(2.) The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit her to appear in the examination of BTC Urdu Special Training for the session 2006-07 and 2007-08 (Ist Session). Brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are that applications were invited for admission in two years BTC Urdu Special Training Course pursuant to the Government Order dated 18.3.2006 issued by State Government. The petitioner submitted her application dated 20.4.2006 wherein she claimed to suffer physical handicappedness (disability with respect to vision). The respondents no. 3, i.e., Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Saidpur, District Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as (hereinafter referred to as 'DIET') issued letter inviting petitioner for counselling on 21.11.2006 but on the said date, counselling did not take place and, therefore, she was required to appear on 2.2.2007. In the meantime, since the petitioner's disability certificate was lost, she applied for a fresh certificate, which was issued by the Chief Medical Officer on 16.11.2007. On 2.2.2007 the said date, the petitioner attended counselling and produced aforesaid certificate before the respondent no. 2 and also filed an affidavit to the effect that her earlier certificate has lost and, therefore, she has produced fresh certificate, which she has obtained on 16.11.2007. By letter dated 26.5.2007, the respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner that her name finds place in the merit list of handicapped candidates for admission to Urdu BTC Special Training, 2006 and, therefore, she should appear on 31.5.2007 alongwith original certificates. The petitioner said that she appeared on the said date, produced original certificates before respondent no. 3 and, thereafter, her name was recommended to the concerned institution for practical training, which was to be imparted between 23.8.2007 to 30.9.2007. The petitioner said that she completed her training at Kanya Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Raiganj, Ghazipur. However, thereafter, on 11.1.2008, the respondent no. 3 sent a letter to Director, State Council of Education Research & Training , U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'SCERT') seeking guidance in the matter of permitting the petitioner to continue with the first session training stating that she has submitted certificated dated 16.11.2006 with respect to her physical disability which was much after the last date of submission of the application for, i..e., 27.4.2006. No decision was communicated by the Director, SCERT, hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.1.2008 and, thereafter, also sent a letter dated 20.2.2008 to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, but having no response, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) On behalf of respondent no. 3, a counter affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel stating therein that in the tentative list of physical disabled candidates, the petitioner was at serial no. 4. First person, namely Sri Javed Khan did not appear in the selection, the next candidate Zaheda Khanam was not eligible being totally blind, the third candidate Sri Tabrej Ansari did not possess the requisition qualification and, therefore, the petitioner, who was at serial no. 4, was proceeded to be given selection, but since she could not produce her certificate of disability having been issued prior to last date of submission of form and, therefore, she cannot be said to be validly selected. It is said that the last date was 27.4.2006 and the certificate of disability produced by the petitioner is itself dated 16.11.2006, hence the said certificate could not have been taken into consideration for considering and selecting the petitioner in the category of physically handicapped candidates. It is thus argued that in this view of the matter, the petitioner was not given admission and the question of allowing her to undergo training would not arise.;