Abdul Moin, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers Posting) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 2008 Rules) as ultra vires to the extent it excludes the male teachers from the benefits provided under the said provisions.
(3.) At the outset, we may indicate that the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to be issued for quashing Rule 8(2)(d) of the 2008 Rules. It is settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabodh Verma vs. State of U.P. and others, 1984 4 SCC 251that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued for declaring an Act or Ordinance as unconstitutional or void and a writ of certiorari can only be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the inferior courts, tribunals or authorities to transmit to the Court the record of proceedings pending therein for scrutiny and, if necessary, for quashing the same. Where petitioner's contention is that an Act or Ordinance is unconstitutional or void, the proper relief for the petitioner is to ask a declaration to that effect or to ask for a consequential relief and accordingly the present petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, as the same would be dismissal of the writ petition on technicality, we refrain ourselves from dismissing the petition on the said technicality.;