Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) This writ petition alongwith bunch of other petitions are by the persons, who claim to have obtained training certificate of Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and have applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu in the primary institutions run by the Department of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh. A Government Order dated 5.1.2016 has been issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh initiating process for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu in the primary institutions run by the Department of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh. Clause 3 of paragraph 5 of the Government Order is relevant for the present purposes and is reproduced hereinafter:-
(2.) Petitioners assert that they had taken admission in Moallim-E-Urdu training course prior to 11.8.1997, and therefore, they are also entitled to be considered for appointment in question. Reliance is placed by the petitioners upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 8.5.2017, passed in Special Appeal Defective No.315 of 2015, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "1. This intra court appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment dated 16.09.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3491 (S/S) of 2014. 2. Admittedly, respondents got admission in Moallim-E-Urdu course before 11.08.1997 and when undergoing course, the aforesaid course ceased to be valid qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) vide Government order dated 11.08.1997. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in District Basic Education Officer, District-Unnao Vs. Mohd. Naseem and others passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.685 of 2010 decided on 01.10.2010 took a view that those candidates, who have got admission prior to issuance of Government order dated 11.08.1997, shall be considered as qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) and following the aforesaid judgment, other judgments were passed by learned Single Judge, which have been followed in the judgment in appeal. The operative part of aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "Accordingly those writ petitions were disposed of in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of District Basic Education Officer, District Unnao Vs. Mohd. Naseem and Others passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.685 of 2010 the High Court had directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) on the basis of the Moallim-E-Urdu Examination, 1997, which course, they have joined in 1997 prior to enforcement of the Government Order dated 11.08.1997. The petitioners in para 18 of the writ petition have specifically stated that they had joined the Moallim-E-Urdu Course in July, 1987 prior to the Government Order dated 11.08.1997. In this view of the matter the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the order of the Court dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.7779 of 2014, Farrukh Sajjad and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein the benefit of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case Mohd. Naseem was made available to persons who had joined the Moallim-E-Urdu course prior to 11.08.1997 though completed after that date. This writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language), 2013 in accordance with law and in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the case of Mohd. Naseem as well as Farrukh Sajjad ." 4. On the question, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that Division Bench's judgment in Mohd. Naseem had attained finality and in that view, judgment in appeal is consistent with the aforesaid Division Bench's judgment, cannot be said to be faulted in any manner. 5. Appeal lacks merit. 6. Dismissed accordingly."
(3.) It is contended by the petitioners that they are placed at par with the respondents in the aforesaid special appeal and thus liable to be considered for appointment in question.;