ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONERS before this Court have obtained a teaching diploma from Aligarh Muslim University known as 'Diploma in Teaching'. It is not in dispute that said diploma course is of two years duration and that it stands recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as NCTE and NCTE Act respectively), as an qualification for appointment as teacher in Basic School. The State Government vide dated 26.09.1994 has provided equivalence to the aforesaid diploma to the teaching certificate required under Rule 8 (4) of the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Services Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as the 'Rules, 1981') for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher for teaching Urdu language in Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad (herein after referred to as 'Basic Schools'). On the strength of the government Order dated 26.09.1994, petitioners have set up a claim for being considered for appointment against existing vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools to be appointed for teaching Urdu language (herein after referred to as 'Urdu teachers'. It is stated that an earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioners being Writ Petition No. 32760 of 2001 wherein a specific stand was taken in the counter affidavit filed by the authorities in paragraphs No. 13, 15, 23 and 24 to the effect that as and when vacancies for Urdu teachers in basic institutions are advertised, the claim of the petitioners shall be considered. Contrary to the stand so taken, the respondents have proceeded to publish an advertisement dated 11.09.2006 for admission of 5000 candidates to B.T.C. Training Course (Urdu) on the plea that qualified teachers for imparting education in Urdu language in basic institutions of the Parishad are not available. It is stated that on the strength of the Advertisement of 2006 pertaining to selection for BTC Training Course (Urdu), appointments have been offered to the candidates who have been successful in the said course as Assistant Teachers (Urdu) in various Parishadiya Vidyalayas. Reference in that regard is made to the notification of the appointments dated 21.11.2008. It is contended that such appointment of the candidates who have completed BTC Training Course (Urdu) as teachers for teaching Urdu language (Urdu Teachers) covered by Rule 8(4) of 1981 Rules is patently illegal and an attempt to over reach the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. through Secretary, Basic Education, Zila Shiksha Avam Prashikshan Sansthan through its Principal and District Magistrate vs. Km. Sumbul Naqvi passed in Special Appeal No. 1330 of 2007 decided on 28.11.2007 as well as in the case of Qambar Raza vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 1294 of 2007 decided on 12.12.2007 as also to the stand which was taken by the Advocate General before the Division Bench of this Court qua the purpose of BTC Training Course (Urdu) started with the permission of NCTE i.e. for appointment of Primary Teachers who may teach primary students of Parishadiya institutions through the medium of Urdu. The petitioner have, therefore, prayed for quashing the appointment notification dated 21.11.2008 as well as for a mandamus commanding the State respondents to offer appointment to the person like the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers for teaching Urdu language (Urdu teacher) covered by Rule 8(4) of the 1981 Rules. It is contended that impugned appointments virtually amount to negating the right of the petitioners for being considered for appointment as Urdu Teacher in Basic Schools as was assured under the counter affidavit filed earlier.
(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners is opposed by Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents and it is submitted that under the Government Order dated 11.08.1997 the equivalence provided to Diploma in Teaching has been withdrawn and therefore, petitioners can not be said to be possessed of the prescribed qualification as per Rule 8(4) for the post. It is stated that under the Government Order dated 05.09.2006, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition as well as under the advertisement published on 11.10.2006 enclosed as Annexure 19 to the writ petition, it is apparently clear that the selections are being made for admission of 5000 students to BTC Course (Urdu), 2006 for the purposes of appointment as primary teachers for teaching primary students through the medium of Urdu qua which amendment by adding Rule 8(5) to the 1981 Rules have been made. He submits that distinction between primary teachers to be appointed for teaching Urdu language (Urdu teachers) in primary institutions and the primary teachers to be appointed in primary institutions for imparting education to the students through the medium of Urdu has been examined and explained by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Qambar Raza (Supra). He further submits that the petitioners are not eligible to apply for admission to BTC Training Course (Urdu), 2006. The appointment made of the successful candidates as Assistant Teachers in Parishadiya Vidyalaya under notification dated 21.11.2008 as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) is on the post covered by Rule 8(5) i.e. for imparting education in primary school through the medium of Urdu.;