MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri P.D. Tripathi, Advocate for District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly.
(2.) Present writ petition is preferred for mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on the post of Assistant Teacher alongwith all consequential benefits awarded to the similarly situated candidates, who have been appointed in pursuance of result of Special B.T.C.-2007. The request has also been made to issue direction to the respondents to pay her salary and also consider the seniority alongwith other similarly situated candidates appointed after declaration of the result of Special B.T.C. 2007.
(3.) It appears that earlier the petitioner had preferred Writ A No.3533 of 2009 (Namita Sharma vs. State of UP and others) assailing the validity of the order dated 29.12.2008, which was passed on the ground that the institution, from where the petitioner had undergone B.Ed Training, was not recognized. In the said writ petition, the counter affidavit was filed and it has been brought into the notice of the Court that the said degree was valid and the institution was recognized from the concerned University. Consequently, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 16.5.2013 with following observations:- "The contention raised by the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993. Sri Rajiv Joshi has invited the attention of the Court to the averments contained in paragraph 7 to 10 of the counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State where the stand taken is that since the petitioner's certificate was from a period when there was no recognition to the Institution, therefore, she is not entitled to get any benefit. The petitioner had, however, been given permission to appear in the examination but her result was not declared.The records were directed to be filed in respect of the recognition of the year 1996-97. Having perused the affidavit of the respondent-National Council of Teacher Education, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the National Council of Teacher Education Act. Accordingly, the Institution was entitled to grant the certificate to the petitioner and in such circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to be included for B.T.C. Training-2007. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 29.12.2008 is quashed. The petitioner under the interim order has completed training and has also appeared in the examinations. The respondent shall declare the results of the petitioner which is pending treating her candidature to be valid within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order." ;