# Ram Gopal Chaturvedi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 794
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 22819 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-gopal-chaturvedi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47508
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Sri
Bharat
Pratap
Singh,
Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi

A. NCET Regulation, 2014 - Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) Course -
Admission - Eligibility criteria - Impugned
advertisement mentioned criteria different
from
the
criteria
required
under
Regulation of 2014 - Validity challenged -
Policy matter - Scope of interference -
Noting the submission of the St.'s counsel
that it is a policy matter and the policy
decisions of the St. are not to be
disturbed/interfered with unless they are
found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational,
the High Court directed the petitioner to
file representation before the authority
and further directed the authority to
decide it preferably within three months.
(Para 22 and 24)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
1 All. Ram Gopal Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. Once the government order
specifically provides the applicant to be the
resident of the same village where the shop
has to be allotted, no such allotment can be
made to an outsider. The argument of
petitioner's counsel that married daughter
should also be included in the definition of
the word "family", in the present scenario
cannot be accepted as the license is granted
only on the fulfillment of the conditions
prescribed under the government order of
2019. Petitioner being not able to fulfill the
essential conditions cannot be granted such
license.

36. More so, the Control Order of
2016 does not make any distinction
between the sons and daughters of a license
holder, as in case of Rule 2 (c) of the
Dying-in-Harness Rules. The definition of
family occurring in the Control Order of
2016 as well as the government order of
2019 embraces the word "dependant child",
which also includes the dependant father
and
mother.
Argument
that
married
daughter had been excluded creates gender
bias cannot be accepted, as the very
purpose is the distribution of food grains to
the card holders attached to the ration shop
situated in village. Once the daughter of a
licensee is married outside the village, she
cannot continue to run the fair price shop
and distribute ration. The sole purpose of
enacting the Act of 2013 and the Control
Order of 2016 is that the food reaches the
last person of the society and a licensee
being only an agent of the State through
which the target is achieved by both the
Central
Government
and
the
State
Government.

37. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that no ground is made for declaring the
word "unmarried" as unconstitutional from
the definition of family provided under
Sub-clause 10 of Clause IV of the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019.

38. Writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A794
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 22819 of 2021

Ram Gopal Chaturvedi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Sri Prakhar
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Bharat
Pratap
Singh,
Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi

A. NCET Regulation, 2014 - Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) Course -
Admission - Eligibility criteria - Impugned
advertisement mentioned criteria different
from
the
criteria
required
under
Regulation of 2014 - Validity challenged -
Policy matter - Scope of interference -
Noting the submission of the St.'s counsel
that it is a policy matter and the policy
decisions of the St. are not to be
disturbed/interfered with unless they are
found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational,
the High Court directed the petitioner to
file representation before the authority
and further directed the authority to
decide it preferably within three months.
(Para 22 and 24)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
1 All. Ram Gopal Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
List of Cases cited :-
1. Bijay Kumar & ors.. Vs St. of U.P. & ors..;
2015 (2) ALJ 71
2. Writ A No. 5981 of 2019; Suraj Kumar
Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & 3 Ors..
3. Government of Maharashtra & ors. Vs
Deokar's Distillery; (2003) 5 SCC 669
4. Edukanti Kistamma (dead) through Lrs. & ors.
Vs S.Venkatareddy (dead) through Lrs. & ors.;
(2010) 1 SCC 756
5.
Vasavi
Engineering
College
Parents
Association Vs St. of Telangana & Ors.; (2019) 7
SCC 172
6. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.),
Sindri Vs U.O.I.; (1981) 1 SCC 568
ors.; (2007) 4 SCC 737
8. Yogesh Kumar & ors. Vs Government Of NTC
Delhi; (2003) 3 SCC 548

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prakhar Shukla, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondent and Sri Bharat Pratap
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3NCTE.

2. This writ petition has been filed interalia
for the following relief:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari directing to the
respondent no.3 to quash/cancel the admission
process which is started from 20.07.2021 in
compliance of Govt. Orders vide G.O.
No.9/2021/402/68-4-2021-9(3) dated 16.06.2021
and
G.No.426/68-4-2019-2067/2013
Basic
Siksha Anubhag-4 (Annexure No.1)."

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by
the new eligibility criteria for admission in
Diploma
in
Elementary
Education
(D.El.Ed)
formerly
known
as
B.T.C
examination as is directed by the Govt.
Orders
vide
G.O.
No.9/2021/402/6842021-9(3) dated 16.06.2021 and G.No.
426/68-4-2019-2067/2013, Basic Siksha
Anubhag-4.

4. The brief facts of the case is that
the
petitioners
have
passed
senior
secondary examination (10+2), hence they
were eligible for appearing in D.El.Ed
examination as per the rules of National
Council
for
Teacher
Education.
The
applications
were
invited
by
U.P.
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Prayagraj through order No.9/2021/402/684-2021-4-9(3)/2021 Basic Siksha Anubhag4, Date 16.06.2021 from all eligible
candidates
against
the
vacancies
in
government/private colleges in State of
U.P. The eligibility criteria as mentioned in
the advertisement is that the candidates
should have passed High School or
equivalent, Intermediate (+2) or equivalent
and graduation from any recognized
University. The eligibility criteria as per the
advertisement is as under:-

"शैदक्षक र्ोग्यता-D.EL.Ed प्रदशक्षण
में चर्न हेतु ऐसे अिर्ाथी ऑनलाइन आवेदन
करने के पात्र होांगे, दजन्ोन आवेदन पत्र िरने के
पूवय माध्यदमक दशक्षा पररषद, उत्तर प्रदेश
प्रर्ागराज/सीबीएसई/आईसीएसई से मान्यता
प्राप्त सांथथानो से हाई स्कूल व उसके समकि
तथा इांटरमीदडएट व उसके समकि घोदषत
परीक्षा और दवदध द्वारा थथादपत और UGCसे
मान्यता प्राप्त दवश्वदवद्यालर्/ महादवद्यालर् से
स्नातक परीक्षा न्यूनतम 50 प्रदतशत अांको के
साथ उत्तीणय की हो। अनुसुदचत जादत /
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अनुसूदचत जनजादत / अन्य दपि़िा वगय /
दवकलाांग / स्वतांत्र स्नग्राम सेनानी आदश्रत /
िूतपूवय सैदनक (स्वर्ां) के अभ्यदथयर्ोां को न्यूनतम
अांको में 05 प्रदतशत की िूट दी जाएगी।"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are aggrieved
by the new eligibility criteria for D.El.Ed
course as mentioned in the advertisement,
which is against the regulations prescribed
by the National Council for Teachers
Education (hereinafter referred to as
'NCTE') as well as against the criteria as is
being followed in other States. The
requirements of pursuing the aforesaid
course as laid down by the NCTE
regulation of 2014 is that the candidates
should have at least 50% in Higher
Secondary
(+2)
examination
or
its
equivalent examination.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has also pointed out that the letter dated
09.08.2021 of Director Rajya Shaikshik
Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to the Sachiv
Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari, Prayagaj, U.P.,
wherein it has been specifically stated that for
the purpose of D.El.Ed examination, the
minimum qualification is recommended to be
fixed as "Intermediate" and has directed him
to proceed accordingly.

7. Since deliberations were going on
with respect to the eligibility criteria for the
aforesaid course and sufficient application
forms were not received in comparison to
the number of vacant seats, therefore, the
last date of submission of the form of
D.El.Ed. Course was extended up to
15.09.2021. Regarding the vacant seats, a
press release note has also been issued
showing that the vacant seats have not been
fulfilled till date.

8. Reference may also be made to the
norms and standards for diploma in
elementary teacher education Programme
leading
to
Diploma
in
Elementary
Education (D.El.ED) as contained in
Appendix-2 of NCTE Regulations 2014
which provides eligibility for admission to
the training course. Relevant Clause '3.2'
reads as under:-

"3.2 Eligibility (a) Candidates
with at least 50% marks in the higher
secondary
(10+2)
or
its
equivalent
examination are eligible for admission.

(b)
The
reservation
and
relaxation in marks for SC/ST/OBC/PWD
and other categories shall be as per the
rules of the Central Government/State
Government, whichever is applicable."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the standards for
Elementary Education Programme fixed by
the NCTE, 2014 would prevail over the
said regulations as is laid down in the
judgment of this Court in the case of Bijay
Kumar and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
reported in 2015 (2) ALJ 71 and Suraj
Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3
Ors. passed in Writ-A No. 5981 of 2019.

10. Mr. Bharat Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no.3-NCTE
does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents submits that the admission
in the D.El.Ed course has to be done in
accordance with eligibility criteria mentioned
in the Government Order dated 25.06.2019,
which provides that the candidates should
have passed High School (Class-X) or
equivalent,
Intermediate
(Class-XII)
or
1 All. Ram Gopal Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
equivalent
and
graduation
from
any
recognized University, securing 50% marks
in all the courses. As the aforesaid
Government
Order
and
advertisement
mentioning the condition of possessing the
new
eligibility
criteria
has
not
been
challenged, therefore, the relief prayed by the
petitioners to admit them in D.El.Ed course
cannot be granted. In support of his
contention, learned Standing Counsel has
relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court
in the case on Government of Maharashtra
and others vs. Deokar's Distillery reported in
(2003) 5 SCC 669 and Edukanti Kistamma
(dead)
through
Lrs.
and
others
vs.
S.Venkatareddy (dead) through Lrs. and
others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 756,
wherein the Apex Court has held that without
challenging the Government Order/basic
order, consequential relief cannot be granted
to the petitioners.

12. Learned Standing Counsel further
submits that after obtaining diploma in
elementary
education
(D.El.Ed),
the
petitioners will claim appointment on the
post of teacher in primary education,
qualification of which is mentioned in U.P
Basic Education Teachers Service Rules,
1981 (hereinafter referred as "Rule 1981").

13. Learned Standing Counsel further
submits that in a controversy with respect
to issuance of appointment letters for the
post of Assistant Teacher in primary
school, objections were raised with respect
to validity of the Diploma in Education as
obtained by the candidates, was prior to
completion of graduation. The objection
has raised as per Rule 2(q) 1 of the 1981,
which reads as follows:-

"Training means training course
recognized by the Government from time to
time to teach children from class I to
VIII for which graduates are eligible for
admission."

The aforesaid-mentioned Rule
contemplates only graduates appearing in
the training course and obtaining a
Diploma on completion thereof, shall be
eligible for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher.

14. However, the Court while dealing
with the controversy permitted those
candidates, who have completed their
graduation course prior to completion of
Diploma
in
Elementary
Education
(D.El.Ed.) to be eligible for issuance of
appointment letters but did not deal with
eligibility criteria as required for admission
in D.El.Ed. / training course and it was left
open for the respondents to deal with the
issue.

15. Keeping in mind the qualification
as required for the post of Assistant
Teacher, who should possess training as
recognized by the government from time to
time, for which graduates were eligible, the
Government order mentioning the new
eligibility criteria has been issued.

16. Learned Standing Counsel further
submits that the policy decision has been
taken by the State Government changing
the eligibility criteria for admission in
D.El.Ed. course, which cannot be judicially
reviewed by this Court. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Vasavi
Engineering College Parents Association
..... Vs State of Telangana & Ors. reported
in (2019) 7 SCC 172, wherein it has been
held that the Court can neither act an
appellate
authority
nor
can
usurp
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction of decision maker and make the
decision itself. Until and unless the same is
arbitrary or in violation of any provision of
law or is infringing the fundamental rights
of any person.

17. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar
Union (Regd.), Sindri vs Union of India,
reported in (1981) 1 SCC 568, it was also
observed:-

"35. ....We certainly agree that judicial
interference with the administration cannot be
meticulous in our Montesquien system of
separation of powers. The court cannot usurp or
abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review
must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If
the directorate of a government company has
acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom,
the court cannot, as a super auditor, take the
Board of Directors to task. This function is
limited to testing whether the administrative
action has been fair and free from the taint of
unreasonableness and has substantially complied
with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of
public administration."

18. Reference may also be made to
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. Vs.
Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors., reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 737, where the Apex Court
held as follows:-

"16. The scope of judicial review
of governmental policy is now well defined.
Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness,
suitability and appropriateness of a policy
nor are courts Advisors to the executive on
matters of policy which the executive is
entitled to formulate."

19. Learned Standing Counsel further
submits that in the present case as
eligibility of training course as mentioned
in Rule 1981 is graduation, hence the
Government Order dated 16.06.2021 has
been issued.

20.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submits that admission to any course
should be made strictly in accordance with
terms of the advertisement and the
recruitment rules. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment
of Apex Court in the case of Yogesh
Kumar And Others vs Government Of
NTC Delhi reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548.

21. Learned Standing Counsel further
submits that standards for diploma in
elementary teacher education Programme
fixed by the NCTE Regulations, 2014
would prevail over the regulations only, in
case they are adopted by the State
Government. In the present case, there is
nothing on record to show as to whether the
NCTE regulation, 2014 has been adopted
by the State Government or not?

22. With respect to submission made
by learned counsel for the petitioners that
other States are following the NCTE
regulations, 2014, according to which, the
eligibility criteria for D.El.Ed. course is
that the candidates should have at least
50% marks in higher Secondary (+2)
examination or its equivalent examination,
learned Standing Counsel states that it is a
policy matter and the policy decisions of
the State are not to be disturbed/interfered
with unless they are found to be grossly
arbitrary or irrational.

23. Counsel for the parties agree that
the writ petition may be disposed of finally
at this stage without calling for further
affidavits specifically in view of the order
proposed to be passed today.
1 All. Shyoraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799

24. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions
made by the parties, this writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the
petitioners
to
make
a
detailed
representation before the respondent no.2
for redressal of their grievances. If any
such representation is made, the respondent
no.2-Sachiv, Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari,
U.P., Elanganj Prayagraj, shall make all
endeavours to consider and decide the
same, in accordance with law, preferably
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the said representation.

25. Accordingly, this writ petition is
disposed of.
----------
(2022)01ILR A799
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 23806 of 2021

Shyoraj Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Gautam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramanand Pandey, Addl.C.S.C.

A. Acquisition law - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Application -
Compensation
received
after
acquisition, however an application
u/s 48 to withdraw from acquisition
was filed - Maintainability - Held, the
case of the petitioners will not fall
within the scope of Section 48 of
the 1894 Act, for the reason that it is
the definite case of the St. and is even
evident from the material on record
that the possession of the land was
taken immediately after acquisition
and the St. had transferred the same
to the Corporation, which had even
developed an industrial eSt. thereon.
(Para 19)
B. Acquisition law - Vesting of land in
St. - It's effect - Possession retained
by
the
private
person
even
after
acquisition - Changing in the status of
private owner to the trespasser - Held,
after acquisition of land and passing of
award, the land vests in the St. free
from all encumbrances. The vesting of
land with the St. is with possession -
Any person retaining the possession
thereafter has to be treated trespasser
-
When
large
chunk
of
land
is
acquired, the St. is not supposed to put
some person or police force to retain
the possession and start cultivating on
the
land
till
it
is
utilized.
The
Government is also not supposed to
start residing or physically occupying
the
same
once
process
of
the
acquisition
is
complete
-
Indore
Development
Authority's
case
is
followed. (Para 20)
C. Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 - S. 101 - Return of the land
claimed - Acquisition took place in
1987-88 - Applicability of the Act of
2013 - Held, it is not the case of the
petitioners that acquisition of the land is
under the provisions of the 2013 Act -
Rather
the
acquisition
process
was
completed way back in the year 1987-88
under the provisions of the 1894 Act.
Hence, the provisions of Section 101 of
the 2013 Act will have no application in
the case in hand. (Para 23)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)