# Uma Shanker Rai and others v. D.D.C, Azamgarh and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-03-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16156 of 2010
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uma-shanker-rai-and-others-v-d-d-c-azamgarh-and-others-41598
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Practice
& Procedure-Admission to Special B.T.C.
course/selection process/ held-in the
year 2001, the candidates selected and
completed 2 years training-by G.O. dated
20.10.2005 State government canceled
the examination held in 2001, but given
chance to participate in the examination
held in 2005-whether they were passed
or
fail-only
protection
from
the
exemption of training granted to these
who
had
undergon
completed
said
training-the validity of G.O. 2005 upheld
upto the stage of Apex Court-by another
G.O. basic secretory basic education
again decided the sent for training
ignoring the G.O. as well judgment-heldillegal total non application of mindamounts
to
contempt
secretory
to
explain to its stand about liability of
contempt.

Held: Para 9

I am of the prima facie opinion that the
order of the Secretary is based on
complete non application of mind to the
terms and conditions of the Government
Order dated 20.10.2005, which has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Single Judge as
well as by the Division Bench of this
Court.

## Text

1 All] Uma Shanker Rai and others V. D.D.C, Azamgarh and others

285
Director of Consolidation, would be
restored and would be perpetuated. Thus
it is fit case where this Court should
refuse to exercise discretionary writ
jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
28. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, writ petition is devoid of
merits,
according
same
is
hereby
dismissed.

29. However, dismissal of writ
petition shall not preclude the Assistant
Consolidation Officer from preparing
fresh provisional consolidation scheme of
the village by 30.06.2010 as directed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16156 of 2010

Mukesh Chaturvedi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Practice
& Procedure-Admission to Special B.T.C.
course/selection process/ held-in the
year 2001, the candidates selected and
completed 2 years training-by G.O. dated
20.10.2005 State government canceled
the examination held in 2001, but given
chance to participate in the examination
held in 2005-whether they were passed
or
fail-only
protection
from
the
exemption of training granted to these
who
had
undergon
completed
said
training-the validity of G.O. 2005 upheld
upto the stage of Apex Court-by another
G.O. basic secretory basic education
again decided the sent for training
ignoring the G.O. as well judgment-heldillegal total non application of mindamounts
to
contempt
secretory
to
explain to its stand about liability of
contempt.

Held: Para 9

I am of the prima facie opinion that the
order of the Secretary is based on
complete non application of mind to the
terms and conditions of the Government
Order dated 20.10.2005, which has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Single Judge as
well as by the Division Bench of this
Court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Connect with Writ Petition No.
68624 of 2009.

2. The controversy with regard to
the admission to Special B.T.C. Course2001 could not be resolved even after 09
years because the State Government has
decided to issue Government Orders after
Government Orders for confusing the
issues in garb of clarifying the position
and by altering its stand from time to
time.

3. Entrance Test for Special B.T.C.
Course-2001 took place in April, 2002.
The results were declared on 03rd July,
2003. It is admitted to the State
respondents
that
the
results
were
fabricated and that the admission granted
were based on other considerations than
merit. Therefore, the State Government
ultimately on 20.10.2005 cancelled the
entire entrance test.
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

The State Government in the same
Government Order came out with an
exception clause. The exception clauses i.
e. para 4 and 5 of the Government Order
provided that irrespective of the fact as to
whether the candidate was admitted
illegally or by superseding the other
meritorious
candidates,
if
he
has
completed two years of training because
of such illegal admission, he shall be
permitted to appear in the fresh entrance
test to be conducted along with entrance
test of B.T.C. Course-2005 and if in such
entrance
test
the
illegally
admitted
candidate comes within the zone of being
admitted to B.T.C. Course, then he will
not be required to undergo the B.T.C.
Training again and such candidate with
the permission of the NCTE would be
offered
appointment
in
Parishadiya
Vidhyalayas.

4.

Clause
(5)
recorded
that
permission to hold Special B.T.C. 2001
entrance examination along with B.T.C.
Entrance
Examination-2005
be
undertaken with the approval of the State
Government and a proposal in that regard
be submitted to the State Government.

What follows from the Government Order
dated 20.10.2005 is as follows:

(a) There shall be a separate entrance
test for Special B.T.C.-2001 candidates
along with B.T.C. Entrance Test of 2005
from
amongst
the
students
who
participated in the earlier entrance test
only.
(b) Candidates,
who
have
already
undergone training of two years under the
admission granted after declaration of
result in July, 2003, shall not be required
to undergo the training of two years again.
(c) They would be offered appointment
after obtaining permission from the
NCTE.
(d) A proposal be submitted to the State
Government for holding a common
entrance test for Special B.T.C. Course2001 along with B.T.C. Entrance Test of
2005 from amongst candidates who had
undertaken the training of two years.

5. This Court may record that the
Government Order permitted participation
of all earlier candidates in the second
entrance test for B.T.C.-2001 irrespective
of the fact whether they had been
admitted to B.T.C. Course and completed
training or not. According to the Court,
the only benefit granted to the candidates,
who had completed the B.T.C. Training
of
two
years,
irrespective
of
the
cancellation of the entire entrance test
held earlier, was that if they are successful
in the entrance test of Special B.T.C.
Course
2001
to
be
held
under
Government Order dated 20.10.2005, then
they will not be required to undergo the
training of two years again. This benefit
was not provided to other candidates who
may be admitted after the entrance test to
be held under Government Order dated
20.10.2005.

6. This Government Order was
subjected to challenge by means of large
number of writ petitions, which were
decided on 24.04.2006. The order of the
Hon'ble Single Judge provided that
examination for B.T.C. 2001 shall be
conducted
only
from
amongst
the
candidates
who
have
undertaken
examination
on
the
last
occasion.
Meaning there by that the zone of
consideration for Special B.T.C. Entrance
Test 2001 under Government Order dated
20.10.2005 was confined to the students
1 All] Mukesh Chaturvedi V. State of U.P. and others

287
who had undergone the said entrance test
held in April, 2002.

7. Certain private candidates not
being satisfied with the order of the
Hon'ble Single Judge filed Special Appeal
No. 553 of 2006, which was decided on
31.08.2007 and the Court specifically
held that the decision taken by the State
Government under Government Order
dated 20.10.2005 was a correct decision.
For protecting the interest of genuine
persons, who had undergone the training,
it was observed that if they are successful
in the entrance test to be held under
Government Order dated 20.10.2005, then
there would be no reason for them to
undertake the training of two years afresh.
For ready reference the order of the
Division
Bench,
relevant
for
our
purposes, is quoted herein below:

"Now coming to the last aspect of the
matter whether equity and justice require
that the candidates having completed two
years of training ought not to have visited
penal consequences and, therefore, the
State Government's decision should have
been set aside. We find that it is true that
due to ongoing enquiry and time taken
therein, in the meantime the candidates
who were selected and admitted have
devoted their two years valuable time for
the purpose of undergoing the BTC
training and we also feel that it would be
hard on the part of such candidate who
are ultimately excluded having spent their
two years valuable time undergoing such
training
but
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the particular case, we
find that the State Government has taken
a correct decision and also has taken care
of training undergone by the genuine
persons by providing in the order
impugned in the writ petition that ofter
having fresh entrance test, the candidates
who are ultimately found successful, if
had already undergone training, would
not be required to undergo such training
afresh but the earlier training shall be
treated to be a valid training and shall
entitle those candidates for appointment
in accordance with the rules on the basis
of the said training. This taken care of the
genuine candidates who have already
undergone BTC training but those who
failed to get selection cannot claim any
benefit since the beneficiaries of wrongful
means or wrongful selection are liable to
loose the benefit acquired on the basis of
such tainted selection and no equity
would lie in their favour."

The State of U.P. is said to have made a
modification
application
before
the
Hon'ble Single Judge in the writ petition,
referred to above, which was rejected
after observing that the order has merged
in the orders of the Division Bench.

8. Instead of carrying out the
directions contained in the order of the
writ Court as well as of the Division
Bench, which had specifically affirmed
the Government Order dated 20.10.2005,
the State Government became wiser and
came out with a fresh Government Order
on 29.12.2008 to the effect that the
candidates, who had completed two years
training in pursuance to the admission for
B.T.C. Course-2001 held in April, 2002,
they would be required to appear in an
examination wherein, if they achieve 33%
marks, they would be offered appointment
as
assistant
teacher
in
Parishadiya
Vidhyalayas. This Government Order has
been made a sheet anchor for rejecting the
representation of the petitioner, who had
appeared in the entrance test held in the
year 2002 and claims to be a victim of
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

unfair practice adopted by the State. The
Secretary, Basic Education, under the
impugned order has recorded that the
Government Order dated 29.12.2008
confines the test for the candidates who
had completed two years training in
pursuance of the selection held in the year
2002, which has been cancelled by the
State Government itself in 2005. It has
been recorded that since the petitioner had
not undergone the training of two years in
pursuance
to
the
earlier
admissions/selections, they cannot be
permitted to appear in the test now held
under the Government Order dated
29.12.2008. The order of the Secretary is
under challenge in this petition.

9. I am of the prima facie opinion
that the order of the Secretary is based on
complete non application of mind to the
terms and conditions of the Government
Order dated 20.10.2005, which has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Single Judge as
well as by the Division Bench of this
Court.

10. As already noticed above, a
fresh entrance test from amongst all the
candidates who had undertaken the earlier
examination held in April, 2002 was
necessary. Only relaxation from training
was granted to such candidates who
succeed in the entrance examination to be
held under Government Order dated
20.10.2005 and who had completed two
years training. The Division Bench has
specifically held that if such candidates
are successful in subsequent examination
to be held under Government Order dated
20.10.2005, it will be too harsh to ask
such candidates to undergo the training
again for the same period of two years.
The Government Order dated 29.12.2008
has been made a tool by the State
Government to deny consideration for
admission to B.T.C. Course 2001 to the
candidates like the petitioner, who are
victim of illegalities earlier committed by
the State itself. The Government Order
dated
29.12.2008
over
reaches
the
judgment of the Division Bench referred
to above and is an attempt to perpetuate
illegalities committed by the State while
granting admissions on the basis of
entrance test held in the year 2002.

11.

Let
Secretary,
Secondary
Education, file is personal affidavit by the
next date fixed for explaining the situation
and to show cause why this Court may not
proceed to impose exceptional cost for
unnecessary litigation being generated.
He may also explain that once the
Government Order dated 20.10.2005 was
affirmed by this Court in the year 2005
and directions were issued to act in
accordance there to, how could the
Government Order dated 29.12.2008 be
issued for diluting the directions issued by
the Writ Court and as to why proceedings
for contempt of the Court may not be
initiated against him.

List on 12th April, 2010.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21446 of 2007

Mohd. Naim

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: