# Usha Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1534
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-16
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 20823 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/usha-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50136
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Service Matter - Recruitment -
Assistant
Teachers
Recruitment
Examination, 2019 - In the online form,
petitioners mentioned BTC in place of BTC
through
distance
education
mode.
Candidature was rejected on the ground
that BTC by distance education mode had
not
been
disclosed
in
the
online
application form. Issue: Whether the nondisclosure by the petitioners of their
eligibility qualification BTC (by distance
education) would dis-entitle them to the
allotment of the district. Held: Candidates
were required to possess BTC irrespective
of where and by what mode they had
obtained the training qualification. Court
found no substance in the submission of
the respondents that the petitioners did
not disclose in their online application
form that they were Shiksha Mitras having
obtained the BTC qualification by distance
education mode. On account of the said
non-disclosure,
the
software
did
not
identify them as Shiksha Mitras and,
consequently,
did
not
extend
the
weightage admissible to them. In the
opinion of the Court, it was due to faulty
programming, and since the petitioners
had satisfied the eligibility criteria, they
could not be denied the appointment. The
respondents were directed to include the
names of the petitioners in the list of
successful candidates for allotment of the
districts. (Paras 10, 12, 13)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 20823 of 2022

Usha Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Archana Singh, Sri Pranesh Dutt
Tripathi
Civil Law - Service Matter - Recruitment -
Assistant
Teachers
Recruitment
Examination, 2019 - In the online form,
petitioners mentioned BTC in place of BTC
through
distance
education
mode.
Candidature was rejected on the ground
that BTC by distance education mode had
not
been
disclosed
in
the
online
application form. Issue: Whether the nondisclosure by the petitioners of their
eligibility qualification BTC (by distance
education) would dis-entitle them to the
allotment of the district. Held: Candidates
were required to possess BTC irrespective
of where and by what mode they had
obtained the training qualification. Court
found no substance in the submission of
the respondents that the petitioners did
not disclose in their online application
form that they were Shiksha Mitras having
obtained the BTC qualification by distance
education mode. On account of the said
non-disclosure,
the
software
did
not
identify them as Shiksha Mitras and,
consequently,
did
not
extend
the
weightage admissible to them. In the
opinion of the Court, it was due to faulty
programming, and since the petitioners
had satisfied the eligibility criteria, they
could not be denied the appointment. The
respondents were directed to include the
names of the petitioners in the list of
successful candidates for allotment of the
districts. (Paras 10, 12, 13)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Rekshar Khan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
Petition No.4677 of 2020, dated 08.07.2020
2. Ram Manohar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Special
Appeal
No.834
of
2013,
dated
30.05.2013
3. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and 60 others Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., Writ Petition No.4070 of 2020,
dated 30.05.2020
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Praveen
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, Sri P. D. Tripathi, learned
counsel,
who has
appeared
for
the
Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State Respondent
Nos.1 & 2.

2. The writ petitioners, who are
working as Shiksha Mitra have approached
this Court seeking quashing of the orders
dated
05.11.2020
and
10.11.2020
(Annexure No.7 & 8 to the writ petition)
respectively. A further prayer in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents
to permit the petitioners to correct the
information in their applications forms and
the respondents be directed to grant
weightage of 25 marks of Shiksha Mitra
and consider the candidature for the
petitioners for the post of Assistant
Teachers.
5 All. Usha Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1535

3. By the impugned orders dated
05.11.2020 and 10.11.2020 the Secretary,
Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P.
Prayagraj, has rejected the representation of
the petitioners preferred pursuant to the
directions of this Court by its order dated
27.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.4609
of 2020.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioners
that
they
possess
the
educational
qualification of BA along with BTC
(Distance Education) and have been
working as Shiksha Mitra since the year
2006. The petitioners stood eligible for
applying for the post of Assistant Teacher.
Accordingly, the petitioners applied under
the
Assistant
Teachers
Recruitment
Examination, 2019 under OBC category.
The petitioners were declared successful
having obtained 92 marks and 96 marks
respectively as against the minimum
qualifying marks of 90 prescribed for
OBC/SC/ST candidates. The petitioners
contend that they have not been awarded 25
marks as weightage in the selection for
69000 posts of Assistant Teachers as they
mentioned BTC in place of BTC through
distance education mode. The petitioners
contended that they satisfy the eligibility
condition for appointment as Assistant
Teacher and their candidature could not be
rejected simply on the ground that in the
online application form BTC by distance
education mode had not been disclosed.
They contend that no distinction can be
drawn between BTC an BTC (by distance
education
mode).
The
petitioners
nevertheless
made
representation
on
03.06.2020 for correction in the online
application form and for grant of the
weitage admissible to Shiksha Mitra but no
action has been taken. Consequently, the
petitioners approached this Court by means
of Writ (A) No.4609 of 2020 which was
disposed by vide order dated 27.08.2020
with
direction
to
decide
the
claim/representation of the petitioners.

5.

The
Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj, under
the impugned orders has rejected the
representations of the petitioners which are
under challenge in the writ petition.

6. The main thrust of the argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that each of the petitioners fulfill the
eligibility criteria for appointment of
Assistant Teachers. They have obtained
BTC qualification from distance education
mode which is duly recognized by the
respondents. Their candidature ought not to
have been rejected on the ground that BTC
had been mentioned in the online form
instead of BTC (distance education). It is
not the case that the petitioners are not
eligible and in such view of the matter the
writ petition is liable to be allowed and the
petitioners candidature as Assistant Teacher
pursuant
to
the
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment Examination, 2019 are liable
to be considered. There is no difference
between BTC and BTC (distance education
mode) and in any case the mistake on the
part of the petitioners cannot be said to be
deliberate and intentional so as to derive
any advantage. It is also argued that the
respondents have adopted pick and choose
policy
in
dealing
with
similarly
circumstanced
candidates,
while
the
candidature of same of the equally
circumstanced candidates have not been
cancelled the candidates of the petitioners
have been cancelled. Details of some
candidates have been given in Para No.29 o
the writ petition.

7. Per Contra, Sri P. D. Tripathi,
learned
counsel
representing
the
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Respondent Nos.3 & 4 as also the learned
Standing
Counsel
has
supported
the
decision of the Secretary, Examination
Regulatory Authority/ Respondent No.2 by
submitting that the orders rejecting the
claim of the petitioners is entirely justified
and does not suffer from any infirmity
warranting the interference of the Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. From the
perusal of the impugned orders dated
05.11.2020 and 10.11.2020 it is borne out
that the representations of the petitioners
have been rejected by verbatim reasoning.
The Secretary, Examinations Regulatory
Authority, U.P., Prayagraj, has heavily
relied upon the Government Order dated
01.12.2018 laying down the modalities of
filling up the online application form and
the precautions that were required to be
taken by the candidates particularly when it
was clearly laid down that no amendment
could be permitted. Much reliance is also
placed upon the declaration submitted by
the petitioners. Reliance has also been
placed to clause 17 of the Government
Order dated 01.12.2018 which gave the
petitioners the opportunity to rectify any
mistake made in their online application
forms by submitting fresh online forms
after depositing the requisite fee in respect
thereof within the time provided. Reliance
has also been placed upon decision dated
08.07.2020 of this Court rendered in Writ
Petition No.4677 of 2020 (Rekshar Khan
Vs. State of U.P. & others) and connected
17 writ petitions, decision dated 30.05.2013
passed in Special Appeal No.834 of 2013
(Ram Manohar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. &
others) decision dated 30.05.2020 rendered
in
Writ
Petition
No.4070
of
2020
(Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and 60
others Vs. State of U.P. & others) to reject
the representation of the petitioners.

9. The Court has gone through the
decisions relied upon by the Respondent
No.2 while rejecting the representations of
the petitioners by the impugned orders. The
decisions are clearly distinguishable and
the ratio laid down therein apply to the
facts and circumstances akin to that case. In
the opinion of the Court the ratio laid down
are not applicable to the case of the writ
petitioners herein inasmuch as the case of
Rukshar Khan (supra) related to a case
where the petitioner had omitted to mention
in the online application form, a claim for a
reservation category which the Court did
not permit as it would introduce a new
aspirant in the concerned reservation pool
and in all probability may lead to
displacement
of
a
candidate
already
selected The decision in the Special Appeal
No.834 of 2013, Ram Manohar Yadav
(Supra) related to filling up incorrectly the
online application form which is not the
case at hand. The third case of Ashutosh
Kumar Srivastava (Supra) related to
incorrectly filling up the online forms in
respect of the marks obtained by the
petitioners in the previous examinations
which is also not be case at hand.

10. In the opinion of the Court the
Respondent No.2, Secretary, Examination
Regulatory Authority, has not dealt with the
core issue as to whether the non-disclosure by
the petitioners of their eligibility qualification
BTC (by distance education) would dis-entitle
them to the allotment of the district as per their
choice as also to the weightage admissible to
Shiksha Mitra. The candidates were required to
disclose their training qualification acquired.
The training qualifications acquired recognized
were as follows:-

1. D. El. Ed. (BTC) from an
institution recognized by NCTE and
affiliated
to
the
State
Government.
5 All. Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1537

2.
Shikshamitra
(Trained
through distance education method and
graduate Shikshamitra passed two years
BTC.

3. D. Ed. (Two Years Diploma in
Education
from
NCTE
recognized
Institute).

4. D. Ed. Special Education
(Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)
recognized Institute)

5. Specialized BTC (Operated in
Uttar Pradesh Recognized by NCTE).

6. Two Year BTC Urdu Special
Training (Operated in Uttar Pradesh)

7. B. El. Ed. (4-year Bachelor of
Elementary Education)

8.
B.
Ed.
-
Bachelor
of
Education
(from
U.G.C./NCTE
recognized institution)

11. There are no instructions to the
candidates
that
the
candidates
were
required
to
fill
the
information
corresponding to the serial numbers which
were to be treated as the category code. The
fact remains that the candidates were
required to be BTC irrespective of
wherefrom and by what mode they had
obtained the training qualification.

12. The Court finds no substance in
submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents that the petitioner did not fill in
the information that they were Shiksha
Mitra
having
obtained
the
BTC
qualification by distant education made in
their online application form and on
account of the said non disclosure the
software did not identify them as Shiksha
Mitra and consequently, did not extend the
weightage admissible to them. In the
opinion of the Court, it is the faulty
programming and the petitioners have
satisfied the eligibility criteria could not be
denied the appointment. However, the
Court upholds the stand of the respondents
that no correction could be made in the
online form of the petitioners.

13. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed in part. The impugned
orders dated 05.11.2020 and 10.11.2020
(Annexure Nos.7 & 8) to the writ petition
respectively) are quashed to the extent it
denies the relief of including the names of the
petitioners in the list of selected candidates
for allotment of the District for appointment
as Assistant Teachers. The impugned orders
so far as it holds that no correction can be
made in the online application forms are
upheld. The respondents shall now proceed to
include the names of the petitioners in the list
of successful candidates for allotment of the
Districts and allot the Districts as per their
preference and quality point marks and issue
the appointment letters accordingly. The
entire exercise shall be done within a period
of two months from the date of service of
certified copy of the order of this Court upon
the concerned respondents.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1537
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-A No. 49679 of 2003

Mahendra Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents