# Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 905
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 17129 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinay-kumar-pandey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51510
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Trainee Teacher -
Recruitment - Counselling - Proceedings
were
initiated
for
consideration
of
candidature of candidates who are part of
list of 12091 way back in the year 2016 -
Except
about
4000
candidates,
rest
candidates
out
of
12091
have
not
participated - Reason for not participating
was that either no counselling was
conducted
or
candidates
were
not
adequately informed - High Court directed
the
St.-authority
to
issue
a
fresh
advertisement to call the candidates
belonging to said category of 12091, who
have not appeared earlier for counselling,
fixing a date in the week commencing
05th February, 2024. (Para 12, 17 and 18
)

Writ petitions disposed of. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,554 of 45,397. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39554 for what follows._

2 All. Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905
subsequent stage candidate has been
acquitted in the criminal case, that will not dilute
the suppression/concealment of material facts as
the same has direct bearing on the character,
conduct and antecedents of the candidate.

29. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this
court is of the view that the petitioner at the time of
filling up his application form for appointment on the
post of Stenographer Grade III has deliberately
suppressed/concealed the fact of pending criminal
case and the competent authority after providing
opportunity to the petitioner and considering his
reply, has passed the order dated 11.8.2023, whereby
petitioner has not been found fit for appointment on a
sensitive post of Stenographer in the Civil Court
therefore, the order dated 11.8.2023 does not call for
any interference by this court.

30. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this
writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 905
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 17129 of 2023
And other connected cases

Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Sri Indresh
Dubey, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Archana Singh

A. Service Law - Post of Trainee Teacher -
Recruitment - Counselling - Proceedings
were
initiated
for
consideration
of
candidature of candidates who are part of
list of 12091 way back in the year 2016 -
Except
about
4000
candidates,
rest
candidates
out
of
12091
have
not
participated - Reason for not participating
was that either no counselling was
conducted
or
candidates
were
not
adequately informed - High Court directed
the
St.-authority
to
issue
a
fresh
advertisement to call the candidates
belonging to said category of 12091, who
have not appeared earlier for counselling,
fixing a date in the week commencing
05th February, 2024. (Para 12, 17 and 18
)

Writ petitions disposed of. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Diary No. 19925/2023 : Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 001078 of 2023; Ram Prasad
Vishwakarma Vs The St. of UP decided on
27.09.2023 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The dispute in present bunch
of writ petitions is arising out of an
advertisement issued by State of Uttar
Pradesh dated 30.11.2011, i.e., more
than a decade ago, for recruitment of
72885 Trainee Teachers for Junior
Basic Schools run by Board of Basic
Education, Uttar Pradesh.

2. The dispute has already been
travelled up to the Supreme Court and Civil
Appeals were disposed of vide order dated
25.07.2017
and
thereafter
contempt
petitions were also disposed of vide order
dated 13.12.2019. Later on some of the
petitioners approached Supreme Court by
way of filing Writ Petition under Article 32
of the Constitution which was disposed of
vide order dated 27.09.2023 and on basis of
observations made therein petitioners have
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approached this Court by filing present writ
petitions.

3.

Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions, a brief history of litigation till
date alongwith relevant part of various
orders passed is mentioned hereinafter.

4. Above referred advertisement and
proceedings thereof were cancelled by
State Government by issuing a Government
Order dated 21.08.2012 and by subsequent
Government Order dated 05.12.2012 fresh
procedure was initiated for recruitment in
accordance with relevant amended rules.

5. Aforesaid Government Order dated
05.12.2012 was subject matter of challenge
before this Court by means of several writ
petitions. A Single Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 16.01.2013 passed in
bunch of writ petitions, leading being
Writ-A No. 39674 of 2012 (Akhilesh
Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P.
and others) has uphold the above
referred Government order of State
Government.

6. Aforesaid judgment was challenged
by means of several special appeals and
Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 20.11.2013 allowed bunch of
special appeals, leading being Special
Appeal (Defective) No. 237 of 2013
(Shiv Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others)
and judgment of Single Bench was
modified. Relevant part of judgment is
reproduced hereinafter:

"In the result all the Special
Appeals are allowed to the following
extent:

1. The Government Order dated
26.7.2011
insofar
as
it
directs
for
restoration of criteria for selection as was
prevalent prior to 12th amendment rules is
set-aside.

2. The U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Amendment Rules, 2012
(15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012)
in so far as Rule 14 (3) is concerned is
declared to be ultra-vires to Article 14 of
the Constitution and are struck down.
Consequently, the Government Order dated
31.8.2012 as well as the communication
dated 31.8.2012 issued by the board of
Basic Education are set-aside.

3. Respondents are directed to
proceed and conclude the selection as per
the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 as
modified on 20.12.2011 to its logical end
within the time allowed by the Central
Government vide its notification issued
under Section 23 (2) of the Act, 2009.

4. The judgment of the learned
Single Judge is modified to the above
extent."

7. In aforesaid circumstances number
of Special Leave Petitions were filed before
Supreme Court against aforesaid judgment
dated 20.11.2013.

8. During pendency of litigation
before Supreme Court various interim
orders were passed. Relevant part of
interim orders and judgments passed by
Supreme Court are reproduced hereinafter:

(I) Order dated 25.03.2014 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014

"Leave granted "

Hearing expedited

By this interim order, we direct
the State of Uttar Pradesh to fill up the
vacancies of Assistant Teachers in the
schools pursuant to the advertisement
issued on 30.11.2011 as per the directions
issued by the Division Bench of Allahabad
2 All. Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
907
High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar
Pathak & Ors. [ Special Appeal (Defective)
No. 237 of 2013] and connected matters as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within
12 weeks' time from today.

Further, the State in the letter of
appointment that will be issued to the
successful candidates shall mention that
their appointment is subject to the result of
the civil appeals that are pending before
this Court.

The appointee(s) shall not claim
any equities at the time of final disposal of
the civil appeals. All actions/proceedings of
the State Government will be subject to the
final result of these civil appeals."

(II) Order dated 17.12.2014 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014

"Primary
education
can
be
equated to the primary health of a child.
When a child is educated, the Nation
marches towards civilization. No student
can inculcate or cultivate
education
without guidance. Definitely not a child,
who is supposed to get primary guidance
from a teacher, for him he is like a laser
beam. The State, as the guardian of all
citizens and also with a further enhanced
and accentuated responsibilities for the
children, has a sacrosanct obligation to see
that the children are educated. Almost two
thousand years back, Kautaliya had stated
that the parents who do not send their
children to have the teachings, deserves to
be punished. Similar was the climate in
England almost seven centuries back. Thus,
the significance of education can be well
recognized. In such a situation, we cannot
conceive that the posts would lie vacant,
students go untaught and the schools look
like barren in a desert waiting for an oasis.
The teacher shall serve the purpose of oasis
in the field of education. Hence, the
aforesaid
direction
The
competent
authority shall file a compliance report,
failing
which
they
shall
face
the
consequences as the law provides and the
law does not countenance disobedience of
the law and orders of the court.

Let the matter be listed on 25th
February, 2015, for further hearing."

(III) Order dated 25.05.2015 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014

"At this juncture, we may note
with profit that we have fixed the
percentage for persons belonging to
Schedule
Castes/Schedule
Tribes/Other
Backward Classes at 65%. It is urged by
Mr. Sharma and learned counsel whose
names
appear
hereinabove,
that
the
persons who have obtained 60% marks
should also be considered. As 6 we find, as
of today, 29174 vacancies are available to
be filled up. If the persons belonging to
Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes/Other
Backward Classes have secured 65%
marks and their number meets the
requirement, the vacancies meant for their
quota, shall be filled up by taking into
consideration the said percentage. If the
candidates of that percentage are not
available,
the
State
shall
offer
appointments to the candidates who have
secured 60% of the marks. Be it noted, if
the candidates belonging to Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward
Classes who have secured 65% of the
marks are available, the candidates who
have secured 60% of the marks cannot be
allowed to compete with them.

The State Government is directed
to issue the public notice within four weeks
from
today
requiring
the
selected
candidates in respect of 29174 vacancies to
join and if any candidate fails to join within
the stipulated period provided in the public
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice, he will forefeit his right of
appointment in this selection. To
clarify, we may add that the public
notice shall be published in widely
circulated
newspapers
and
the
candidates shall be given three weeks
time
to
join
failing
which
the
conditions
prescribed
hereinabove
shall follow.

At this juncture, we have been
apprised by the learned counsel for the
respondents that some candidates who have
applied in more than one districts and
secured the requisite marks which have
been fixed by this Court on the previous
occasion, have joined in two posts, though
not working. The competent authority of the
State Government shall verify the same and
restrict the appointment to one place and
count the said vacancies and fill up the
same by following the critaria fixed by us.

We will be failing in our duty if
we do not take note of the submission
which has been advanced before us
that though certain posts are reserved
in the category of horizontal quota, no
steps have been taken to fill up the
said. Regard being had to provisions
contained
in
the
Persons
With
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities,
Protection
of
Rights
and
Full
Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules
in vogue in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
we direct that the posts in those
categories shall be filled up as per the
Rules relating to relaxation in respect
of the said category. That apart, if any
quota and relaxation are available for
any other horizontal category, that
may also be applied.

Let the matter be listed on
22.04.2015. It is hereby made clear that it
shall be finally heard on that day and no
adjournment shall be granted to any
counsel."

(IV) Order dated 27.07.2015 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014

"Presently, we shall proceed to
deal with our initial order passed on 25th
February, 2015, in connection with the
appointments. It reads as under:

"This Court, on 17.12.2014, after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
apart from other directions, had issued the
following direction :

"... After length has not hearing
the on various CA 4347-4375/14 occasions,
we are inclined to modify the order passed
on 25th March, 2014, and direct that the
State
Government
shall
appoint
the
candidates, whose names have not been
weeded out in the malpractice and who
have obtained/ secured seventy percent
marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
candidates belonging to Scheduled The
Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/ Other Backward
Classes and the physically handicapped
persons, shall be appointed if they have
obtained/secured sixty-five percent marks.
If there is any policy of the State
Government covering any other category
for the purpose of reservation, it may be
given effect to with the same percentage. It
shall be mentioned in the appointment
letter that their appointment shall be
subject to the result of these appeals and
they shall not claim any equity because of
the appointment, for it is issued direction
passed by this Court. on the basis of the
The letters of appointment shall be issued
within a period of six weeks."

Mr.
Venkataramani,
learned
senior counsel appearing for the State of
Uttar Pradesh, has filed an affidavit sworn
by the Joint Secretary, Basic Shiksha
Parishad, Allahabad indicating, thus :

"3. That in view of the said order
dated 25.03.2014 passed by this Hon'ble
Court, the State Government vide its order
2 All. Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
909
dated 27.06.2014 and 1.7.2014 decided to
make the selection and appointment against
72,825
post
of
trainee
teachers
in
parishadiya primary schools initiated in the
year 2011; and accordingly the counseling
have been done in following manner :

(i) Ist counseling 29.08.2014 to
31.08.2014

(ii) IInd Counseling 22.09.2014
to 30.09.2014

(iii) IIIrd counseling 05.11.2014
to 13.11.2014

(iv) IVth counseling 09.01.2015
to 14.01.2015

4. That pursuant to order dated
17.12.2014 of this Hon'ble Court only the
candidates who have secured 70% (105
marks) amongst general category and 65%
(97.5
marks)
amongst
the
reserved
category have been permitted to participate
in the said counseling.

5. That amongst the candidates
who ave been permitted to CA 4347-75/14
10 participate in the counseling during the
period of
aforementioned
schedule
have
also
been
offered
the
appointment letters and they have also
joined post in their institutions.
 6.
That
some
of
the
candidates were repeatedly offered
appointment letters from different
districts on the account of their
participation in counseling in such
district but it is clarified that here
that they have been permitted to join
their post only once. Accordingly
although 83983 appointment letters
were issued, however, the joining has
been taken only by 43651 candidates.
The
process
of
filling
up
the
remaining 29174 vacancies is also
on."

Relying on the said affidavit, it is
put forth by Mr. Venkataramani, learned
senior counsel, that the State may be
granted four weeks time to issue public
notice to the candidates to join in the
vacancies failing which the Court may
issue appropriate directions.

At this juncture, Mr. V.K. Sinha,
learned senior counsel, Mr. V.K. Sharma,
Mr. Ajay Jain, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr.
Arvind
Shrivastava,
Mrs.
Rachana
Shrivastava, Mr. Abhishek Shrivastava,
learned counsel, submitted that this Court
may ask the State Government to file an
affidavit about the number of vacancies
still available. Mr. Venkataramani, learned
senior counsel, submitted that an affidavit
to that extent will be filed by the next date.

At this juncture, we may note with
profit that we have fixed the percentage for
persons
belonging
to
Schedule
Castes/Schedule Tribes/Other Backward
Classes at 65%. It is urged by Mr. Sharma
and learned counsel whose names appear
hereinabove, that the persons who have
obtained 60% marks should also be CA
4347-75/14 11 considered. As we find, as of
today, 29174 vacancies are available to be
filled up. If the persons belonging to
Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes/Other
Backward Classes have secured 65%
marks and their number meets the
requirement, the vacancies meant for their
quota, shall be filled up by taking into
consideration the said percentage. If the
candidates of that percentage are not
available,
the
State
shall
offer
appointments to the candidates who have
secured 60% of the marks. Be it noted, if
the candidates belonging to Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward
Classes who have secured 65% of the
marks are available, the candidates who
have secured 60% of the marks cannot be
allowed to compete with them.

The State Government is directed
to issue the public notice within four weeks
from
today
requiring
the
selected
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidates in respect of 29174 vacancies to
join and if any candidate fails to join within
the stipulated period provided in the public
notice, he will forfeit his right of
appointment in this selection. To clarify, we
may add that the public notice shall be
published in widely circulated newspapers
and the candidates shall be given three
weeks time to join failing which the
conditions prescribed hereinabove shall
follow.

At this juncture, we have been
apprised by the learned counsel for the
respondents that some candidates who have
applied in more than one districts and
secured the requisite marks which have
been fixed by this Court on the previous
occasion, have joined in two posts, though
not working. The competent authority of the
State Government shall verify the same and
restrict the appointment to one place and
count the said vacancies and fill up the
same by following the criteria fixed by us.

We will be failing in our duty if
we do not take note of the submission
which has been advanced before us that
though certain posts are reserved in the
category of horizontal quota, no steps
have been taken to fill up the said.
Regard
being
had
to
provisions
contained
in
the
Persons
With
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities,
Protection
of
Rights
and
Full
Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules
in vogue in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
we direct that the posts in those
categories shall be filled up as per the
Rules relating to relaxation in respect
of the said category. That apart, if any
quota and relaxation are available for
any other horizontal category, that may
also be applied.

Let the matter be listed on
22.04.2015. It is hereby made clear that it
shall be finally heard on that day and no
adjournment shall be granted to any
counsel."

It is submitted by Mr. Prashant
Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.89 of
2015, that persons who were declared
failed in the entrance examination, after the
order passed, for some unfathomable
reason, have been declared to have passed
and some of them have been allowed to be
appointed. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel, undertakes to file the additional
affidavit containing the particulars relating
to the aforesaid aspect.

Mr. H.L. Gupta, Secretary, Basic
Education, Uttar Pradesh, who is present
in Court today, shall file a reply duly
supported by personal affidavit to the said
assertions and also to the additional
affidavit to be filed by Mr. Bhushan, within
four weeks from today.
 Let the matter be listed on 2nd
November, 2015 at 2.00 p.m.

The Secretary and the Special
Secretary, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh,
shall remain personally present on the next
date of hearing.

At this juncture, we may note that
Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior
counsel, who has been appearing since
beginning in this matter for the State of
U.P., has submitted that some other
counsel will be appearing for the State in
the case. Be that as it may, we request Mr.
R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel,
to assist the Court in the matter"

(V) Order dated 02.11.2015 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014

"In this regard, we require Mr.
Bhatia to explain to us about the number of
vacancies.

At
this
juncture,
we
must
formulate the issues that the learned
2 All. Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
911
counsel should address while arguing the
matter on the next date, for we are not
inclined any more to deal with the matter
as interim measures. The issues are as
under :

a) Whether the NCTE Guidelines
fixing the minimum qualification are
arbitrary and unreasonable?

b) Whether the marks obtained in
the TET Examination is the sole criterion
for filling up the vacancies?

c) Whether the High Court is
justified in declaring the 15th Amendment
brought in on 31.08.2012 to the U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981?

d)
Assuming,
the
guidelines
framed by the NCTE are treated as intra
vires,
the
question
will
be
what
interpretation would be placed by the
Court on the concept of weightage as
mentioned in the guidelines of the NCTE?
 Needless to say, if any ancillary
issue arises, the same shall also be
addressed to. It is hereby made clear that
except these issues, no other submissions as
regards the interim arrangement shall be
entertained.
 The personal presence of the
authorities stand dispensed with for the
present.

Let the matters be listed on
07.12.2015 at 2.00 p.m. Needless to say, if
the matter is not completed on that day, it
will continue at 2.00 p.m. on 08.12.2015.

(VI) Order dated 07.12.2015 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014

"CA
Nos.
4347-4375
and
4376/2014, SLP(C) No. 62, 1672, 1674,
11671
and
11673/2014,
SLP
(C)
No.14386/2015,
SLP
(C)......CC
No.
10408/2014, WP(C) No. 135, 167 and
89/2015
and
CONMT.
PET.(C)
No.
199/2015 In C.A. No. 4347-4375/2014 and
CONMT. PET.(C) No. 399/2015 In C.A.
No. 4347-4375/2014

On 2.11.2015, after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court
noted the stand of Mr. Bhatia which is to
the following effect :-

"It is submitted by Mr. Bhatia
that keeping in view the order dated
27.07.2015,
as
against
72825
posts
advertised, 43,077 candidates have been
appointed, who, after completion of the
training till September 2015, are working
in praesenti.

It is also submitted that 15,058
candidates are undergoing training out of
which 8,500 shall be appearing in the
examination on 16th and 17th November,
2015 and the rest will be appearing in the
examination after completion of their
training. In the result around 14,640 posts
still remain vacant."

Thereafter a grievance was made
with regard to the people obtaining higher
percentage not being appointed. The said
grievance was taken note of in the
following manner :

"At this juncture, number of
counsel have raised a grievance that there
are number of candidates who have
secured more than 70% marks in TET
examination in the general category and
the lower percentage for other categories
as per our earlier order and yet they are
not appointed. At this juncture, learned
Additional Advocate General submitted
that some of the candidates might not have
been appointed as they may not have been
qualified otherwise under the NCTE Rules.
We do not intend to interpret on the said
point, as advised today.

However, the persons who are
claiming that they are entitled to the benefit
on the basis of the percentage fixed by the
earlier order dated 27.07.2015 shall submit
their applications/ representations before
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board
(Board), Allahabad within one week hence
and the said authority shall constitute a
Committee to verify their percentage of
marks as well as criteria by which the
persons who have already been selected
and put the same on the website as well as
due intimation be given to the applicants. If
there is parity they shall be extended the
benefit of our order forthwith. The said
exercise shall be completed within three
weeks."

Be it stated that on that occasion,
four issues were framed to be dealt with at
the time of final hearing.

It is submitted by Ms. K. Sharda
Devi, learned counsel that the names of the
appointees have not yet been put on the
website. Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned
Advocate General for the State of U.P. and
Mr.
Gaurav
Bhatia,
learned
AAG
undertake that the same shall be put on the
website within a week hence.

At this juncture, we may state that
Mr. Bhatia, learned AAG submitted that in
pursuance of the direction of this Court on
the earlier occasion and prior to that more
than 75,000 representations were received
and after scanning the same, the State
Government has found 12,091 persons
eligible for being appointed subject to
verification of antecedents. Let the said
persons be appointed subject to the said
verification within six weeks hence.

At this juncture, Mr. Rakesh
Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, Mr.
Neeraj Jain, Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr.
Sanjay Hegde, Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Anand
Nandan, Mr. Arvind Srivastava, Mr. Ajay
Jain, Ms. Rachana Shrivastava, Mr. Avnish
Singh, Mr. D.K. Tiwary, Mr. Rajiv Dubey,
Ms. S. Janani, Mr. Ashok Kuamr Sharma
and Mr. Manoj Prasad learned counsel
submit that they represent approximately
1100 people and some arrangement should
be made for them. On being asked, Mr.
Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate
General submitted that the State has no
objection to offer them appointment on ad
hoc basis subject to result of the special
leave petitions. Let that be done within four
weeks hence. Needless to say, no right shall
accrue in their favour because of this
order.

Let the matter be listed for final
disposal on 24.02.2016 at 2.00 p.m. The
hearing shall continue on 25.02.2016 and
26.02.2016 at the same time.

S.L.P.(C)...CC
Nos.
2170821709, 20837, 20914, 20953, 20875,
20894, 21017, 21265, 21277, 20690,
21052, 20651, 21118, 21184, 21085-21089,
21376, 21392, 21589, 21056/2015 and
SLP(C) Nos. 32599, 33328-33339, 33235
and 34093/2015

Permission to file the special
leave petitions stands allowed.

Heard
Mr.
Dushyant
Dave,
learned senior counsel along with Mr.
Gaurav Bhatia, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Issue notice returnable within
four weeks.
 Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

The State shall make a paper
publication which is widely published I
the State of Uttar Pradesh so that the
persons who were the petitioners before
the High Court shall be aware of the
pendency of these cases before this
Court.

Learned counsel for the State
shall file a convenience volume which
shall contain all the pleadings that were
filed before the High Court in Writ
Petition No.34833 of 2014 so that no
fresh pleadings are required to be filed.

Let this matter be heard along
with Civil Appeal No.4347-4375 of 2014
on 24.02.2016 for final disposal. As
2 All. Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
913
indicated by learned counsel for the
petitioners,
they
will
not
seek
any
adjournment.

As an interim measure, there
shall be stay of the operation of the
impugned judgment till the next date of
hearing."

(VII) Judgment dated 25.07.2017
in Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014

"16. There is no manner of doubt
that the NCTE, acting as an 'academic
authority' under Section 23 of the RTE Act,
under the Notification dated 31st March,
2010 issued by the Central Government as
well as under Section 12 and 12A of the
NCTE Act, was competent to issue
Notifications dated 23th August, 2010 and
11th
February,
2011.
The
State
Government was under obligation to act as
per the said notifications and not to give
effect to any contrary rule. However, since
NCTE itself has taken the stand that
notification dated 11th February, 2011
with regard to the weightage to be given to
the marks obtained in TET is not
mandatory which is also a possible
interpretation, the view of the High Court
in quashing the 15th Amendment to the
1981 Rules has to be interfered with.
Accordingly, while we uphold the view that
qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are
binding, requirement of weightage to TET
marks is not a mandatory requirement.
 17. As a result of above, in
normal course the State would have been
at liberty to proceed with the selection in
terms
of
advertisement
dated
7th
December, 2012 in accordance with the
amended rules by way of 15th amendment,
in view of developments which have taken
place during pendency of these appeals,
the said advertisement cannot proceed and
while upholding the said advertisement,
relief has to be moulded in the light of
developments that have taken place in the
interregnum.

18. Vide interim order dated 25th
March, 2014, this Court directed the State
of Uttar Pradesh to fill up the vacancies of
Assistant Teachers in terms of the
impugned judgment. Thereafter, on 17th
December, 2014, the said order was
modified and the State was directed to
appoint candidates whose names were not
involved in malpractices in the TET test
and who had obtained 70% marks (65%
for
SC,
ST,
OBC
and
physically
handicapped
or
any
other
category
covered by the Government policy for
reservation). 54,464 posts have already
been filled up in compliance of the orders
of this Court. The said appointments were
subject to result of these matters. It was
also observed that if anyone without TET
qualification is appointed his services will
be terminated. Vide order dated 2nd
November, 2015 it was noted that against
72,825 posts which were advertised,
43,077 candidates had completed training
and were working while 15,058 candidates
were undergoing
training.
Around
14,690 posts were vacant. It was
further observed that candidates who
had the required percentage of marks
in terms of order dated 27th July, 2015
were to file their applications and a
Committee constituted for the said
purpose could verify such percentage
and if parity was found the same
benefit could be extended.

19. We have been informed that
66,655
teachers
have
already
been
appointed in pursuance of the interim
orders of this Court. Having regard to the
entirety of circumstances, we are not
inclined to disturb the same. We make it
clear that the State is at liberty to fill up
the remaining vacancies in accordance
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with
law
after
issuing
a
fresh
advertisement.

20.
The
matters
will
stand
disposed of in above terms."
(Emphasis supplied)

(VIII)
Judgment
dated
13.12.2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil)
Nos. 1332-1360/2018

"11. Following facts, therefore,
emerge from the record:-

(a) Large number of vacancies
were lying unfilled while the Civil Appeals
were pending in this Court. Taking into
account
the
interest
of
the
student
community
those
appointments
were
required to be made. A principle was,
therefore
adopted
by
order
dated
17.12.2014 that those who had obtained
more than 70% marks in TET Examination
from the general category and those who
had obtained more than 65% marks from
the
reserved
categories
be
given
appointments. The idea was clear that such
candidates would normally stand selected
in the ultimate process of selection. It was,
however,
made
clear
that
such
appointments would not entitle the selected
candidates to raise any claim in equity.

(b) In the selection process
undertaken thereafter, initially 29,174
candidates were selected and a direction
was issued on 25.02.2015 to fill up those
posts.

(c)
The
next
order
dated
02.11.2015 recorded that as against
72,825 posts which were advertised,
43,077 candidates were appointed, who
after completion of training were actually
working while 15,058 candidates were
undergoing training, leaving about 14,640
posts still vacant.

(d) The exercise of selecting
those who had secured minimum marks in
terms of criteria devised by order dated
17.12.2014 also resulted in finding 12,091
persons eligible subject to verification of
antecedents, as was recorded in the order
dated 07.12.2015.

(e) The list of these 12091
candidate was published and it is a matter
of record that the names of the contempt
petitioners were part of this list.

(f) According to para 21 of the
Affidavit dated 01.10.2016 (which has
been referred to in the order dated
22.07.2019) out of these 12091 candidate,
only 391 candidate could be appointed as
the others either did not take part in the
selection process or had not opted for
certain Districts or could not be selected
going by the cut-off for the concerned
District. This development had happened
way back in October 2016 and the
affidavit was on record since then.

(g)
The
State
thereafter
published
another
advertisement
on
06.02.2016 so that if any candidate was
left
out,
his candidature
could
be
considered. Steps were thereafter taken
and another advertisement was published
on 08.02.2016. Para 25 of the Affidavit
dated 01.10.2016 as quoted in the order
dated 22.07.2019, dealt with this issue in
clear terms and was thus part of the
record.

(h) Aforesaid para 25 of the
Affidavit thus made it clear that as on the
date when the affidavit was filed, 64,257
vacancies were filled up and 1,536
appointment letters were being issued in
addition. It was also stated that 862
candidates
were
given
ad-hoc
appointments in terms of the order dated
07.12.2015 and were not included in the
number of 64,257. These three figures
aggregate to number 66,655.

(i) Thus, the reasons for not
appointing all the persons who were part
2 All. Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
915
of list of 12,091 candidates were available
on record from October 2016 onwards.

(j) At no stage any grievance was
made till the matter was disposed of in July
2017 which gave the status of permanency
to those who were appointed under various
interim orders passed by this Court.

(k) The grievance was made for
the first time almost a year after when these
contempt petitions were filed.

(l) The order dated 22.07.2019
had, therefore, observed that the Court
could not disregard the fact that challenge
had been raised more than a a year after
the final Judgment. Even then, the State
Government was called upon to indicate on
affidavit certain issues. The reason was
obvious that if there was large scale
infraction of interim orders passed by this
Court which merged in the final Judgment,
the matter could still have been considered.

(m) However, the response filed
by the State Government now indicates
with clarity that no fresh appointments
were effected after 2016 and no person
other
than
those
who
satisfied
the
requirements laid down by this Court in its
Order dated 27.07.2015 as modified by
further orders, was given any appointment.
The State Government has also placed on
ecord the District wise break-up of all
candidates appointed in various categories
in all 75 Districts of the State.

(n) Even after the filing of the
response by the State, as indicated in para
10 hereinabove, nothing substantial cold be
pointed out by any of the candidates or
contempt petitioners.

12. In the circumstances, we do
not see anything wrong in the process
undertaken by the State Government in
pursuance of various interim orders
passed by this Court and also in
pursuance of the Judgment and final
order dated 25.07.2017. The fact that out
of 12,091 candidates only few could be
selected and the reasons for non-selection
of rest of the candidates, were part of the
record since October 2016. In any case,
response filed by the State is also clear. In
the totality of the circumstances, in our
view, there has not been any violation of
any of the orders passed by this Court as
alleged in the contempt petitions or
otherwise.

13. We, therefore, see no reason
to interfere in these contempt petitions
which
are
directed
to
be
closed."
(Emphasis supplied)

(IX) Order dated 08.05.2020 in
Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 851-879 of
2020

"The
contempt
petitions
preferred by various parties were disposed
of by Order dated 13.12.2019. In para 11
of the order certain facts which emerged
from the record were set out, which
included inter alia,:-

Thus,
the
reasons
for
not
appointing all the persons who were part of
list of 12,091 candidates were available on
record from October 2016 onwards.

At no stage any grievance
was made till the matter was disposed
of in July 2017 which gave the status
of permanency to those who were
appointed
under
various
interim
orders passed by this Court."

In para 2(e) of the review
petition it is now alleged that some of
the candidates had filed contempt
petition No.190 of 2016 on 11.03.2016
along with other contempt petitions
seeking compliance of the order dated
07.12.2015. However, the record does
not indicate that any grievance was
made when the matter was finally
heard and disposed of in July 2017.
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In the circumstances, we see no
merit in the review petitions. accordingly
dismissed. These review petitions are
accordingly dismissed."

(X) Judgment dated 27.09.2023
in
Writ
Petition
(Civil)
Diary
No.
19925/2023

"Application
seeking
condonation
of
delay in
refiling
is
condoned.

Learned
senior
counsel
appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioner(s) is one of the 66,655
teachers (Sub-Category 12,091) who have
been appointed pursuant to the interim
order of this Court. However, the
grievance of the petitioners is that there is
no actual appointment orders which have
been issued to them, therefore, this
petition has been filed seeking a writ of
mandamus under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.

At this stage, we are not inclined
to interfere in the matter. However, liberty
is reserved to the petitioners to file a
petition before the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution and seek
appropriate remedies.

It is needless to observe that if
such a petition is filed before the High
Court, the same shall be considered as
expeditiously as possible having regard to
the fact that the order of this Court is
dated 25.07.2017.

The Writ petition is disposed in
the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any,
shall
stand
dispose
of."
(Emphasis
supplied)

9. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare,
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Agnihotri
Kumar Tripathi and Sri Indresh Dubey,
Advocates, Sri R.K. Ojha and Sri H.N.
Singh, Senior Advocates assisted by Sri
Abbula Kalam, Sri Jamil Ahmad Ansari
and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocates
for
petitioners,
Sri
Ashish
Kumar
Nagvanshi,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Ravi
Prakash
Srivastava,
learned
Standing
Counsel for State-Respondents and Mrs.
Archana Singh, Advocate for Board of
Basic Education, U.P. at Prayagraj, at
length. Before adverting to their rival
submissions, petitioners before this Court
can be divided under three categories:

(I) Candidates who were part of
sub category of 12091 candidates, i.e.,
within the cut off merit and have filed writ
petition before Supreme Court.

(II) Candidates who were part of
sub category of 12091 candidates, i.e.,
within the cut off merit list but have not
filed any writ petition before Supreme
Court.

(III) Candidates who were neither
part of sub category of 12091 nor have
filed any writ petition before Supreme
Court.

10.

Learned
Senior
Advocates
appearing for petitioners have referred
various orders passed by Single Bench and
Division Bench of this Court as well as
Supreme Court which are referred in earlier
paragraphs of this judgment. Learned
Senior
Advocates
have
vehemently
submitted that if the figure of selected
candidates is 66655 which has been
referred in sub-para (h) of para 11 of order
dated 13.12.2019 passed by Supreme Court
in contempt petitions which has already
been mentioned in earlier paragraphs of
this writ petition, petitioners who are part
of list of 12091 are also part of it but since
Supreme Court is satisfied by the affidavit
2 All. Vinay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
917
filed on behalf of State about calculation of
66655, therefore, the Court has no option
but to accept the details of calculation and
that list of 12091 candidates was not part of
list of selected candidates.

11.