http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2450 of 2007

PETITIONER: Devendra Singh & Ors

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & B. Sudershan Reddy

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        2450    OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(c) No.  16232 of 2004) With CIVIL APPEAL NO.        2448    OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(c) No.  26109 of 2004)

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

       Leave granted.  

2.      These appeals have been preferred against the  common judgment and order of the Allahabad High  Court   dated 14.5.2004 passed in Special Appeal No.  461 of 2004.  

3.      We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for  the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the  material made available on record.  

4.      The facts leading to filing of these appeals are not  required to be noticed in detail for a very short and  simple question falls for consideration viz. as to whether  the authorities were right in not selecting the appellants  to undergo B.T.C. Training Course, 2004.   

5.      The State of Uttar Pradesh as a measure of policy  decision has decided to arrange the Special BTC Training  Course for a period of six months to as many as 46,189  candidates possessing B.Ed./L.T. course. The National  Teachers Education Board accorded its approval to the  proposal submitted by the State of Uttar Pradesh for  arranging the Special BTC Training Course for a period  of 6 months to all those candidates with a requisite  qualification of B.Ed./L.T. course. The Government order  dated 14.1.2004 makes it abundantly clear it is a Special  BTC Training Course, 2004 which is a programme of  training for six months, including a three months  practical schedule and in no manner deals with any  selection and appointment of Assistant Teachers in the  Basic Schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board in  the State of Uttar Pradesh. Be it noted that none of the  appellants in these appeals could secure admission to  Special BTC Training Course, 2004.  Their case is that  they should be given preference in admission to Special  BTC Course inasmuch as they had already appeared for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

selections in Special BTC Course, 2001.  Their further   case is that the appointments should be made on the  basis of year wise training course passed by the  candidates, and the candidates who had passed the  required training course earlier be placed above  than  those who had passed the training later.  

6.      In order to resolve the controversy it is just and  necessary to notice the salient features of the policy  decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated  14.1.2004.  It is clear from a bare reading of the policy  that the Government had resolved to arrange the  Special BTC Training Course spread over a period of six  months to all those 46,189 B.Ed./L.T. qualified  candidates. The selection is for the purposes of  imparting training and not recruitment into any service  as such.  Only such candidates who completed their  training of B.Ed./L.T. as regular students  in universities  recognized by the National Teachers Education Board,  recognized colleges and training institutes conducted by  the State Government/Central Government alone were  eligible for the selection into the course.  The policy  provides the age of the applicant must be minimum of  16 years  and not more than 35 years as on 1st July,  2004.  However, some relaxation has been made in  favour of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, backward  class candidates and others with which we are not  concerned in this case.  The most important feature of  the policy is that  a State level merit list is required to  be prepared on the basis of  percentage of marks  obtained in High School considering the rules regarding  reservation.   The policy directs the payment of stipend  of Rs. 2500/- per month to the selected candidates for  the special BTC training  until "he is duly appointed on  the post of Assistant Teacher in the basic school after  passing the written and practical examinations  conducted by the Registrar, Departmental Examinations,  Uttar Pradesh and obtaining the required certificate,  under the control of State Council for Education  Research and Training, on completing the required  training in the merit process."

7.      The Government order dated 14.1.2004 was  amended vide Government order dated 20.2.2004 even  while the writ petition filed by the appellants herein  pending before the learned Single Judge.  The  amendments made C.P.Ed., B.P. Ed. and D.P.Ed.  qualified candidates also to be eligible along with B.Ed.  and L.T. candidates provided they have taken training as  institutional candidates from recognized universities and  the State colleges, training colleges.  The maximum age  limit was extended to 40 years  with exemption to  reserved category candidates.  

8.      The record discloses that the primary contention of  the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that  the maximum age should be 45 years  as provided for in  the 1998 selections of Special BTC and that those  candidates who were eligible to appear in the 2001  selections should be given exemptions on the ground   that National Council had not imposed any restriction  with regard to the maximum age while granting  approval to the said course.  These contentions were  rejected by the learned Single Judge as well as by the  Division Bench.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

9.      In these appeals the said contentions are not  pressed.  The learned counsel for the appellants mainly  argued that the merit list should be arranged in such a  manner so as to provide year wise list on the basis of  B.Ed.  training course  or the other training courses as  the case may be for the purposes of selection to the  Special BTC Training Course, 2004. The learned counsel  mainly relied upon the provisions of the U.P. Basic  Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 ( for short ’the  Rules’) in support of his submission. Rule 14 of the Rules   provides for determination of vacancies and preparation  of list for appointment by direct recruitment to the post  of Mistress of Nursery Schools and Assistant Master or  Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools.  Rule 14 was  amended by Notification dated 28.6.1993.  Sub-rule (4)  of Rule 14  as it stood prior to its substitution provided  that the names of the  candidates in the list prepared  under sub-rule (2) shall be arranged in such manner  that the candidates who have passed the required  training course earlier in point of time shall be placed  higher than those who have passed the said training  course later, and the candidates who have passed the  training course shall be arranged in accordance with the  quality point marks specified in the appendix.  The High  Court while dealing with the rules in response to the  submissions made by the appellants found that sub- rules (3) to (6) were deleted by Notification dated  6.8.1997 and the amended rules do not provide for any  exemption and the selections were required to be based  only upon the training qualification.  It is for that reason  the High Court found that there is no question of  arranging the list in such a manner that the candidates  who have passed the required training course earlier in  point of time shall be placed higher than that of those  who have passed the said training course later.  

10.     The learned counsel for the appellants relying upon  the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in  these appeals wherein it is conceded that sub-rules (3)  to (6) of Rule 14  are not deleted submitted that the  matter should be sent back for re-consideration of the  High Court by duly applying the effect of sub-rules (3) to  6 of Rule 14 of the Rules.  The submission was that the  merit list is required to be prepared in accordance with  sub-rules (3) to (6) of Rule 14 of the Rules. The  submission in our considered opinion is totally  misconceived.  We have already noticed that the U.P.  Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 deal  with the post training scenario.  The Rules deal with the  selection and appointment of teachers from amongst the  candidates already possessing the training qualifications.   The Rules  do  not deal with the selection of the  candidates into Basic Training Course.   The reliance  placed upon the said Rules by the appellants in support  of their contention is totally untenable and  unsustainable. These Rules do not have any bearing in  the matter of selection of candidates into Basic Training  Course, 2004.  The policy decision of the Government  dated 14.1.2004  deals with the arrangement of the  Special BTC Training Course for the period of six months  for those 46,189 B.Ed./L.T. qualified candidates.  The  process of selection of the candidates  for the said  training and the arrangement of the training is required  to be conducted in accordance with the guidelines,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

directions, conditions and restrictions incorporated  thereunder.  None of the appellants qualified themselves  for undergoing the said training course inasmuch as they  were not selected as they were not found meritorious or   over aged as the case may be.  It is not demonstrated  as to how the appellants were entitled for selection to  undergo Special BTC Training Course, 2004.  The  validity of the policy decision dated 14.1.2004 is not  impugned in these appeals.  11.     No other contention is urged.  12.     For all the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in  these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.  13.     We make no orders as to costs.