15000 भर्ती पर कुछ डी एड वालो के हाई कोर्ट में जाने के कारण भर्ती पर मडराने लगे संशय के बदल अगली सुनवाई 27 अगस्त को अग्रिम सुनवाई तक कॉउंसलिंग के आगे की प्रक्रिया पर संशय बरकरार
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29443 of 2016
Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Tiwari And 12 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Milan Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Notice on behalf of respondents -1 to 4 has been
accepted by Chief Standing Counsel.
The Standing Counsel is one month's time to file
counter affidavit.
It has been stated that� Sri U.S. Upadhyay has
been
appointed as Standing Counsel for respondents-
2 and 3
but he has avoided to receive notice of the writ
petition.
Although the notice was tried to served upon him
on
24.6.2016. The counsel for the petitioner has
made
endorsement in this respect in the writ petition.
In such
circumstances, in the absence of notice to
respondents
- 2 and 3 , the petition is being heard.
The contention of the petitioner is that the
advertisement dated 12.12.2014 /13.12.2014 was
made
for selection and appointment of Assistant
Teacher for
Primary School. The petitioners were having
qualification of Diploma in Education (Special
Education)
from Rehabilitation Council of India. In the year
2008,
the nomenclature of the Diploma in Education
(Special
Education) has been changed as Diploma in
Special
Education� (Hearing Impairment) [D.Ed. S.E.
(HI)] 2
years, although the degree is same. Earlier the
respondents have avoided to accept the forms of
the
petitioners then petitioners had to file writ
petition i.e.
Writ A No. 533 of 2015 which was allowed by
this Court
by order dated 2.2.2015 and the respondents
were
directed to accept the application forms of the
petitioner
through online mode. Although the forms of the
petitioners has been accepted but at the time of
counselling� the certificate of the petitioners
has not
been accepted. The counselling was conducted
on
22.6.2016 and appointment letter is being issued
on
28.6.2016.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel
for the
petitioner and examined the records.
Once it has been found that the petitioners were
holding
requisite qualification for the post of Assistant
Teacher
then there was no justification for not permitting
them
to appear in the counselling.
In such circumstances, the respondents are
restrained
from issuing appointment letter to any of the
eligible
candidates. If the appointment letters have been
issued
then they may not be permitted to join for the
aforesaid
post till next date of listing.
List on 27th August, 2016 before appropriate
Bench.
Certified copy of this order may be issued
today.�
Order Date :- 28.6.2016
