JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Government Order No. 2657/15-5-97-127/97 T.C., dated 11th August. 1997 and another Government Order No. 4911/15-97-90/73 of the same date whereby the selection for the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Basic Education Board has been confined to such candidates who have obtained certificates from the institutions run by the State Government. The petitioner, Hira Mani, has obtained training in basic education from Buniyadi Prashikshan Sans than, Jaispur, district Sidhi (M. P.). Smt. Klran Kumari, the petitioner, was awarded Teacher's Training Certificate by Bihar Vidyalaya Examination Samiti. These petitioners have been treated as ineligible for being considered for selection to the post in question.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the action of the State Government was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it derecognised the certificates obtained by a candidate from the institution which has been recognised by the other States, in this context. It is necessary to refer Rule 8 of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers' Service) Rules. 1981 :
"8. Academic qualifications.--(1) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be as shown against each :
Post Academic Qualifications
(i) Mistress of Nursery Schools.
Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from recognised training institution in Uttar Pradesh or any other training qualification recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto.
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools.
High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Uttar Pradesh or any other qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by the State Government together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate. Hindustani Teachers certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate or Teaching or any other training course recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto.
3. Rule 8 confers the power on the State Government to recognise any other training course. This power includes the power to derecognise also. The State Government had earlier recognised various training course certificates obtained by a candidate from other Institutions but by the Government Order dated 11th August. 1997, referred to above, the recognition granted earlier has been cancelled. It refers to detailed Instructions Issued by the National Teachers Education Board issued in the year 1995.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Ashok Kumar Verma and others v. State of U. P. and another. (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1024, wherein an advertisement Issued by U. P. Public Service Commission for the post of Ayurvedic and Unani Chikitsa Adhikari on 1.12.1984 was challenged on the ground that it confined eligibility of a candidate who possesses degree of Ayurvedic or Unani from the University duly established in Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that advertisement issued under Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate (Gazetted) Medical Service (Ayurvedic and Unani) Rules. 1964 was in contravention of Section 40 of Indian Medicine Act. 1939. There was no bar under Section 40 of the Act that a candidate who had obtained the qualification shall not be entitled for consideration for appointment as the State Government could grant a special sanction. It was further held that the State Government failed to give any explanation as to why it confined to the candidates obtaining the degree from Universities in Uttar Pradesh. This case has been followed in Chandra Prakash and others v. State of U. P. and others. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14327 of 1987,
5. Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex. descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be Ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. In case the State Government recognises the certificate obtained by a candidate or refuses to recognise such certificate, it is not on the ground of place of birth or residence but recognises such certificates which have been obtained from the institutions run by the State Government itself. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding challenge to the validity of any action of the Government or legislation on the ground that it is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, will not be applicable to the case of the petitioners.
6. In Union of India and others v. Sanjay Pant and others, AIR 1993 SC 1365, wherein the candidate was not being given regular appointment on the ground that he was not a "local candidate" of Andaman and Nicobar Island, the Supreme Court held that such candidate cannot be denied employment on this ground alone. In A. V, S. N. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1970 SC 422, the Supreme Court clarified that clause (3) of Article 16 enables Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any requirement as to residence within a State or Union Territory prior to appointment as a condition of employment in the State or Union Territory.
7. In Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420, in the case relating to admission to Medical Colleges, a distinction was drawn between the requirement as to residence and place of birth holding that Article 16(2) does not prohibit the requirement as to residence. This requirement can, however, be tested under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was observed as follows :
"If, therefore, there is any residence requirement for admission to a Medical College in a State, it cannot be condemned as unconstitutional on ground of violation of Article 16(2). Nor can Article 16(2) be invoked for Invalidating such residence requirement because that Article prohibits discrimination on ground of place of birth and not on ground of residence and, as pointed out by this Court in D. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat. (1955) I SCR 1215 : AIR 1955 SC 334, residence and place of birth are "two distinct conceptions with different connotations both in law and in fact". The only provision of the Constitution on the touchstone of which such residence requirement can be required to be tested is Article 14 and that is precisely the challenge which falls to be considered by us in these writ petitions."
8. The Supreme Court permitted reservation for the purpose of admission in Medical Colleges to the extent of 70% to those candidates who belonged to a particular State. One of the grounds was that students after having passed M.B.B.S. examination will serve the State where they have been residing. The Court made the following observation in Dr. Jagdish Saran and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 820 :
"Again, if the State finds that only students from the backward regions, when given medical graduation, will care to serve in that area, drawn towards it by a sense of belonging, and those from outside will, on graduation, leave for the cities or their own regions, it may evolve a policy of preference or reservation for student of that University. That strategy ensures the probability of their serving the backward people for whose benefit the medical courses were opened. Such measures which make for equality of opportunity for medical education and medical service for backward human sectors may be constitutionalised even by Articles 14 and 15."
9. The cases of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Dr. Jagdish Saran were again affirmed and explained in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. M. L. N. Medical College and others. AIR 1985 SC 1059 and Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. M. L. N. Medical College and others. AIR 1986 SC 1877.
10. In this context, the State Government, running its own institutions imparting education in Basic Training Courses, if given preference to the candidates who have obtained certificates from its own institutions only in giving employment in the Junior Basic Schools run by the U. P. Basic Education Board, cannot be termed as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the State Government, if candidates from such Institutions are not available, to permit the candidates who have obtained Basic Training Course from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Government Order No. 4911/15-97-19-73, dated 11th August, 1997 cancels B.T.C. training course obtained from other institutions by the Government in view of the directions given in Government Order No. 2657/15-5-97, dated 1st August. 1997 issued by the National Teachers' Education Board relating to Basic Training Courses. The petitioner has neither annexed the copy of the said Government Order nor it has been shown that any direction given therein was arbitrary. It was for the petitioner to establish that the action of the State Government cancelling the recognition already granted by it is arbitrary and discriminatory without any justification. The State Government is Itself running various teachers' training institutions and if the candidates are available in large number for selection/appointment from these institutions, it has a right to give preference in the selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. There is no element of arbitrariness in it. Rule 8 of 1981 Rules itself confers power on the Government to recognise certificate of Basic Training Course Issued by other institutions.
11. The petitioners have not challenged the vires of Rule 8 of 1981 Rules. The rule does not lay down an absolute bar that the Board shall not recognise other certificates. The State Government, considering the various factors at a point of time, may recognise the certificates obtained by a candidate from other institutions or it may refuse to recognise or cancel the recognition which has earlier been granted. The State Government by the Government Order dated 11th August, 1997, referred to above, cancelling the recognition of the certificates obtained from the institutions other than the institutions run by it, does not suffer from any illegality.
12. In view of the above discussions, these writ petitions are dismissed.