JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. All the petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher in recognised Primary Schools/Junior High Schools in their respective institutions but denied benefit of B.T.C. qualification under impugned orders dated 16th December. 1996 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Nainital, earlier orders dated 18th November, 1989 and 14th December, 1989 (Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition respectively) passed by Secretary. U. P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and Director. Basic Education/Chairman. U, P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad, respectively whereby persons having B.T.C. through Correspondence Course have been discriminated.
2. Petitioners (14 persons in all) have filed this petition claiming writ of certiorari to quash impugned orders.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the chief standing counsel before filing of the writ petition. Standing counsel represents respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) is represented by Sri K. S. Shukla, Advocate.
4. All the respondents were given time to file counter-affidavit as early as on 8th January, 1997. None of the respondents have availed this opportunity to file counter-affidavit. Needless to mention, respondents cannot have the last say in the matter and the case must be decided : particularly when the petitioners are suffering immensely and cannot be compensated by the respondents in any manner for the delay in decision of the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri A. N. Bhargava and Shri Hyder Husaln. standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Shri K. S. Shukla, Advocate (appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2) has i sent an illness slip and informed the Court of his inability to appear in the case today.
6. In view of the fact that the writ petition was filed as early as in January. 1997 and no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents including respondent No. 2, 1 proposed not to adjourn the case today as it is listed peremptorily and in view of the fact that relevant respondents are already represented by standing counsel and proposed to decide this writ petition on merits finally after hearing learned counsels for the parties.
7. Petitioners have filed a copy of Government Order dated 6th September, 1994 issued by the concerned Education Secretary U. P. Government addressed to Director of Education U. P.. Allahabad (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). By means of the said Government Order, earlier Government Orders on the subject, namely, whether a teacher--who has been granted exemption in earlier Government Orders from B.T.C. training qualification on the basis of his working experience for a certain period, can be treated equivalent to a Teacher possessing regular B.T.C. Certificate. Aforesaid Government Order dated 6th September, 1994 laid down three categories of the teachers working in an institution which were granted, not only the exemption and also provided that a working teacher, after undergoing requisite course and on passing a departmental examination, as contemplated in the said order itself, was to be treated at par with those possessing regular B.T.C. certificate.
8. Various documents have been filed along with the writ petition as Annexures to show that the petitioners have been working in different institutions and that they were issued certificates by competent authorities indicating that they were not entitled to the benefits attached to the post held by a teacher possessing B.T.C. qualification.
9. Petitioners have, therefore, challenged classification under these three orders dated 18th November, 1989, dated 14th December, 1989 and 16th December, 1996 (Annexures-11, 12 and 17 to the writ petition). These orders (Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition) stand revoked in view of Government Order dated 6th September. 1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and hence they are of no consequence.
10. For this reason, impugned order dated 16th December. 1996 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) is vitiated and cannot be sustained.
11. At the Bar it is stated that another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32996 of 1996, Ram Gopal Yadav v. State of U. P. and 5 others, raising identical controversy was filed, which has been decided on 18th August. 1998. Said judgment is reproduced as below :
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Singh for the respondent.
The petitioners have done B.T.C. correspondence course but they are not being considered for appointment in Junior Basic School as they have not done B.T.C. regular course.
It has been held by this Court in Ramesh Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 (2) ALR 88, that B.T.C. correspondence course should be treated as equivalent to B.T.C. regular course.
Following the said Judgment, this petition is allowed. The petitioners should be treated as equivalent to regular B.T.C. course and the petitioners should be considered accordingly. No order as to cost.
Sd./- M. Katju. J.
18.8.1998."
12. Petitioners have also filed a copy of the judgment and order dated 26th November. 1992 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 818 of 1992 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition).
13. Learned single Judge in the case of Ram Gopal Yadav, (supra) relied on a reported decision in the case of Ramesh Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and others. 1993 (2) ALR 88 and observed that B.T.C. correspondence course should be treated B.T.C. regular course.
14. In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court referred to above.
15. I would, however, like to further add that the Government extended benefit on exemption of fulfilling certain conditions under Government Order dated 6th September, 1994. Teachers who got benefit under the said Government Order and treated at par with those teachers who possessed regular B.T.C. certificate cannot be discriminated and treated differently, particularly when the question of appointment is within those very institutions in which they have been working when they were extended benefit of said Government Order. Denial of benefit will be negation of logic, fair play and good conscience.
16. Accordingly, writ of certiorari is issued to quash orders dated 18th November, 1989. 14th December, 1989 and 16th December, 1996 (Annexures-11, 12 and 17 to the writ petition) respectively.
17. A writ of mandamus is also issued commanding respondents to consider the petitioners and similarly situated other teachers working in the institution (recognised by Basic Education Board or the institutions run by it without creating distinction) for selection and appointments, if they possess B.T.C. qualification, irrespective of the being acquired by correspondence.
18. A general mandamus is also being issued to the respondents so as to command U. P. Basic Shtkshaka Parish ad and its authorities not to make any distinction and treat all the working teachers, who have got benefit of exemption under Government Order dated 6th September. 1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) at par with the teachers holding regular B.T.C. certificate for appointment and any other purpose in the relevant institutions within State of U. P.
19. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government, Lucknow as well as Secretary. Basic Education for information and compliance.
20. Writ petition stands allowed.
No order as to costs.