Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 664 of 2018 Appellant :- Nisha Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
To question correctness of the order dated 30th May, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ-A No.12235 of 2018 this appeal is preferred.
Under the order impugned, learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that the appellant- petitioner was not having requisite qualification on the last date of making the application to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher. Hence, the respondent-employer rightly rejected her candidature.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that learned single Bench failed to appreciate the facts available on record in correct perspective.
It is stated that as a matter of fact, the appellant-petitioner was not having only the requisite qualification but was also placed in the list of selected incumbents.
Facts of the case are that on receiving the approval for appointment of 12460 Assistant Teachers, a process of selection was initiated on 15th December, 2016. The appellant-petitioner considering herself eligible to be considered, submitted an application in the prescribed proforma for appointment as Assistant Teacher. Being suffered with hearing impairment, she claimed horizontal reservation against the vacancies pertaining to handicapped persons in general category. In the application she disclosed 83 marks secured by her in Teachers Entrance Test, an essential requirement to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher.
The respondents conducted first counselling from 18th March, 2017 to 23rd March, 2017, consequence whereof a select list was declared on 23rd March, 2017. Being having 69.98 merit marks, the appellant-petitioner was selected and was placed at Serial No.9083 in the list of selected incumbents. A list of selected incumbents for district Basti was also declared wherein one Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey (Serial No.143) having 69.05 merit marks was also placed. The cut off marks as declared by the Zila Basic Siksha Adhikari, Basti were 69.05. Utter surprise to the petitioner, though she had 69.89 marks but was not included in the select list for district Basti. Being aggrieved by the same, she preferred a petition for writ bearing Writ Petition No.12235 of 2018 that came to be dismissed under the order impugned 30th May, 2018 dated 30th May, 2018.
Learned single Bench, as already stated, noticed that the appellant-petitioner was not possessing requisite eligibility on the last date for submitting the applications. It is noticed in the order impugned that the appellant-petitioner qualified Teachers Entrance Test on 17th March, 2017 i.e. a date subsequent to the last date for submitting application forms.
It is brought to our notice by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that as per the advertisement dated 15th December, 2016, the minimum marks required by a handicapped person in Teachers Entrance Test were 82 only and the appellant-petitioner was having 83 marks. The candidature of the appellant-petitioner, as such was entitled to be considered under handicapped category.
While defending the order impugned, it is submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the appellant-petitioner failed to qualify Teachers Entrance Test in general category and therefore, 83 marks obtained by her were rightly not taken into consideration by the recruiting authority.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
It is not in dispute that the appellant-petitioner was having 83 marks in Teachers Entrance Test and the requirement for the candidates under the handicapped category is of having 82 marks only. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant- petitioner claimed horizontal reservation against the vacancies for handicapped persons pertaining to general category and therefore, she was though not having the marks required for general category but she was certainly having marks required for handicapped persons. The respondents as such should have considered the candidature of the appellant-petitioner on basis of the eligibility fixed for the reserved category under which she applied. There was no just reason for not considering her candidature in the category of handicapped persons. Learned single Bench also failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.
For the reasons given above, this appeal deserves acceptance. Hence, is allowed. The order impugned dated 30th May, 2018 is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the appellant-petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher by by taking into consideration 83 marks in Teachers Entrance Test and in all 69.98 merit marks. The appellant-petitioner if stands in select list as per her merit, she be placed therein and appointment be accorded to her as Assistant Teacher, if she is otherwise eligible.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Bhaskar (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)