Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6594 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjoo Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Tripathi,Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Ashish Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
One of the essential qualifications for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School is D.Ed. The claim of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School, District Sonebhadra was not considered since the petitioners had obtained said requisite qualification from Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the certificate of Diploma in Education issued by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur from where the petitioner has qualified the examination for grant of Diploma in Education (2 year course). Initially the aforesaid Diplomas were not recognised in the State of U.P. Consequently the holders of Diploma in Education from the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education were denied for appointment of Assistant Teacher in the State of U.P. The controversy was decided by this Court in Writ-A No. 47490 of 2017 (Km. Pallavi Vs State of U.P. and 3 others) on 12.12.2017. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in terms of N.C.T.E. notifications, provided there was no other impediment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Km. Pallavi Vs State of U.P. and 3 others (supra).
Sri Rai, learned counsel for respondent 4 in useful fairness submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Km. Pallavi Vs State of U.P. and 3 others (supra).
In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Km. Pallavi Vs State of U.P. and 3 others (supra). The representation of the petitioner shall be decided within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the authorities along with certified copy of this order. If such a representation is filed along with certified copy of this order the respondent authorities shall decide the same within a period of three weeks.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Pravin