(Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Smt. Farkhanda Parveen, W/o Rashid Hussain,

3. Munabar Ali, S/o Mohd. Usman,

4. Mohd. Saleem S/o Imamudin,

5. Nasreen Bano, D/o Shri Jiaul Islam,

6. Mohd. Javed Ashraf, S/o Mohd. Suhail Ashraf.

7. Mohd. Nadeem Ashraf, S/o Mohd. Suhail Ashraf,

8. Mohd. Farookh, S/o Mumtaz Hussain,

9. Samina Khatoon, D/o Shri Hafiz Ali Hussain,

10. Mohd. Islam, S/o Shri Intzaar Hussain,

11. Mohd. Aslam, S/o Shri Akhtar Hussain,

12. Ayub Alam, S/o Shri Rafique Ahmed,

13. Sahana Parveen, D/o Sayed Ahmed,

14. Mohd. Yunus, S/o Mahboob Hussain,

15. Surfraj Hussain, S/o Sadique Ahmed,

16. Shakil Ahmed, S/o Shri Mustaq Hussain, All R/o C/o Rashid Hussain, Mohalla- Dilla Singh Near- Dr. Bangali, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …………….Petitioners. Versus

1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Basic Education.

2. Director of Schools Education, Dehradun.

3. Additional District Education Officer/B.S.A. Udham Singh Nagar. …………Respondents.

20.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to call the petitioners for appointment on the post of Astt. Teacher Urdu without any delay against the advertisement dated 16.06.2002. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that

16.06.2002, respondent no. 3 published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher of Urdu in basic schools from the candidates having B.T.C. Urdu Certificate. The petitioners have submitted that on 16.06.2002 there were 26 vacant posts of Assistant Teacher Urdu in the District and at present, there are more than 46 posts are vacant. They have alleged that they have a certificate known as Moallim-E- Urdu, which was recognized as equivalent to B.T.C. Urdu by the State of U.P. vide G.O. dated 13.09.1994 and as such they have petitioners submitted their application forms before respondent no. 3, but the respondent no. 3 had not considered the candidature of the petitioners. The petitioners have preferred a representation before respondent no. 3 on 03.07.2002 and the respondent no. 3 rejected the representation of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent no. 3, the petitioners have filed a writ petition No. 794 (S/B) of 2002, W.P. No. 1300 (S/B) of 2002, 1316 (S/B) of 2002. This Hon’ble Court on 02.08.2003 allowed the writ petition no. 794(S/B) of 2002 and issued a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to recognize the certificate of Moallim-E-Urdu equivalent to B.T.C. Urdu for the recruitment against the appropriate post of those petitioners who have obtained certificate prior to 11.08.1997. High Court of Uttaranchal in W.P. No. 794 (S/B) of 2002 has observed as under:- “A bare perusal of the G.O. dated September 13, 1994 annexure-4 to the writ petition reveal that the State of U.P. has recognized the Moallim-E-Urdu certificate equivalent to BT.C. Urdu and in pursuance thereof incumbent who hold such certificates were to be given appointment against vacancies of B.T.C. discipline in Urdu language. No doubt, by G.O. dated

11.08.1998 certificates, which were recognized as equivalent to B.T.C., have been derecognized, except the certificates issued by institutions specified in this order. Jamia-E-Urdu do not find place among those institutions and, therefore, the certificate of Moallim-E-Urdu ceased to have recognition with effect from the date of the issuance of the said G.O. dated

11.08.1997. learned Standing Counsel did not controvert the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the provisions of Section 86 of Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 both the above G.O’s of the State of U.P., issued prior to the creation of the State of Uttaranchal, continue to apply in the State of Uttaranchal. Therefore, if any8 person has obtained Moallim-E-Urdu certificate before

11.08.1997 will be entitled to the benefit of this certificate and G.O. dated 13.09.1994, (Annexure-4). For the above reasons only those petitioners who have obtained Moallim-E-Urdu certificate before 11.08.1997 will be entitled to proper relief in this petition. Since the candidates who were selected pursuant to advertisement dated

16.06.2002 issued by respondent no. 2 have not been impleaded as the respondents in this petition and therefore, no relief in regard to the said advertisement is being granted to the petitioners. The petition, therefore, succeed partly and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding respondents to recognize the certificate of Moallim-E-Urdu equivalent to B.T.C. (Urdu) for the recruitment against the appropriate posts of those petitioners who have obtained certificate prior to 11.08.1997. No order as to costs.” The petitioners have further made a grievance that till date they have not been called for interview in spite of the order passed by the Additional Secretary to the following effect:- ^^fo"k;%& izns’k ds izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa 217 lgk;d v/;kidksa mnwZ ds inksa ij fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa Ekgksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d i=kad la[;k 23577@2000&01 ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d v/;kid mnwZ ds 217 ¼nks lkS l=g ek=½ fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq Jh jkT;iky egksn; fuEufyf[kr izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSa ¼1½ izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esaa lgk;d v/;kid ds 217 fjDr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj fuq;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk;A ¼2½ iz’uxr fu;qfDr izfdz;k ikjnf’kZrk viukrs gq, fo|eku fu;eksa@’kklukns’kksa ds vuqlkj fu;ekuqlkj dh tk;sxhA iz’uxr izfdz;k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh f’kfFkyrk ugha cjrh tk;sxhA ¼3½ lgk;d v/;kid mnwZ ds inksa ij fu;qfDr m0iz0 csfld f’k{kk v/;kid NBoka la’kks/ku fu;ekoyh 1994 rFkk vkBoka la’kks/ku fu;ekoyh 1988 dh O;oLFkkuqlkj ,oa tks Hkh izfdz;k fu;ekuqlkj bl lEcU/k esa izpfyr gks] ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxhA ¼4½ mnwZ v/;kidksa ds inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq ;kfpdk :0 794@2002 esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; uSuhrky }kjk ikfjr vkns’kksa ds dze esa Hkh izdj.k esa vxzzsRrj dk;Zokgh lqfuf’pr dh tk;A** The Director has already passed the order to the following effect:- ^^mDr izfdz;k viukrs le; ek0 loksZPp U;k;ky; ,oa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa ;ksftr fo’ks"k vuqKk ;kfpdk ,oa fo’ks"k vihy o ;kfpdk la[;k dk mYys[k dj Li"V dj fy;k tk; fd p;u izfdz;k mDr vkns’k ds vuqlkj gh lEikfnr dh tk jgh gS] ftlls vU; fu;qfDr dh izfdz;k fof/kd :Ik ls ckf/kr u gks ldsA ;g O;oLFkk dsoy ;kfpdk la0 794@2002] 1300@2002 ,od 1316@2002 ds ;kfp;ksa ds fy, gh jgsxhA** A supplementary affidavit has also been filed showing the certificates. According to the grievance of the petitioners since the respondents have not called the petitioners for appointment as Urdu Teachers and as such the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus against the respondent no. 3 for considering the candidature of the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed in W.P. No. 794 (SS) of 2002 Liberty is given to the petitioners to file a fresh representation stating their grievances within a period of ten days along with the certified copy of the order. In view of the aforesaid government orders, the writ petition deserves to succeed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher in Urdu in accordance with the Government Order dated 13th September, 1994 and judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 794/2002 within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the orders. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.)

20.02.2006 Rathour