Uniform eligibility for Basic Teachers cannot be restricted by district when B.T.C. candidates are insufficient statewide.

Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 prescribed B.T.C. training as the normal qualification, but the State had relaxed that requirement when sufficient B.T.C. candidates were unavailable. The Court held that once B.Ed. and L.T. candidates were treated as eligible on that basis, the policy could not be confined only to hill districts without a rational basis for territorial classification. B.Ed. and B.T.C. remained different qualifications, yet the Government could consider B.Ed./L.T. candidates wherever B.T.C. candidates were insufficient. The district-wise restriction was therefore unjustified, and the same eligibility principle had to operate uniformly throughout the State.

---

---

Issues: Whether candidates possessing B.Ed. or L.T. qualifications could be considered for appointment as Basic Teachers throughout the State when B.T.C. candidates were not available in sufficient , and whether limiting such consideration to hill districts only was justified under Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.

Analysis: Rule 8 prescribed the normal training qualification for appointment in Basic Schools, but the State had from time to time relaxed the requirement and treated B.Ed. and L.T. as sufficient where adequate B.T.C. candidates were not available. The record showed that the restriction to hill districts was based only on the shortage of B.T.C. candidates. The Court found no rational basis for applying that reason only in selected districts when the same contingency could arise elsewhere in the State. Once the State chose to treat alternative qualifications as eligible because of non-availability of B.T.C. candidates, the policy had to operate uniformly wherever the same situation existed. The Court also held that B.Ed. and B.T.C. were different qualifications, but the Government could still consider B.Ed./L.T. candidates where the prescribed candidates were insufficient.

Conclusion: The district-wise restriction was not justified. If sufficient B.T.C. candidates were unavailable, the respondents had to consider B.Ed. or L.T. candidates in the selection process throughout the State; if sufficient B.T.C. candidates were available, they could be appointed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the State was directed to apply the same eligibility principle uniformly and to consider B.Ed./L.T. candidates wherever the prescribed B.T.C. candidates were not available in sufficient number.

Ratio Decidendi: When the State relaxes a prescribed qualification because of non-availability of eligible candidates, the resulting policy must be applied uniformly across the State unless a rational basis for territorial classification is shown.

---