TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (4) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d their Bachelor of Education degree. 3. The claim made in the present writ petition is against limiting consideration to the candidates possessing B.T.C. qualification alone in respect of appointments of Basic Teachers and against the Government Order dated 9.9,1994 issued by the State Government and the Circular Letter dated 22.9.1995 issued by the Director of Education (Basic) in so far as they limit consideration of candidates possessing Bachelor of Education qualification to the hill districts only. 4. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare. learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. S. G. Hasnain, learned Counsel for the Respondents and considered the materials disclosed in the writ petition and its Annexures and the counter-affidavit and its Annexures....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Uttara Khand declaring the qualification of B.Ed. or LT as a sufficient qualification within the meaning of said Rule 8 when sufficient candidates with B.T.C. qualification are not available for appointment in Junior Basic Schools in Uttara Khand run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended on the basis of aforesaid materials that when the Government itself has issued the Government Order dated 9.9.1994 declaring B.Ed. and L.T. as equivalent qualification to B.T.C. in respect of appointment of teachers in Junior Basic Schools in Uttara Khand, there cannot be a different treatment in respect of other parts of the same State where also same set of rules, including same Rule 8, is applicable. Relia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Mahendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 (2) ESC 312. 12. After considering the aforesaid materials and respective contentions of the parties, I find that in the case of Nirmal Chander Mishra (supra), the nature of two qualifications, namely, B.Ed. and B.T.C. were considered and finding was based on the materials disclosed in the counter affidavit in the said proceeding. In the present case also in the counter-affidavit, the materials have been disclosed showing a difference between two qualifications B.Ed. and B.T.C. and the difference in the two training courses. On behalf of the Petitioners in the writ petition, no material has been disclosed enabling this Court to come to a conclusion contrary to the findings in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said Government Order. 14. At the time of hearing, reference was also made to the documents dated 6.1.1995, 22.11.1995 and 30.11.1995 for the purpose of ascertaining the scope of the Government Policy relating to the aforesaid aspect. 15. Considering the contents of the aforesaid documents and the contents of counter-affidavit filed herein, I find that the Government was proceeding on the basis of requirement district wise and considering the candidates also district wise. It also appears that there was dearth in availability of candidates having requisite training qualification which were recognised under Rule 8 and to meet such contingency, policies were introduced for considering other candidates having training qualification not r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the consideration of the candidates having training qualification not recognised under Rule 8, I find that the Government is following a policy for recognising B.Ed. and L.T. as proper qualification under Rule 8 by issuing Government Order but this has been restricted to some districts in the hill areas. The reason disclosed is one only for such policy and such reason is apparent from the documents referred to hereinabove including the Government Order dated 9.9.1994. This reason is non-availability of sufficient number of B.T.C. candidates. If that be so, undoubtedly, the Rule 8 permits the Government to recognise a particular training qualification as equivalent to B.T.C. and for the said purpose, the Government is entitled to take act....