UPTET stay के खिलाफ दायर SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 280 of 2012
Petitioner :- Lalit Mohan Singh And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Illigible,K.S. Kushwaha
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
1. An advertisement for selection of Apprentice Teachers was published
on 30.11.2011 in the primary school run by UP Basic Education Board (the
Board). The Apprentice teachers are to be engaged in all districts and this
advertisement was on behalf of all District Basic Education Officers of the
State of UP.
2. WP No. 76039 of 2011 has been filed challenging the advertisement.
The single Judge has passed an order on 4.1.2012 staying the selection
and appointment in pursuance of the advertisement. Hence the present
appeal by the two appellants, who claim themselves to be the applicants in
the advertisement alongwith application to grant leave to file appeal.
3. Considering the facts that the appellants are also applicants in the
selection of Apprentice Teachers, the leave is granted. The respondents
have no objection to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is
condoned and it is heard for admission.
4. The counsel for the appellant submits that:
● By the advertisement, 72825 posts have been advertised. This writ
petition is on behalf of only one person and it is not proper to grant
interim order in this case;
● The selection process ought not to have been stayed by the single
Judge but the single Judge should have permitted the selection
process to go on and the selection might have been made subject
to decision in the writ petition;
● The reason for grant of stay order was that advertisement was on
behalf of District Basic Education Officers of the State. This is not
erroneous because the District Basic Education Officers are the
appointing authority and one advertisement can always be issued
on their behalf together;
● The publication of one advertisement is practical and better way of
selecting candidates in the entire district.
5. The counsel for the petitioner-respondent states that:
● Apart from this writ petition there were other writ petitions that
should have been connected with this one;
● There is no interim order in those cases, but it is not correct to say
that only one person is challenging the selection.
6. It is not disputed between the parties that counter and rejoinder
affidavits have been exchanged in the writ petition and the writ petition
itself is listed before the single Judge for final disposal in the week
commencing 9.4.2012. Considering the facts that the number of persons
are to be employed, it would be appropriate that the single Judge might
consider finally deciding the writ petition at the earliest.7. With the aforesaid observations, the special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.4.2012