Some Cases of UPTET Exam 2011 in Allahabad Highcourt Uttar Pradesh

Some Cases of UPTET Exam 2011 in Allahabad Highcourt Uttar Pradesh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR
Judgment reserved on 8th November, 2011
Judgment delivered on 11th November, 2011
Court No.33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.58165 of 2011
Abhishek Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
~~~~~~~

WITH

Writ Petition Nos. 57701 of 2011, 59246 of 2011, 59714 of 2011, 59731 of 2011, 62235 of 2011, 59686 of 2011, 63246 of 2011, 62669 of 2011, 63340 of 2011, 58920 of 2011, 59752 of 2011, 61298 of 2011, 60181 of 2011, 58170 of 2011, 59106 of 2011

~~~~~~~


Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioners, who possess Bachelor of Physical Education Degree (hereinafter referred to as the ''B.P.Ed') or the Diploma in Physical Education (hereinafter referred to as the ''D.P.Ed') have filed these petitions for quashing the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the ''NCTE') which lays down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII.


The petitioner have also sought the quashing of the advertisement dated 22nd September, 2011 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Intermediate Education Board') which has been authorised to hold the Teachers' Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as the 'TET') to the extent it does not permit the candidates who possess B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. from appearing at the said test.
It is stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and in pursuance of the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Government of India, the NCTE issued the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Classes I to VIII in a School referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act, which amongst others, provides that the person should pass the TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. The Intermediate Education Board, which has been authorised by the State Government to hold such a test, issued the advertisement dated 22nd September, 2011 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appearing in the UP-TET but persons with B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. have not been included. They cannot, therefore, appear in the test. It is, therefore, asserted that the petitioners, who have obtained B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed., stand excluded from appointment in Classes I to VIII since a person who has cleared the TET is only considered eligible for appointment. In this connection, it is further stated that physical education and games are essential requirements for students and even the State Government recognised this aspect when it issued the Government Order dated 5th April, 2004 by which Physical Education and Sports was made a compulsory subject in the State. Thus, in order to give effect to the aforesaid requirement, it was necessary for the State to have created posts of teachers in Physical Education and Sports in the Schools but the order dated 5th April, 2004 permits appointment of a sports teacher from amongst the teaching staff of the School after he is given the required training.
It is submitted by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 provides for minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Classes I to VIII and passing TET is considered to be an essential requirement but in respect of teachers for physical education, such requirement has been waived under Clause 5(b) of the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 as amended by the Notification dated 29th July, 2011 and it is provided that the minimum qualification norms for physical education teachers shall be such as provided in National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulation, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ''2001 NCTE Regulations') as amended from time to time. It is his submission that when under the aforesaid 2001 NCTE Regulations, it is provided that for recruitment of teachers of physical education, the minimum academic and professional qualification for elementary schools shall be Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent and Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent, it was incumbent upon the State to have created posts of physical education in the Schools so that the teachers with such qualifications could be appointed but the Government Order dated 5th April, 2004 permits appointment of sports teacher from amongst the teaching staff of the school after he is given training for a certain period. It is also his contention that persons possessing B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. should be permitted to appear at the forthcoming UP-TET to be held on 13th November, 2011 so that they can be considered for appointment as teachers.
Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and the Intermediate Education Board and Sri R.A. Akhtar and Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the NCTE have contended that the reliefs claimed in these petitions cannot be granted to the petitioners. It is their submission that in terms of paragraph 5(b) of the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, the petitioners are not required to appear at the UP-TET and for them the 2001 NCTE Regulations shall apply which prescribe the minimum academic qualification as Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate and Certificate of Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) or its equivalent. It is also pointed out by Sri K.S. Kushwaha that in the Schools run by the Basic Education Board or recognised by the Basic Education Board, post of teacher in physical education has not been created in the State. In this connection he has also placed Regulation I of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which provides that B.P. Ed. Degree holders are eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in Intermediate Colleges (Class XI to XII) and has, therefore, submitted that the petitioners can be considered for appointment on this post. It is also his submission that it is for this reason that Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and Rules 4 and 5 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 do not provide for qualification for the said post of Assistant Teacher in Physical Education in elementary schools. It is also his contention that the petitioners have not assailed the 2001 NCTE Regulations and, therefore, the writ petitions challenging the consequential Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 and the advertisement dated 22nd September, 2011 is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. Vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs. & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 756.
I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners, who claim to be B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed., are desirous of appearing at the UP-TET conducted by the Intermediate Education Board so that they possess the minimum qualification for a person to be considered eligible for appointment as a teacher in Classes I to VIII in a school referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act.
In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these petitions, it will be necessary to refer to various provisions of the Act and the Notifications.
Section 23(1) of the Act deals with the qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers and is as follows:-
"23. Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.--(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher."

Elementary Education has been defined under Section 2(f) of the Act while a School has been defined under Section 2(n) of the Act and the definitions are as follows:-
"2(f). "elementary education" means the education from first class to eight class;"
................
(n) "school" means any recognised school imparting elementary education and includes--

(i) a school established owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or a local authority;

(ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local
authority;

(iii) a school belonging to specified
category; and

(iv) an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority;"

The Central Government, by means of the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 which was published in the Official Gazette dated 5th April, 2010, has authorised the NCTE as the ''academic authority' to prescribe the minimum qualifications which notification is as follows:-
"NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 31st March, 2010

S.O. 750(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Central Government hereby authorises the National Council for Teacher Education as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher."

The NCTE, accordingly, issued the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 which was published in the Gazette of India dated 25th August, 2010. The said Notification lays down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Classes I to VIII in a school referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act with effect from the date of the notification. However, another Notification dated 29th July, 2011 was published in the Gazette of India dated 2nd August, 2011. This Notification made certain amendments to the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 published in the Gazette of India dated 25th August, 2010. The minimum qualifications prescribed in the Notification after the amendment for a person to be considered eligible for appointment as a teacher are as follows:-
1. Minimum Qualifications.-

(i) Classes I-V

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El. Ed.).
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education).

OR

Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(ii) Classes VI-VIII

(a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

OR

Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)

OR

Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.EI.Ed)
OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed. or B.A. Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
OR

Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education.- For the purprose of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education), a course recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.

3. Training to be undergone.- A person -

(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard shall also be eligible for appointment for Class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.

(b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.

4. Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification.- The following categories of teachers appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above,

(a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2001, i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in School) Regulation, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation.

Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed. qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) or D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognised 6-month special programme on elementary education.

(b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE;

(c) A teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules.

5.(a) Teacher appointed after the date of this notification in certain cases: Where an appropriate Government or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).

(b) The minimum qualification norms referred to in this notification apply to teachers of Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for Physical Education, the minimum qualification norms for Physical Education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulation dated 3rd November, 2001 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable. For teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State Governments and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualifications in respect of such teachers.

It is stated by learned counsel for the NCTE that 3rd November, 2001 in paragraph 5(b) of the said notification had been wrongly mentioned and the date should be 3rd September, 2001.
It is, therefore, clear that in respect of teachers for physical education, the minimum qualification norms which will be applicable are the 2001 NCTE Regulations dated 3rd September, 2001. These Regulations do not provide for clearing the TET. In fact for elementary schools, all that is provided is that the persons should have the minimum academic and professional qualification as Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent and Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent. It is, however, stated by Sri Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the State that Certificate of C.P.Ed. is not being awarded in the State after 1997.
According to Sri Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and the Board, not a single post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) has been created in the Basic Education Department till date and it is for this reason that 1981 Rules or 1978 Rules do not provide for the qualification of the said post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). The petitioners, at best, can be considered for appointment in Intermediate Colleges as they claim to be possessing graduation degree with Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) Degree.
The relief claimed in these petitions is to quash the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 and suitably amend the advertisement so as to permit the petitioners to appear at the forthcoming UP-TET to be held on 13th November, 2011. There is no submission that paragraph 5(b) of the notification is bad in law or that the NCTE was not competent to provide the minimum qualifications. As noticed hereinabove, Section 23(1) of the Act confers powers on the academic authority authorised by the Central Government to prescribe the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher and the Central Government has by the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 authorised the NCTE to lay down the minimum qualifications. The NCTE has, accordingly, issued the Notifications dated 23rd August, 2011 and 29th July, 2011 and under paragraph 5(b), the minimum qualifications for Physical Education Teachers are the qualifications contained in 2001 NCTE Regulations. These Regulations do not provide for holding a TET. There is no challenge to the 2001 NCTE Regulations. In such circumstances, the relief claimed for by the petitioners for permitting them to appear at the UP-TET so that they can be considered for appointment cannot be granted. The petitioners cannot, accordingly, be permitted to assail the advertisement to the extent it does not permit them from appearing at the UP-TET.
The NCTE 2001 Regulations may provide for the minimum qualifications for teachers in elementary schools as the post of Physical Education Teacher may be existing in other States but merely because such minimum qualifications have been prescribed by the NCTE does not mean that it is obligatory for the State to create posts of Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) in the Schools run by the Basic Education Board or recognised by the Basic Education Board. The State may have realised the importance of physical education and for that purpose has made it a compulsory subject in Classes I to VIII but as pointed out by Sri K.S. Kushwaha, such training is imparted to candidates undergoing the BTC Training Course so that when they are appointed to teach other subjects, they can also teach this compulsory subject for which the only requirement is to pass and the marks are not added to the final result. This apart, a direction cannot be issued to the respondents to create posts of Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) in elementary schools run by the Basic Education Board or recgonised by the Basic Education Board so that the petitioners can be considered for appointment. There is no categorical averment in the petitions that the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in elementary school exists in the other two categories of Institutions referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act.
The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Date: 11.11.2011
GS
***************************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61864 of 2011

Neetu Singh
Versus
State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla.J.
Petitioner has rushed to this court for declaring Clause1(a) of the Broucher issued issued by U.P. Secondary Education Board which limits the zone of consideration by imposing 40% marks in reference to SC/ST category candidate in graduation for undertaking U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test (UPTET) 2011. Petitioner submits that on account of imposition of such a condition, petitioner's candidature stands rejected under U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2011 and as such aforementioned condition in question is arbitrary and unreasonable, as same has the effect of making her B.Ed Degree as redundant and negatory. Petitioner has stated that she has perused her B.Ed course on the mark obtained by her in written examination of post graduate and now at this juncture of life on account of imposing such condition of having 40% at Graduation level has no nexus with the fixation of such eligibility criteria blocking the road for under taking examination.
Sri. M.A. Mishra, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that imposition of such condition is completely arbitrary and unreasonable and as such said condition is liable to be struck down.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that fixation of eligibility criteria is the domain of employer and once employer in his wisdom has chosen to fix eligibility criteria for qualifying examination, then this court in exercise of its authority of judicial review cannot interfere.
After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case that Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad has issued advertisement dated 22.9.2011 for conducting U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2011 and the said exercise has been undertaken by National Council for Teacher Education pursuant to the mandate provided for under Section 23 of Right of Children to fee and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. At this juncture petitioner who has not got to her credit 40% marks at graduation level have rushed to this court for quashing of the said condition.
Once eligibility criteria has been fixed by National Council For Teacher Eduction and accordingly State Government has proceeded to invite application mentioning therein eligibility criteria and therein clear cut provision has been made that at graduation level, incumbent who have 40% marks, only can apply then qua the said, policy decision fixing particular eligibility criteria, this court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners.
Apex Court in the case of P.M. Lata & another Vs. State of Kerala & others JT 2003 (2)SC 423 has taken the view that fixation of qualification for particular post is matter of recruitment policy. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being quoted below:
"We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed qualification is a higher qualification then TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to complete for the post. On behalf of the applicants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary B.Ed degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teaches as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible.


Apex Court again in the case of Yogesh Kumar & others Vs. Government of NCT Delhi and others, JT 2003 (2) SC 453 has taken the view that it is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment clearly mentions that fixation of qualification is discretion of recruiting authority as recruiting authority knows the sources from which recruitment is to be made. Relevant paragraph-8 of the aforesaid judgement is being quoted below:
"8. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In our view, the division bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers. We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any B.Ed. candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal."

Apex Court in the case of Sanjai Kumar Manjul Vs. Chairman UPSC, AIR 2007 SC 254 has taken the view that it is the statutory authority alone which is entitled to frame Rules as well as the qualification and Courts have no authority to prescribe qualification or to supplant or supplement the same. Relevant paragraphs 23 to 26 of the said judgment is being extracted below.
"23. The aforementioned contention of the Fourth Respondent herein has specifically been denied and disputed. It has been contended that recruitment rules of the Deputy Superintending Archaeologist are different from the Superintending Archaeologist. Whereas in the case of the former, two years' research experience in various subjects including Epigraphy was considered to be sufficient, in the case of latter, what was necessary was field experience of five years in Archaeology and knowledge of monuments and antiquities.
24. The statutory authority is entitled to frame statutory rules laying down terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned who can take ultimate decision therefore.
25. The jurisdiction of the superior courts, it is a trite law, would be to interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same.
26. It is well settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post."

On the parameter of the judicial pronouncement as quoted above, once an expert body concerned in its wisdom has fixed eligibility criteria and therein term and condition of the advertisement are specific and precise leaving no room of doubt qua the minimum eligibility criteria candidate has to have for enabling him to take the test, then merely because in the past provision had been made that incumbents who have good percentage of marks at Post Graduate level were entitled to peruse their course of B.Ed, the said provision should be relaxed quashed cannot be accepted. For being appointed as teacher, for teaching classes 1 to 8 minimum eligibility criteria has been provided for by an expert body and once petitioners are not falling in the zone of consideration, not having 45% at Graduation level, then this Court, cannot other wise direct while exercising authority of judicial review. All policy decision are decided by experts and Courts do not have expertise in such matter, and Court can interfere only when there is violation of constitutional provisions or statutory provision. See Basic Education Board Vs. Upendra Rai 2008 (3) SCC 432. Here such a situation is not there, and coupled with this similar arguments have already been negated by this court on 13.10.2004, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58771 of 2011 Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. Dt. 31.10.2011
T.S.
**********************************



********************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64925 of 2011

Petitioner :- Hariom Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Raj Kumar Shukla,Anil Kumar Shukla,Smt. Sarita Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Connect this writ petition along with Writ Petition No.19406 of 2011.
Sri Suresh Singh appears for respondent No.4. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. The respondents are allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
List thereafter.
In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession on the land in dispute as existing today.
Order Date :- 16.11.2011
Rakesh
***************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64925 of 2011

Petitioner :- Hariom Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Raj Kumar Shukla,Anil Kumar Shukla,Smt. Sarita Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Connect this writ petition along with Writ Petition No.19406 of 2011.
Sri Suresh Singh appears for respondent No.4. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. The respondents are allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
List thereafter.
In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession on the land in dispute as existing today.
Order Date :- 16.11.2011
Rakesh
**********************