UPTET : Allahabad HC Earlier Dismissed A Writ Petition Challenging Different University Marks in Selection Process Resulted in Discrimination. Now A Special Appeal Filed Once Again in Allahabad HC
Yachee ka kehna thaa ki alag alag university mein practical marks diffrent hote hain, aur aise mein Acadmic merit se selection sahee nahin hai.
Court ne 12 feb 2013 ke apne decision mein is yachika ko kharij kar diyaa thaa, Ab ek baar fir yachika
Special Appeal ke tehat dakhil keee gayee hai, Jo ki facebook par charach ka vishay ban gayee hai
As per info provided by Rakesh Mani ji on Facebook -
Rakesh Mani Tripathi
Reserved
Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5465 of 2013
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Shukla And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Principal
Secretary & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Tiwari
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Harendra
Yadav
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel
for the respondents. The argument advanced by Sri Tiwari is contained in the order passed
on 6th of February, 2013 which is quoted herein under:-
"Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners who has challenged the mode of calculation of award of quality point marks under the amended notification dated 4th of December, 2012 that has been brought on record by way of an amendment application.
The office is directed to give a number to this application. The amendment application is allowed.
The learned Standing Counsel has been heard as against the aforesaid challenge raised through the amendment.
The contention of Sri Anil Tiwari in essence is that the amended mode of award of quality
point marks in relation to the training part which was earlier contained in Appendix
under Rule 14(3) has now been altered to the disadvantage of the petitioners, inasmuch as,
the students having qualification of B.Ed. from different universities are being discriminated because of the different mode of award of theory and practical marks.
Sri Anil Tiwari contends that the formula now introduced under the amended rules works
injustice and the outcome of such a procedure adopted is sought to be demonstrated by the calculations as
projected in paragraph 20 of the writ petition.
Sri Tiwari submits that the mathematical calculation which has now been carried out, clearly puts those candidates to a disadvantage where the maximum marks for the practical exams is different and that has
resulted in the discriminatory method of calculation by the respondents.
The petitioners contend that this discrimination cannot be accepted as all the candidates belong to the same homogeneous class and possess similar degrees as recognized under the relevant statutes and
ordinances of the respective universities.
Heard Sri Anil Tiwari at length.
Judgment reserved."
I have heard Sri Tiwari at length. The amendment in the rules firstly applies to all candidates equally with no distinction, and is therefore not discriminatory. The choice of the candidate to opt for a course in a
different university is the option of the candidate himself and he cannot plead discrimination on the ground of provision of separate marks for practicals. Even otherwise, this does not stand to logic,
inasmuch as, the amended rules provide for calculation on the percentage of marks obtained in B.Ed. Course. The percentage has to be calculated by dividing it by 100 or multiples thereof. This being the uniform denominator for calculating any percentage, there would be no difference in calculation as
suggested and projected in Paragraph 20 of the writ petition. If the practical marks of the University are of 300, then the percentage will be calculated by dividing it by the multiple of 300. Similarly, if the practical
marks of a University are 400 or 600, the percentage would be calculated by the multiple of 400 or 600. Thus the method of calculation of the percentage remains the same, and this does not in any way
discriminate between the students of different universities.
Apart from this, it is open to the State Government to provide for another mode of calculation which in its wisdom is more appropriate.
The Court is no expert to delve on such academic matters unless the rules are otherwise violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The rule introduced could not be demonstrated to be unreasonable or patently illogical.
In the circumstances, the submission raised by Sri Anil Tiwari does not appeal to reason.
The rules do not suffer from any vires as alleged and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.02.2013
Sahu
Source :
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2371044
Special appeal
Accepted
.
Special
Appeal/548/2013/Sonbhadra
ARVIND KUMAR
SHUKLA AND 3
ORS.
STATE OF U.P.
AND 3 ORS.
09/04/2013
*************************************
Hindustan mein bahut saare states mein Acadmic Merit Ka use kar Selection ho rahaa hai, isleeye kisee nayee process mein Acad. merit ke rule ko challenge karnaa aasaan nahin hai.
Several states in India uses Acadmic merit for selection of teachers, therefore it is hard to challenge acadmic merit esp. if Selection process is new.
