RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 1171 · Decided: 04-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
l -
-
'-
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 4, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
National Council for Teacher Education, 1993: 
U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972: 
U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981-Rule 5" 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 15, 16 and 350-A: 
Special Basic Teacher's Certificate training course-By State 
Government-For Primary Schools-Training not recognized under 1993 Act-
Rules providing qualification and procedure for selection of candidates 50% 
seats reserved for female candidates-Change made in preparation of merit 
list from Statewise basis to Districtwise basis-Validity of the act of the State-
Held: The Special Training course was contrary to the provisions of the Basic 
Education Act, Rules and 1993 Act-Reservation for female candidates is not 
arbitrary and hence not violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16--State 's act in 
changing the criteria for preparation of merit list from Statewise basis to 
Districtwise basis is arbitrary and violative of Article 15(1) and 16(2)-There 
A 
B 
D 
E 
is no violation of Article 350-A as the case is not shown to be one of linguistic F 
minority. 
In view of insufficient number of Teachers holding Basic Teacher's 
Certificate (BTC), required for primary schools run by the Basic 
Education Board, respondent-State decided to impart special training to 
B.Ed./L.T. in order to employ them as Teachers in the primary schools. G 
50% of the seats were reserved for female candidates. There was also a 
restrictive condition for the candidates to make the applications only 
against the vacancies available in their home district. Subsequently the 
restrictive condition was modified and it was decided to prepare the merit 
1171 
H 
1172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 3 S.C.R. 
--
A list at the State level. Thereafter again the condition was imposed and 
r'
decided to prepare the merit list at the District Level instead of State Level. 
The candidates who had applied on the basis of the order providing 
preparation of merit list Statewise, since were not selected, filed writ 
Petition. Single Judge of High Court allowed the Petition. Division Bench 
B 
of High Court also decided in favour of the State. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD ·: 1. The special BTC training course contemplated by the 
c State of U.P. had not been recognized by the National Council for Teacher 
Education under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 
It was, therefore not a recognized teachers' training course. The State 
government, therefore, could not have declared it or treated it as 
~ 
equivalent qualification for the purpose of Assistant Masters or Assistant 
Mistresses. In view of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 
D 1981, and particularly keeping in view Section 16 of 1993, which gi\•es 
overriding effect to the provisions of State Act, the special BTC training 
course formulated by the State government was contrary to the provisions 
of the Basic Education Act, 1972 and Rules and the 1993 (Central) Act. 
(1180-C, F; 1181-A) 
E 
Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College, 
JT (2002) 8 SC 269, relied on. 
2. Restriction of the selection and preparation of merit list at the 
district level was arbitrary and violative of Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the 
F Constitution. Though at one stage the State Government had decided to 
prepare the merit list on the State level, it was suddenly changed to the 
district level and the reasons advanced for the sudden change were found 
to be wholly irrelevant and unjustified. 11179-A-C; 1179-BI 
3. Articles 15(3) of the Constitution enables the State Government 
G to make special provision for women and children notwithstanding the 
prohibition contained in Article 15(1). Particularly viewed in the 
background of the fact that a large number of young girls below the age 
J 
of 10· years were taught in the primary. school, and recognizing that it 
~ 
would be preferable that such young girls are taught by women, the 
"' 
H 
reservation of 50% of the posts in ~avour of female ca.ndidates was 
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF U.P. [B.N. SRIKRISHNA. J.] 1173 
justified. The classification made was justified and cannot be styled as A 
arbitrary or liable to be hit by Article 14. (1178-E-GI 
4. Article 350-A was not violated as there is no material to show that 
the case of any linguistic mino

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.