Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77307 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2027 of 2011 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel,Narendra Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- P.S.Verma,R.S.Prasad Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri P.S. Verma, Advocate for Respondent-School. 2. Petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Teacher was initially approved, however, later on it was withdrawn on ground that petitioner’s B.Ed. Degree from Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Chitrakoot of the year 1994-95 was not recognized by N.C.T.E. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when impugned order was passed there was a legal impediment since the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) ADJ 232 was stayed by Supreme Court, however, now since the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed, therefore, it will rescue petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner refers the answer given by Full Bench to question no. 3, which is reproduced hereinafter: “(III) Whether the exclusion of those candidates from field of eligibility for Special B.T.C. Course - 2007 who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of 1993 Act or after the enforcement of 1993 Act during the period when the application of the Institution or the University was pending consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ?” “In view of the foregoing discussions, the question No.3 is answered as follows:- "The exclusion of the candidates from the field of eligibility for Special Basic Training Course 2007, who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 or after the enforcement of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 during the period when the application of the institution or the University was pending consideration is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The above two categories of candidates are also eligible to participate in Special Basic Training Course 2007." 5. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that later on another ground was mentioned to non-suit petitioner that when Committee of Management of concerned School took proposal for appointment of petitioner, his Aunt was Manager. He submits that petitioner’s Aunt become Manager later on, however, he is not able to dispute that his Aunt was the Member of Committee of Management when petitioner’s appointment was made. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State- Respondents, has referred the relevant provision, i.e., Section 6 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, which disqualify such candidates to participate in recruitment process being close relatives of any Member of Committee of Management. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 8. So far as first submission is concerned, probably petitioner may have a case that his B.Ed. Degree can be considered to be recognized but so far as second ground is concerned, it is still against petitioner. 9. Petitioner’s Aunt was a Member of Committee of Management when recruitment process took place and petitioner was appointed. As referred in Section 6 of Act, 1978, such persons are disqualified to even participate in recruitment process. Since said disqualification goes to the root of appointment, therefore, appointment itself become void ab initio. At this stage, the Court also takes note of judgments passed by this Court in Mahendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC_28050; Committee of Management Sarvjanik Kisan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and others, 2025:AHC:34282. 10. There is another factor which goes against petitioner that though impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2011, however, on instruction, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has not taken benefit of stay order and is not doing his service as a Teacher for last many years. Petitioner has also not taken any step to comply the interim order dated 13.01.2011. 11. In view of above, the Court is of the view that no case of interference is made out. Dismissed accordingly. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad