Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79275 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35378 of 2017 Petitioner :- Nahatma Buddh @ Mahatma Buddh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Grijesh Tiwari,Rajeev Kumar Sharma,Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.D.Tripathi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sr. P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. Petitioner was appointed on 03.02.2015 as training teacher in a primary school at Kushi Nagar, however, within a very short period of three months on 06.05.2015, which is challenged in present writ petition, petitioner was dispensed with service on ground that he has passed his graduation with 38.8 percent marks i.e. less than required 45 per cent marks in graduation. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that issue whether an eligibility of minimum percentage of marks in graduation is valid or not was considered by Supreme Court in case of Niraj Kumar Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (14) SCC 608 and placing reliance on judgment passed by High Court of Uttrakhand and Rajasthan High Court and on basis of statement made by the then Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of NCTE. It was held that since it has been decided by NCTE that restriction of minimum percentage of marks in graduation would not be enforced, therefore, Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with following observations :- "9. In view of fair stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General and the view of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, we do not find any reason to deny similar relief to the appellants. No doubt, as rightly held by the High Court the NCTE ought to have issued a clarification by way of a supplementary notification but the NCTE may now do so within one month from today. Accordingly, we direct that if the appellants or any other similarly placed persons are entitled to any further relief in terms of judgments [Sushil Sompura v. State (Education), 2011 SCC OnLine Raj 1067] , [Baldev Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2011 SCC OnLine Utt 1386] of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, they will be at liberty to put forward their claim before the authorities concerned who may take a decision thereon in accordance with law within one month. We have not examined any such claim in these proceedings except what has been stated hereinabove." 4. Learned counsel further submits that in view of above judgment, impugned order does not survive and prays the same may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has not opposed the aforesaid position of law, however, he submits that petitioner is now aged about 52 years and has not taken any advantage of above referred direction and liberty granted by Supreme Court, no relief be granted. 6. I have considered the above submissions as referred above, Supreme Court in Niraj Kumar Rai (supra) provided a liberty to petitioners and other similarly situated candidates to put forward their claim before concerned authority, who may take a decision thereof, in accordance with law within one month, however, petitioner has not come up with a case that he has approached concerned respondent in terms of above liberty. 7. It is true that present writ petition is pending for last more than 8 years and petitioner is aged about 52 years, still considering that position of law is now in favour of petitioner and Supreme Court has granted above referred liberty, therefore, impugned order dated 06.05.2015 is set aside and petitioner will have liberty to approach the concerned respondent in terms of above referred liberty granted by Supreme Court in Niraj Kumar Rai and others (supra). 8. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad