2025:AHC:65788 Reserved on : 25.04.2025 Delivered on : 29.04.2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58290 of 2015 Petitioner :- Krishna Kushwaha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Yadav,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Yash Singhal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for State. 2. In the present case, petitioners are harping on a lost battle on factual as well as on legal grounds. The petitioners have set up a case that they have applied for Special B.T.C. in the year 2004, however, initially their candidature was rejected on ground that they have passed B.Ed. from a correspondence course. 3. The position was clarified and petitioners were allowed to participate in Special B.T.C. in 2014 and thereafter their claim for appointment of post of Assistant Teacher was rejected by an reasoned order dated 23.06.2015 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- “उ०प्र० बेसिक शिक्षा (अध्यापक) ेवा नियमावली- 1981 में निवनित न्यूतम ैक्षिक्षक एवं प्रशिक्षण अ"ता एवं मा० उच्च न्यायालय की वृद पीठ द्वारा टी०ई०टी० को अनिवाय" योग्यता मान्य निकये जाे के पश्चात निबा टी०ई०टी० अ"ता के निकी अभ्यर्थी2 की नियुनि4 परिरषदीय जूनियर बेसिक स्कू लों में ायक अध्यापक के पद पर निकया जाा म्भव ीं ै। निव०बी०टी०ी० 2004 की चय काय"वाी पूण" ो चुकी ै और इके उपरान्त भी रिर4 पदों को भरे ेतु मय-मय पर निवभाग द्वारा निवज्ञनिB प्रकाशित कर अध्यापकों की भर्तितयां की गयी ै। पुऩः वष" 2014 में प्रार्थीनिमक निवद्यालयों में ायक अध्यापकों के अवेष रिर4 पदों को भरे ेतु 15000 रिरनि4यां निवज्ञानिपत की गयी ै। यद्यनिप इ निवज्ञाप के ापेक्ष आलाइ आवेद करे की अंक्षितम क्षितशिर्थी माB ो चुकी ै निकन्तु अभी चय ूची बाे की काय"वाी प्रारम्भ ीं ुई ै। ऐी स्थिस्र्थीक्षित में ऐे याचीगण जो टी०ई०टी० उत्तीण" ो, वे वत"मा में परिरषदीय जूनियर बेसिक स्कू लों ेतु 15000 ायक अध्यापक के पदों पर गक्षितमा उपरो4 चय प्रनिKया में, यनिद इच्छु क ों, आवेद कर कते ै। उके लिलए आलाइ आवेद निकये जाे ेतु अवक्षिO बढाे ेतु क्षिचव, बेसिक शिक्षा परिरषद, उ०प्र० इलााबाद द्वारा ा े अुमक्षित प्राB की जायेगी और ए०आई०ी० े म्पक" कर ऐे याचीगणों के लिलए आलाइ आवेद की ुनिवOा उपलब्O करायी जायेगी। ततKम में याचीगण द्वारा आवेद निकये जाे पर अन्य अभ्यर्थिर्थीयों की भांक्षित नियमाुार उके चय पर निवचार निकया जायेगा। एतदद्वारा याक्षिचका ं०- 10018/2015 राजीव वमा" व 102 अन्य में मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारिरत आदे निदांक 19.02.2015 के मादर में याचीगण का प्रत्यावेद उपरो4ाुार निस्तारिरत निकया जाता ै।” 4. The aforesaid order is impugned in the present case. The petitioners have also challenged a recruitment process, initiated by a circular dated 11.12.2014 to fill up the remaining post on 15000, which also included an eligibility of T.E.T. Certificate. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has tried to convince the Court that petitioners were before this Court since 2004 and ultimately after 10 years he was allowed to pass Special B.T.C., therefore, his eligibility as required in the year 2004 be considered to be sufficient and he may be considered against still vacant posts in said recruitment process 6. However, a judgment placed by counsel for respondent, recently passed in case of Ankita Thakur & Ors. Vs. The H.P. 2 of 3 Staff Selection Commission and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472, the submission that petitioners still have a right even after 20 years, has no legal basis. For reference, paragraph No.39 of it is mentioned hereinafter :- “58. It is well settled that an employer cannot be forced to fill all the existing vacancies under the old Rules. The employer may, in a given situation, withdraw an advertisement and issue a fresh advertisement in conformity with the new or amended Rules [See : State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav (supra)]. Even a candidate included in the merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if the vacancy exists (See : Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47). Issue No. (vii) is decided accordingly.” 7. The other argument that there are remaining vacancies, is also factually incorrect since in impugned order itself, it was specifically mentioned that for remaining vacancies of Special B.T.C. 2004 a fresh recruitment process was initiated by impugned advertisement for 15000 vacancies, however, since TET was also included as one of eligibility, therefore, despite petitioners were granted liberty to apply in said recruitment process, however, probably on ground that petitioners have not passed TET, they have not applied and challenge the same in writ petition. There is no substantial reason to challenge it and as referred above petitioners have already lost legal battle, therefore, no case is made out to grant relief as sought and accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.04.2025 P. Pandey [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] 3 of 3 Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad