Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88698 Judgment Reserved on 22.5.2025 Delivered on 26.5.2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54571 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Varma,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Anupam Anand,S.S. Chauhan,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajai Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.M.Shukla, learned Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner is trying to make out a case from nothing. 3. Petitioner is claiming that she has applied in a recruitment process initiated in the year 2009 for Assistant Teachers (BTC and Special BTC). However, neither details of the advertisement nor photo copy of it is placed on record. 4. Petitioner has further claimed that she has applied in the examination and submitted an application form. However, from bare perusal of documents annexed along with this writ petition it is clear that is a simple application which is a typed copy. Photo copy of the same is also not placed on record. Prescribed format of application is also not on record. Proper receipt of application form is also not on record, therefore, there is no evidence 2 whatsoever that petitioner has submitted the application form which was received and process was initiated. 5. In the above background, petitioner has approached this Court earlier by way of filing a Writ Petition No.27648 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.5.2009, with certain directions and observation. Said order in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter: “It is stated that petitioner has move an application for Special B.T.C. Training Course but the candidature of the petitioner has neither been accepted nor rejected. In this regard, the petitioner has moved application before District Education Officer, Firozabad. In case any such representation is pending before the concerned officer, he is directed to decide the same. within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court before the concerned officer. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of finally. “ 6. From the above referred order, petitioner’s case in the earlier round of litigation was that she has moved an application for Special B.T.C Training Course, whereas case of petitioner in the present writ petition is that she was already qualified and has applied for appointment, therefore, claim made by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation and present writ petition are contrary to each other. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner by referring the impugned order submitted that case before the concerned respondent was as to whether petitioner’s degree of B.Ed (Bal Vikas) from Rajasthan along with Bridge Course which was equivalent to B.Ed in Rajasthan was equivalent to B.T.C in Uttar Pradesh or not and for that learned Senior Counsel referred some judgments passed in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. 3 Karan Singh Rathore, 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 699 and Jitendra Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2010 0 Supreme (All) 2717, that it was recognised, however her claim was wrongly rejected. 8. Learned Senior Counsel has not come up with a case that submissions so far as application for Special B.T.C. Course were wrongly recorded in the order dated 27.5.2009 passed in earlier round of litigation. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record that for what purpose, petitioner has filed the application i.e. whether it was to undergo Special B.T.C Training Course or for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The case put up before concerned respondent was on a different footing. Prayer made by the petitioner in earlier round of litigation is also not on record. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 11. The order dated 27.5.2009 passed in the earlier round of litigation quoted above, clearly depicts that petitioner’s case was initially that she wanted to participate or to take admission in Special B.T.C Training Course and whether it was accepted or rejected and for that limited matter it was remanded. 12. It also explicit that petitioner has not come up with a case that she has training and her claim could be considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher directly and now the petitioner has taken a somersault and has come up altogether with a different case. The concerned respondent has considered the case 4 of petitioner on a different aspect which was not the case in earlier round of litigation. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances as referred above, initially petitioner's case was to consider her application for Special B.T.C Training Course i.e. petitioner has accepted that she was not trained. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court also takes note of a typed copy of the application dated 10.2.2009, wherein petitioner has made a prayer for appointment on the post of Teacher. However, as refereed above, no receipt thereof was placed on record as well as it does not appear to be in a prescribed format. Otherwise also, as referred above, petitioner cannot improve her case as presented in the earlier round of litigation. 15. In the aforesaid background since the application referred in this writ petition is not in a prescribed format as well as there is no receipt of it, therefore, Court is not going into the issue as to whether petitioner was qualified or not i.e. she was trained or not. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, relief sought cannot be granted. 17. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :-26.5.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad