Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88791-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 506 of 2025 Appellant :- Girindra Nath Tripathi And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bijendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2025 in Writ-A No. 59743 of 2014, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The prayer in the writ petition was as under: "I) Issue a writ order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as assistant teachers in primary schools by giving them adequate age relaxation." 2. The appellants claimed to have secured a training qualification from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. There was an issue as to whether the Board issuing such qualification was competent to award degree and to conduct such course or not? The matter was initially decided against the appellants by the hon’ble Supreme Court in Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai and others; (2008) 3 SCC 432. The correctness of this judgment came to be doubted in a subsequent order of the hon’ble Supreme Court in Irrigineni Venkata Krishna and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another; 2010 (15) SCC 319. An order came to be passed by a Division Bench of three hon’ble Judges on 15.01.2013, which is reproduced hereinafter: “During the pendency of the Appeals, an important development has taken place. The National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 has been enacted by the Parliament. Having regard to that, the questions which have been referred to a larger Bench by order November 9, 2009 have become academic and do not require any answer. This position is not disputed by the learned senior counsel for the parties. 2. In view of above, we are satisfied that nothing remains to be decided in these Appeals and they are disposed of accordingly. No costs. 3. However, we observe that, if within three years from today the vacancies for secondary grade teacher in the State of Andhra Pradesh are notified, the appellants herein shall be entitled to apply for the same and the provision concerning the age as regards them shall stand relaxed. 4. In view of above, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as infructuous.” 3. The application filed by the present appellants was, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn vide the following orders passed by the Supreme Court on 12.09.2014: “The learned counsel for the applicants sought permission to withdraw the Interlocutory Application No.2/2014 to enable the applicants to move before the High Court for appropriate relief. Liberty is granted without expressing any opinion about the maintainability of the case. I.A. No. 2/2014 is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. It is thereafter that the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners, stating that in terms of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioners be granted age relaxation so that their candidature can be considered. 5. Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Board, contends that in the event the petitioners wanted to avail the benefit of age relaxation, they could have approached the competent authority relying upon the order of the hon'ble Supreme Court in any specific recruitment exercise. This, however, was not done. It is also pointed out that appellants had to clear the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'ATR Examination') for each and every selection, held separately, but there is nothing on record to show that any of the petitioners either appeared in such ATR Examination or even claimed age relaxation for such purposes. 6. It is further submitted that two recruitments have thereafter been held by the Board for selecting 68,500 teachers and 69,000 teachers. In both these recruitments, neither the petitioners applied nor sought any benefit of age relaxation in terms of the observations made by the hon’ble Supreme Court. It is in this context that the learned Single Judge noticed that at the age of 59 years, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants states that only one of the appellants is aged 59 years old, while the others are of much lesser age. 8. Be that as it may, we find substance in the objection of the respondent's counsel, inasmuch as the limited liberty granted by the hon'ble Supreme Court could have been availed in a specified manner, i.e., by seeking age relaxation in respect of specific recruitment exercise to be undertaken by the Board. This was never done. Moreover, none of the appellants have appeared in any of the ATR Examinations or have cleared them. In such circumstances, at this stage, when neither any fresh recruitment is to be undertaken nor any ATR Examination has been passed by the applicants, no effective relief can be granted to them. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, therefore, warrants no interference. 9. Moreover, none of the appellants availed the remedy as was extended to them under the orders of the hon'ble Supreme Court, within a period of three years. Therefore, after the expiry of more than 12 years of the passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court, such liberty cannot be extended to them now, in the facts of this case. 10. In that view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 K.Tiwari Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad