Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40358 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14832 of 2024 Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Gautam Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxman Pathak,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishu Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha for the petitioner and Ms.Rishu Mishra for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 10.10.2013. 3. Admittedly, petitioner has not qualified B.T.C. and he has later on acquired it in the year 2017 under the permission of concerned B.S.A and certificate was issued on 12.12.2017. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 7.9.2024, his services was terminated on a ground that when he was appointed in the year 2013, he was not qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher, since he did not possess B.T.C. Certificate. He further submits that in the impugned order a reference is made of para 3 of a Government Order dated 15.2.2013. However, relevant provision of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment Act, 2017) specifically, second proviso to Section 23 (2) inserted by the Amendment Act, 2017 (w.e.f. 1.4.2015) was not taken note of which provides that a person who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) of it shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment Act, 2017) (w.e.f. 1.4.2015) i.e. before 1.4.2019 and the petitioner has undisputedly obtained B.T.C Training Certificate in the year 2017. 5. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court in Writ-A No.3290 of 2021, Krishna Mohan Mall Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, which was allowed on 27.8.2021 and Writ-A No.24933 of 2018, Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Ors, which was allowed on 15.9.2021. Both judgment are on similar issue. 6. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. submits that appointment of the petitioner was in terms of Government Order dated 15.2.2013 which governs the procedure for compassionate appointment, therefore, he has to fulfil the conditions as prescribed in para 3 of it. For reference paragraph 3 of Government Order dated 15.2.2013 is reproduced hereinafter: " 3- यददि ममृतक आशश्रित भभारत मम दविशधि दभारभा स्थभादपित दकसस दविश्विदविदभालय ससे स्नभातक उपिभाशधि यभा सरकभार दभारभा उसकसे समकक्ष मभान्यतभा पभाप्त उपिभाशधि कसे सभाथ -सभाथ उत्तर पदिसेश मभान्यतभा पभाप्त पदशक्षण ससंस्थभान ससे अध्यभापिन पमभाणपित्र (नसररस) यभा सरकभार दभारभा उसकसे समकक्ष मभान्यतभा पभाप्त ककोई अन्य पदशक्षण पिभाठ्यक्रम (बस०टस०सस० यभा दविदशष्ट बस०टस०सस०) कसे सभाथ-सभाथ उत्तर पदिसेश सरकभार दभारभा ससंचभाशलत अथविभा भभारत सरकभार दभारभा ससंचभाशलत अध्यभापिक पिभात्रतभा पिरसक्षभा उत्तसणर हको तभस उसककी दनययदक्ति ममृतक आशश्रित ककोटसे मम सहभायक अध्यभापिक कसे पिदि पिर ककी जभाय। अन्यथभा ककी सस्थदत मम ममृतक आशश्रित ककोटसे मम सहभायक अध्यभापिक कसे पिदि पिर दनययदक्ति कदिभादपि न ककी जभाय।" 7. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. is not able to convince this Court that relevant provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment Act, 2017) i.e. Section 23 of it and the effect of insertion of second proviso w.e.f. 1.4.2015 was not taken note of while passing the impugned order. 8. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 7.9.2024 passed by respondent no.3 is set-aside and respondents will have liberty to pass a fresh order taking note of aforesaid provisions and its effect as well as judgments in Mohan Mall and Manish Kumar (supra) after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner if facts so warrant. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad