ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, NOC : इलाहबाद हाईकोर्ट ने पहले से नियुक्त समायोजित शिक्षकों/अभ्यर्थियों के लिए बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के द्वारा NOC लगाये जाने के आदेश पर लगा दी रोक,16448 शिक्षक भर्ती में पहले से नियुक्त समायोजित शिक्षकों को नहीं देना होगा NOC, क्लिक कर कोर्ट का आदेश देखें ।

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, NOC : इलाहबाद हाईकोर्ट ने पहले से नियुक्त समायोजित शिक्षकों/अभ्यर्थियों के लिए बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के द्वारा NOC लगाये जाने के आदेश पर लगा दी रोक,16448 शिक्षक भर्ती में पहले से नियुक्त समायोजित शिक्षकों को नहीं देना होगा NOC, क्लिक कर कोर्ट का आदेश देखें ।

Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39058 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Chaurasiya And 6 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh
Bishen
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
According to the petitioners, they were earlier appointed as
Shiksha Mitra and, thereafter, they obtained two years BTC
course certificate through Open and Distance Learning Method
after obtaining requisite permission and, thereafter, they were
absorbed on the post of Assistant Teacher and are stated to be
working in primary schools in the district of Allahabad. The
appointment of Shiksha Mitra as an Assistant Teacher is a
subject matter of litigation which is pending in the Apex Court.
Being apprehensive in respect of their future, the petitioners
also applied pursuant to Government Order dated 16.06.2016
for appointment as Assistant Teacher against 16448 posts
notified in various primary schools under the U.P. Basic
Shiksha Parishad.
The grievance of the petitioners is that, on 16.08.2016, the
Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad had issued a
circular addressed to all the Basic Shiksha Adhikari within the
State of Uttar Pradesh thereby requiring them to allow a
candidate, who is already employed elsewhere, to appear in
counselling only if he has obtained a 'No Objection Certificate'
from his employer. It is the prayer of the petitioners that no
such condition was imposed either in the Government Order or
in the advertisement and, therefore, the petitioners have been
taken by surprise and as the counselling is on, it is quite
possible that before the petitioners are able to obtain 'No
Objection Certificate' from their employers, the counselling
would be over and the posts would be filled up. It is thus the
prayer of the petitioner that the order dated 16.08.2016 be
quashed.
Sri A.K. Yadav, who appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3, has
submitted that the circular dated 16.08.2016 is in the nature of
supplementary instructions which has been issued in public
interest because no person can have two appointments
simultaneously and, therefore, before a person seeks another
appointment, it is quite logical that he should have a 'No
Objection Certificate' of the employer where he is already employed. I  have  considered  the  submissions  of  learned  counsel  for  the parties.   Prima   facie,   this   Court   is   of  the  view  that  such candidates,  like  the  petitioners,  can  be  permitted  in  counselling and  if  they  are  selected  for  appointment,  a  time  frame  can  be fixed  requiring  them  to  submit  'No  Objection  Certificate'  from their  previous  employer.  But  issuing  a  blanket  ban  in  their participation,  without  the  'No  Objection  Certificate'  from  their employers, may  not  be reasonable. The matter  requires  consideration. Learned  Standing  Counsel  has  accepted  notice  on  behalf  of  the respondent  nos.1  and  4;  and  Sri  A.K.  Yadav  has  accepted  notice on  behalf  of  the  respondent  nos.2  and  3.  They  pray  for  and  are allowed  four  weeks  time  to  file  counter  affidavit.  Two  weeks thereafter  shall  be for  the petitioners  to  file  rejoinder  affidavit. List  this  petition  on  17.10.2016.  In  the  meantime,  it  is  provided that  the  respondents  would  not  prohibit  the  petitioners  from participating  in  the  counselling,  pursuant  to  their  applications, against  vacancies  notified  under  the  Government  Order  dated 16.06.2016  on  the  ground  that  they  do  not  have  No  Objection Certificate   from   their   employer.   However,   in   case   the petitioners  are  selected  it  would  be  open  to  the  respondents  to fix  a  time  frame  for  submission  of  'No  Objection  Certificate'    of their  employer. Order  Date  :-  23.8.2016 AKShukla/