IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Writ Petition (C) No. 6827/2014

Transcription

1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Writ Petition (C) No. 6827/ Md. Abdullah, S/o. Late Abdul Hai, Village and P.O. Jhowdanga, 2. Md. Siraj Uddin, S/o. Abdur Rouf, Village- Miahpara, P.O. Mankachar, 3. Md. Shafique Hussain, S/o- Zahan Uddin, Village and P.O. Jhowdanga, 5. Abdul Akher Akond, S/o. Fozlul Hoque Akond, Village- Nayagaon, P.O. Jhowdanga, 6. Md. Rakibul Islam, S/o. Kamir Uddin, Village- Bengerbhita, P.O. Kalapani, 7. Mizanur Rohman Sarker, C/o. Abdur Rohim Sarker, Village- Kharuabandha, P.O. Fekamari, 8. Sri Kaushik Kumar Saha, WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 1 of 20

2 S/o. Late- Dilip Kumar Saha, Village- Mahamaya Nagar, P.O. Hatsingimari, 9. Md. Abul Kalam Azad Mondal, S/o. Late- Abdul Mannan Sk, Village- Dakuamari, P.O. Sukchar, District- Dubri, Assam. 10. Salim Masood, S/o. Late- Abdus Sattar, Village- Bhandarkhuti, P.O. Raniganj, 11. Md. Foridul Islam, S/o. Md. Johirul Islam, Village- Bengerbhita, P.O. Kalapani, 12.Musaddar Rahman, S/o. Abdul Hamid, Village- Miahpara, P.O. Mankachar, 13. Shafiul Islam, C/o. Surhab Ali, Village- College Nagar, P.O. Hatsingimari, 14. Nashir Uddin Ahmed, C/o. Abdul Baten Sk, Village and P.O. Puran Diara, WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 2 of 20

3 15. Ziaur Rahman, S/o. Abdul Wahed Miah, Village and P.O. Kanaimara, 16. Siddika Aysha Hossain, W/o. Safiqul Ikbar Mollah, Ward-Dhubri Baza (Town), P.O. and 17.Moynul Hoque, S/o. Naif Uddin, Village- Muslimpatty, B.K. Road, P.O. and District- Barpeta, Assam. 18. Abu Bakkar Siddque, S/o. Md. Jalal Uddin, Village and P.O. Kholabandha, District- Barpeta, Assam. 17. Sabibar Rahman, S/o. Late- Akbar Ali, Village- Banbahar, P.O. Kayakuchi, District- Barpeta, Assam. 18. Sayed Tarik Uddin Ahmed, S/o. Giyas Uddin Ahmed, Village- Piachara, P.O. Ghograpar, District- Nalbari, Assam. 19. Md. Mowazzen Hussain Mondal, S/o. Md. Sayedur Rohman Mondal, Village- Bhimapara, P.O. Hatsingimari, WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 3 of 20

4 20. Krishna Pada Paul, S/o. Khogendra Nath Paul, Village- Charkasharipara, P.O. Fulerchar,.. Petitioners - Versus 1) The State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 2) The Commissioner & Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 3) The Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. 4) The Mission Director, Sarba Siksha Abhijan, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. 5) The District Level Selection Committee, Represented by its Chairman, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, P.O. and Pin No ) The District Elementary Education Officer-cum-District Mission Co-ordinator, Dhubri, District Elementary Education Circle, WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 4 of 20

5 Dhubri, P.O. and Dist. Dhubri, Assam. Pin No Writ Petition (C) No. 6315/ Respondents 1. Shubhasish Roy, S/o. Sumesh Prasad Roy, Brojendra Road, P.O.& Dist. Karimganj, Pin No Pinaki Deb, S/o. Krishna Gopal Deb, Steamer Ghat Road, Karimganj, P.O. & Dist. Karimganj, Pin No Animesh Das, S/o- Aribinda Das, Village Proper Magura, P.O. Longai Reserve, Dist. Karimganj, Pin No Alpana Sen, C/o. Chiranjeeb Sen, P.O. Badarpur, Jumbasti, Dist. Karimganj, Pin Keshab Lal Das, Village Maina, P.O. Kanaibazar, Dist. Karimganj. 6. Nitul Namasudra, Village Lafahail, P.O. Lakshmi Bazar, Dist. Karimganj, Pin Bappa Debnath, S/o. Binoy Chandra Debnath, Village Anibur Basti, P.O. Lilachila, Dist. Karimganj, Pin WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 5 of 20

6 8. Hena Sultana, Village Takipur, 9. Kalyan Das, S/o. Late Kripamoy Das, vill. Nivia Bazar, PO- Oliviacherra, Dist. Karimganj, Ranjan Debnath, Village- Suprakandi, P.O. Girishganj Bazar, District- Karimganj Sujit Das, S/o Sushil Chandra Das, East Market, PO & Dist. - Karimganj Narayani Chakraborty, C/o Nilima Chakraborty, Longai Road,, P.O. Settlement Road, District- Karimganj Dipshikha Das, C/o Himangshu Sekhar Das, Hospital Road (Near SP Bungalow) P.O. & District- Karimganj Sarabani Nandi Dey, W/o Sankar Nandi, C/o Islam Udin Choudhury, Mission Road, Badarpur, P.O. Badarpur, District- Karimganj Jyotirmoy Dey, S/o Lt. Badal Chandra Dey, Hospital Road, P.O. & District- Karimganj WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 6 of 20

7 16. Jayashree Das, C/o Parendra Das, vill- Arenghabvad, PO- Chargula Bazar, District- Karimganj Minakshi Das, W/o Subir Das, Vill & PO- Karnamadhu, District- Karimganj Debi Roy, C/o Partha Sarathi Roy, Village- Brojendra Nagar, P.O. Girishganj Bazar, District- Karimganj Nur Mohammed, S/o Haji Md. Sarif Ali, Village- Masly, P.O. Bhanga Bazar, District- Karimganj Khukumani Sinha, S/o Prafulla Kumar Sinha, Village- Fetipath, P.O. Chamtilla, District- Karimganj Mumtaz Begum, D/o Late Ahmed Mustafa, Village & PO- Danishail 22. Koushik Acharjee, Village- Lowairpoa, PO- Hathikhira, District- Karimganj Suprio Roy, Village- Singlarpar, P.O. Gobindaganj Bazar, District- Karimganj WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 7 of 20

8 24. Biswajit Chakraborty, S/o Brajendra Lal Chakraborty, Ram Krishna Mission Road, P.O. Badarpur, District- Karimganj Sumita Sinha, D/o Sashi Kumar Sinha, Bidyarthi Bhawan Lane-3, P.O. Settlement Road, District- Karimganj Rita Das, D/o Dulal Chandra Das, Rly. Wireless Colony, Qtr. No. 577(D), P.O. Badarpur, District- Karimganj Samsul Islam Choudhury, S/o Late Abdul Hannan Choudhury, Village- Tilaiya, P.O. Sadarshi, District- Karimganj Ramajuj Roy, AB 3 rd Floor, T.L. Heights, Station Road, District- Karimganj Banani Das, Village & P.O.- Mahakal, District- Karimganj Prasanta Dey, S/o Late Promesh Dey, C/o Bibash Das, Retired Colony, WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 8 of 20

9 P.O. Badarpur, District- Karimganj 31. Sanjit Das, S/o Late Sarajit Das, Village- Sarisha, PO- Silchar Road, District- Karimganj Papiya Nath, W/o Subir Das, Luhga Lane, Ram Krishna Mission Road, P.O. & District- Karimganj 33. Durjoy Nath, Son of RK Nath, Chat Line, Durgapalli, P.O.& District- Karimganj and others... Petitioners - Versus 1) The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education (Elementary ) Department, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 2) The Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. 3) The Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj and Chairman, The District Level Selection Committee for selection of Teacher in Provincialized LP Schools under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam, Dist. Karinganj, Assam WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 9 of 20

10 4) The District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj and the Member Secretary to the District Level Selection Committee for selection of Teachers, 2014 in Provincialized LP Schools under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam, Dist. Karinganj, Assam 5) The Assam Sarva Siksha Mission represented by the Mission Director, Kahilipara, Guwahati Respondents B E F O R E HON BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI For the petitioners: Mr. AM Bujorbaruah, Mr. M Dutta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. N Sarma, SC, Elem, Edn. Mr. S Sarma, SC, SSA. Date of Hearing: Date of Judgment: JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Both the two writ petitions projecting the common grievances of the two sets of the petitioners were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this judgment. The facts and circumstances prompting them to file the writ petitions may be briefly noticed separately as under: WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 10 of 20

11 2. The material facts of the case in WP(C) No. 6827/14 are that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent 3) issued the advertisement dated inviting online applications in the prescribed format from all eligible TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) qualified candidates for district-wise filling up of 8193 vacant posts of Assistant Teacher in selected Government/Provincialized Lower Primary Schools under the Directorate of elementary Education, Assam. Out of these vacant posts, 2842 posts are earmarked for Dhubri District and out of these 2842 vacant posts, 745 posts are reserved for South Salmara Mankachar Sub-Division. It was stipulated in the advertisement that preference is to be given to those who have 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (Special Education) from recognized institutes. It is the case of the petitioners that except for South Salmara Mankachar Sub-Division, 2 years course of Diploma in Elementary Education was started for contractual appointees for the remaining Sub-Divisions and Districts in the year 2012 thereby enabling this group of candidates to become qualified for the posts of Assistant Teacher by the time the recruitment process commenced. But in the case of the petitioners, with the course for Diploma in Elementary Education starting only in 2013 and they will be completing the course only by the end of 2015, no candidate from the said entire sub-division is able to fulfil this preferred qualification for the ongoing recruitment process. 3. In WP(C) No. 6315/14, the petitioners are also TET qualified teachers of 2012 and have been engaged as Assistant Teachers under the SSA on contractual basis. They belong to Karimganj District. Like the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6827/14, they could not enrolled themselves for the two years of Diploma in Elementary Education as the State respondents could not provide them the approved institute in the year They were, however, enrolled for the course in the year 2013, and will be able to complete the course only by the end of 2015 by which the time ongoing recruitment process will have been over. As WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 11 of 20

12 they have not completed two years of Diploma in Elementary Education, the preferential treatment given to this professional qualification in the impugned advertisement will stand in the way of their getting selected. In terms of the impugned advertisement, there are 753 posts of Assistant Teachers for recruitment from Karimganj District. Thus, the facts in both the writ petitions are virtually one and same. 3. According to the petitioners, the inevitable effect not providing institutes to them to undergo the course is that all the petitioners are being deprived of the preferred qualification of 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education. The candidates belonging to other Districts and Sub-Divisions of Assam are now being given an opportunity to be recruited to the posts of Assistant Teacher by having the preferred qualification while denying such opportunity to the petitioners, which is arbitrary and discriminatory. The specific case of the petitioners is that though they were also ready and willing to undergo the 2 years course of Diploma in Elementary Education like others, such facility was not available in 2012: the required institution for undergoing the 2 years course of Diploma in Elementary Education was not designated for South Salmara Sub-Division for the year According to the petitioners, the Mission Director, ASSA Mission, Assam (respondent 4) in the letter dated informed the Director/D. El.D Programme, Krishna Kanta Handique State Open University, Guwahati that due to non-availability of NCTE approved study centre for the course at south bank of Brahmaputra, the untrained teachers of Dhubri District were not able to attend the ongoing D.El. Ed. Training, that the number of untrained teachers in the district was, moreover, large (sanctioned posts 5483) and the allotted five study centres were not sufficient to cover all the untrained teachers. The Mission Director, therefore, requested him to make necessary correspondence with the NCTE for approval of three more study centres for the district viz. 2 for the south bank and 1 for the north bank of Brahmaputra so that the training programme might be conducted smoothly in the district. The south WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 12 of 20

13 bank of Brahmaputra is none other than South Salmara Mankahar Sub-Division. Thus, it was only on the establishment of such institutes that in the year 2013 that the petitioners were selected and deputed to undergo for the 2 years course of Diploma in Elementary Education, but then they would be able to complete the course only in 2015 by which time the ongoing recruitment process would be over. 4. It is contended by Mr. A.M.Buzarbaruah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the inability of the respondent authorities to provide the petitioners the institutes to undergo the course is now used by them to deny selection to the petitioners for the posts of Assistant Teacher as no preference will be given to them while competing with other candidates from other districts and sub-divisions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the level playing field of competing with other candidates of Assam for the inability of the respondent authorities to provide them of the institute to undergo the course: this will amount to denial of equal opportunity to participate in the recruitment process with level playing field. The apprehension of the petitioners, contends the learned senior counsel, is that when jobs are hard to come by in these days of scarcity of employment avenues, once the 745 posts of Assistant Teacher so advertised are filled up by candidates of other districts and subdivisions, the petitioners may never get any posts of Assistant Teacher or, for that matter, any public employment in their lifetimes. Contending that the impugned advertisement, in so far as the posts of Assistant Teacher for South Salmara Mankachar Sub-Division is concerned, is arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory, the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, forcefully submits that the intervention of this Court is called for to protect the rights of the petitioners and, conversely, to prevent gross injustice to them without any fault on their part. 5. Both Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department and Mr. S. Sarma, the learned WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 13 of 20

14 standing counsel for the SSA, vehemently support the impugned advertisement and submit that the interference of this Court is not warranted on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is the contention of Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel that the giving of preference to those candidates who have completed 2 years course of Diploma in Elementary Education has been made in accordance with the essential qualifications prescribed by the National Council of Teacher Education in the notification dated issued by it in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which prescriptions are binding upon the respondent authorities. According to the learned standing counsel, until and unless the said notification is successfully challenged by the petitioners, the inconvenience or hardship suffered by the petitioners cannot be a ground to quash the impugned advertisement: the notification in question is not challenged at all by them. According to the learned standing counsel, the petitioners are barking at the wrong tree: don t shoot the messenger. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition, which is totally bereft of merit. 6. There is no dispute at the bar that all the petitioners have the National Eligibility Test. The essential qualifications for the Assistant Teacher is that one must secured 50% marks in Higher Secondary (or its equivalent) and TET passed, or a graduate degree from UGC recognized University and TET passed. However, there is 5% relaxation for SC/ST/OBC/MOBC & physically handicapped candidates. Preference is to be given to those who have 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (Special Education) from recognized institutes. The contention of the respondent authorities is that these qualifications are prescribed on the basis of the qualifications lid down by Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 ( the Act for short). Section 23 of the Act is in the following terms: WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 14 of 20

15 23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of services of teachers (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where State does not have adequate institutions offering course or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed. 7. Undoubtedly, the authority authorised by the Central Government to lay down the minimum qualifications for Assistant Teacher is the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). As the minimum qualifications and the preferential qualification so prescribed in the impugned advertisement are laid down by the NCTE in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 23(1) of the Act, ordinarily, there can be no deviation from the academic qualifications or the preferential qualification prescribed by the NCTE. However, it is not the case of the case of the petitioners that such preferential qualification should be WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 15 of 20

16 given a go by: what they said is that as they are yet to complete the said Diploma course, they, unless the impugned advertisement is quashed in so far as the posts of Assistant Teacher earmarked for South Salamara Mankachar Sub-Division of the Dhemaji district and Karimganj District are concerned, have no chance of being recruited. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act deals with the situation when the State Government does not have adequate institutions to offer course or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as so prescribed under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers and provides that the Central Government, in such a situation, may, by notification, relax the minimum qualification required for the appointment as a teacher for such period not exceeding five years. As there were no adequate institutions in Assam offering courses or training in teacher education or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under the notification issued under Section 23(1) of the Act, the Central Government issued the notification dated under Section 23(2) relaxing the qualification of 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education for appointment of teacher in Classes 1 to VIII for a period up to the 31 st March, 2015 subject to fulfilment of some conditions. 8. It may be noted that the period of relaxation so granted is the maximum period allowable by Section 23(2) of the Act, and no further relaxation appears to be envisaged by the Act. Though the impugned advertisement did not indicate that possession of Diploma in Elementary Education is the essential qualification, the fact that preference is to be given to this professional qualification makes it abundantly clear that those candidates like the petitioners who have no such qualifications have hardly any chance to be selected in the ongoing recruitment process. In my judgment, in the light of the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE, any candidate not possessing such professional qualifications will not be eligible for the selection. This is so even if the impugned advertisement merely indicates that preference would be given to those candidates who have 2 years WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 16 of 20

17 Diploma in Elementary Education: the net effect of such condition will be one and the same. After all, the qualifications, academic or professional, laid down by the NCTE under Section 23(1) are binding upon the respondent authorities. Since the petitioners were not offered the institutes to study the 2 years course of Diploma in Elementary Education by the respondent authorities, such omission on the part of the respondent authorities cannot, in my opinion, leave them without any equitable remedy. It may, however, be noted that the impugned advertisement giving such preference has been issued in conformity with the qualifications laid down in the notification dated issued by the NCTE in exercise of its powers under Section 23(1) of the Act. As a matter of, this professional qualification should been made the essential qualification rather than preferential qualification to give full effect to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Until and unless the said notification dated is successfully challenged, the impugned advertisement giving preference to candidates having Diploma in Elementary Education cannot normally be quashed. Again, the maximum period of relaxation for the minimum qualifications permissible under Section 23(2) is limited to 5 years. This power of relaxation in respect of Classes I to VIII has now been exercised by the Central Government in the case of Assam for the maximum period of five years permissible by Section 23(2). But then, the petitioners have been given a raw deal by the respondent authorities and certainly have a legitimate grievance against the respondent authorities for their inability to provide them the approved institutes to undergo the Diploma course, but the law operates against them, if I may say so, harshly. At this stage, it will be instructive to refer to the contents of the letter dated of the respondent No. 4 addressed to the Director, D.El.Ed. Programme, Krishna Handique State Open University, Guwahati: Sir With reference to the subject cited above and DMC, Dhubri, letter (No. SSA/DMC/TT/Diploma WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 17 of 20

18 Coursein/129/2012/94, this is to inform you that due to non-availability of NCTE approved study centre for 2 years D.El.Ed. programme at south bank of Brahmaputra, the untrained teachers of Dhubri district are not able to attend the ongoing D.El. Ed. Training. Moreover, the number of untrained teachers in the Dhubri district is large (sanctioned post 5483) and hence the allotted 5 nos. of study centres are not sufficient to cover all the untrained teachers. Therefore, in this regard, you are requested to make necessary correspondence with NCTE for the approval of 3 more study centres for the district viz. 2 for south bank and 1 for north bank of Brahmaputra so that the training programme may be conducted smoothly in the district. This is for your information and necessary action. Yours faithfully, ( L.S. Changsan, IAS) Mission Director, Axom Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission. 8. Even on a plain reading of the foregoing letter, there is no difficulty in holding that the respondent authorities did not have adequate approved study centres on the south bank of the Brahmaputra or in the Karimganj District, to offer candidates belonging thereto to undergo such course in the year True, the name of Karimganj District is not mentioned in that letter, but there is denying the fact that candidates from this District were also not offered such study centre. That was probably the reason prompting the respondent No. 4 to request the Krishna Handique Open University to make an arrangement with the NCTE for the approval of 3 more study centres i.e. two for south bank and one for north bank of Brahmaputra. In my opinion, the contents of the aforesaid letter lend credence to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was due to the inability of the respondent authorities to provide adequate number of training centres in WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 18 of 20

19 the two areas in the year 2012 that they could not undergo the Diploma course and will not be able to complete the course in the ongoing recruitment process. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners were given an option to avail of any approved centre for obtaining the Diploma course other than Krishna Handique Open University. Moreover, provision of such study centres at affordable costs appears to be the responsibility of the respondent authorities. The question is whether it will be fair for the respondent authorities now to continue the recruitment process in terms of the impugned advertisement in respect of South Salmara Mankachar Sub-Division and Karimganj District when they failed to provide the facilities to undergo the said Diploma course to the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners refused to undergo the Diploma course or have failed to obtain the course. What stands out now is that those who have no 2 years of Diploma in Elementary Education like the petitioners, other things being equal, will not be considered for the advertised posts of Assistant Teacher: they are now being deprived of the level playing field to compete with those who are fortunate enough to complete the said Diploma course. In these days of fewer and fewer avenues of public employment, the petitioners may not have any chance again to be recruited for the posts of Assistant Teachers once the ongoing recruitment process is allowed to be completed without their participation. Denial of level playing field is nothing but denial of right to equality or equal protection of law guaranteed under Articles 1 and 16 of the Constitution. It has been suggested by the respondent authorities that the petitioners were offered the training course but they refused to accept the same. If this is true, all the petitioners or some of them, who had refused to undergo the training in the approved institute, may not be entitled to any relief being granted here. 9. In the premises set forth above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The ongoing recruitment process for 745 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers meant for South Salmara Mankachar Sub- WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 19 of 20

20 Division and 753 posts of Assistant Teachers for Karimganj District in terms of the impugned advertisement shall not be initiated or completed till the result of the two years course of Diploma in Elementary Education undergone by the petitioners are declared. (b) If the petitioners, or any of the petitioners, are declared to have passed the said Diploma course within 2015, they shall be allowed to participate in such recruitment together with the already qualified candidates, if necessary by re-advertising the posts. (c) Any or all of the petitioners, who does/do not successfully complete the Diploma course, shall stand disqualified for this recruitment process. (d) It is, however, made clear that if any of the petitioners in both the writ petitions were offered the approved study centre by the State-respondents for undergoing the Diploma course, but had refused or declined or omitted to do so, this judgment shall not enure to their benefit. JUDGE Sinha WP(C) Nos and 6315/14 Page 20 of 20