Rajeev Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Two ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 2. the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for direction to the respondents to appoint them as assistant teachers in rural primary schools as well as for quashing the notification dated 14/15.8.2001, issued by the director, rajya shaikshik anusandhan aur prashikshan parishad, lucknow, annexure-1 to the writ petition.rakesh tiwari, j.1. heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for direction to the respondents to appoint them as assistant teachers in rural primary schools as well as for quashing the notification dated 14/15.8.2001, issued by the director, rajya shaikshik anusandhan aur prashikshan parishad, lucknow, annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. the brief facts of the case are that in year 2001 a number of writ petitions were filed challenging the advertisement dated 14.8.2001, which were heard and decided by this court vide order dated 21.3.2002, by which the advertisement dated 14.8.2001 and the government order dated 3.8.2001 were quashed. the leading writ petition was writ petition no. 37124 of 2001.4. against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 a number of special appeals were filed, which were decided by order dated 23.11.2002 quashing the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 by maintaining the advertisement dated 14.8.2002.5. the petitioners have also claimed in the writ petition that since they are having qualification of b.p. ed. from nagpur university and therefore, they may be appointed as assistant teachers in basic schools. the standing counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision in jt 2003(2) sc 453, yogesh kumar and ors. v. government of ntc delhi and ors., in which the apex court has held that the teaching of basic schools and higher classes are totally different and, therefore, the person having training certificate of b.p. ed. for higher classes is not fit for teaching in basic schools. b.p. ed. is a physical training qualification in the field of education. in view of the decision of the apex court given in the aforesaid case, the petitioners are not entitled to be appointed as assistant teachers in the basic schools.6. for the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. the interim order dated 31.10.2001 is vacated. no order as to costs.