GO on BTC: HC seeks UP reply

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has directed the State Government to file reply on a writ petition challenging the Government Order dated February 20, 2006, which provided that admission into BTC course would be held on the basis merit, instead of written entrance test.

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has directed the State Government to file reply on a writ petition challenging the Government Order dated February 20, 2006, which provided that admission into BTC course would be held on the basis merit, instead of written entrance test.

HT Image

Till now, the admission into BTC course was possible only after clearing a written entrance test. This order was passed by Justice Rakesh Tiwari on a writ petition filed by Onkar Yadav of Azamgarh district.

According to the petition, by the impugned Government Order, the earlier entrance test process has been amended and it has been provided that admission into BTC course will be made on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in High School, Intermediate and BA. Further, the GO provided that no written test was required in the BTC course.

In the petition, it has been alleged that advertisement was published for admission into BTC course and in pursuance of it, several candidates, including the petitioner, moved applications. But by this Government Order, the process of selection through entrance test had been changed.

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by Registrar (Cane Societies)/ Cane Commissioner UP Lucknow dated February 6, 2006 by which he had given a direction for holding the election of committee of management of cane societies/co-operative mill societies in Uttar Pradesh.

Passing this decision, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice AN Ray and Justice Ashok Bhushan said that the present petition was not a Public Interest Litigation as the petitioners themselves were the members of cane societies and taking part in the election.

The court further observed that the petitioners had a remedy of filing election petition if they felt aggrieved under the relevant rules.

Advocate Ravindra Singh appeared on behalf of the cane societies. The petitioner’s counsel challenged the election on several grounds including that no specific date had been fixed for holding of the election, therefore, it was not an election in the eyes of law.