/* remove this */ Blogger Widgets /* remove this */

Saturday, April 11, 2015

SARKARI NAUKRI - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -

SARKARI NAUKRI   -  TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -

TGT HINDI TEACHER KEE BHRTEE KE LIYE YACHEE NE 3 POINTS KA ULLEKH KIYAA -
1. ADVT. NIKALNE KE SAMAY KOEE TET KA ULLEKH NAHIN THAA, AUR GAME SHURU HONE KE BAAD RULES BADLE NAHIN JAA SAKTE
2. DELHI SARKAR KHUD APNE SCHOOLS MEIN BAGER TET KE BHRTEE KARTEE AA RAHEE HAI
3.BHRTEE SHURU HONE KE SAMAY TET ETC. KE NIYAM NAHIN THE.

COURT NE KAHA KEE -
1. GAME KE RULE BEECH MEIN NAHIN BADLE JAA SAKTE KA AGAR HAM SEHYOG KARENE TO FIR HAM BHEE STATUTORY PROVISION KA ULLANGHAN KARENGE. JO HAM NAHIN KAR SAKTE.
2.SUPREME COURT KA GAME CHANGE KA RULE KOEE UNIVBERSAL RULE NAHIN HAI, KHAS POINT YE HAI KI EMPLOYER NE KOEE SWECHHE / ARBITRARY VIOLATION - SAMANTA KE ADHIKAR ARTICLE 14 KA TO NAHIN KIYAA.
AUR VO HAME NAJAR NAHIN AATA.
ISLEEYE YACHEE KEE APPEAL DIMISS WITHOUT ANY RELIEF.


WPC 5249/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
:  Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT  (Hindi)  in  the  reserved  category with  the  Nehru  Adarsh  Senior  Secondary School.   Petitioner   claims   that   he   had   the   necessary   qualifications   of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and  having  been  selected  in  the  interview he ought  to  have  been  given
appointment.
2.Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education. The school in questionnamely  Nehru  Adarsh  Senior  Secondary  School is  represented  throughWPC 5249/2012 Page2 of 8 respondent nos. 2 and 3.  Counter -affidavits filed by these respondents showthat  petitioner  was  not  given  appointment  because  as  per  the  relevant provisions Sections  2(a)&(n)  &  23(1) of  the  Right  of  Children  to  Free  and Compulsory  Education  Act, 2009  there  cannot be appointment of  a  teacher
in the school unless the teacher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification,  and  since  the  petitioner  didnot  have  the  CTET  qualification , petitioner was not appointed.  Along with the counter - affidavit of respondentno.1,  the  circular  of  the  Govt.  of  NCT  of  Delhi  da
ted  29.2.2012  has  been annexed  as  Annexure  R- 1  to  show  that  schools  are  illegally  appointing persons  as  teachers  in  spite  of not  having the  r equirement  of  CTETqualification
as  per  the  RTE  Act,  2009  and  schools  have  been  directed  to ensure  compliance  of  CT
ET  requirement  for  appointing  of  a  person  as  a teacher in the school.  This circular
dated 29.2.2012 reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification   Regarding   Recruiting   Only   CTET   Qualified Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012 Page 3 of 8 In pursuance of sub - section (1) or Section 23 of the Right
of  Children  to  Free  and  Compulsory  Education  Act  2009,  theNational Council for Teacher Education,vide their Notification No.215   F.N.61 - 03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S)   dated   23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of the  minimum  essential  qualification  for  a person  to  be  eligible for appointment as teacher to teach in the school s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  RTE  Act  and  theaforementioned Notification issued by the National council for Teacher    Education,    the    Directorate    of    Education,    vide
Notification     No.     F4(6)(350)/E - IV/2011/621     issued     on 07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of  the  GNCT  Delhi,  recognized  only  the  Central  Teacher
Eligibility  Test  conducted  by  the  Central  Board  of  Secondary Education  in  lieu  of  State  Eligibility  Test  for  appointment  of teachers  to  teach  classes  I  to  VIII  in  the  schools  referred  in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi Gazette   Extra   Ordinary   Part   IV   on   07.10.2011,   and   also circulated     widely     vide     Circular     No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
- IV/2011/18875 - 18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite  the  aforesaid  provision  having  come  into  force with its  modification  with  effect  from  07.10.2011,  it  has  been observed that some schools are still considering application
- for recruitment  to  various  teaching  posts - submitted  by  candidates who  have  not  qualified  the  CTET,  which  act  on  their  part  is unlawful  and  warrants  action  as  per  the  as  per  appropriate provisions of law.
It   is,   therefore,   reiterated   that   with   effect   from   the aforesaid notification,  only  CTET  qualified  teachers  shall  be employed  by  the  government  aided  schools  as  referred  to  in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.
WPC 5249/2012 Page 4 of 8 3.
It is therefore clear that no one can be appointed as a teacher in a school after the passing of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short „RTE Act,  2009), read  with the  notification  of  National  Council  for  Teacher Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.
4. In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner claims to  the  post  of  TGT(Hindi)  is  after  the  National  Council  for  Teacher Education  notification  dated  23.8.2010,  and  therefore,  unless  the  petitioner has  CTET  qualification,  and  admittedly  which qualification
the  petitioner did not have at the time of his being selected, he cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent - school.
5. Counsel  for  the  petitioner  made  three  submissions  before  this Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition.  The first is that the advertisement in   question   did   not   mention   the   requirement   of   CTET qualification  and  therefore  rules  of  the  game  cannot  be  changed  once  the selection  process  is  set  into  motion.    The  second submission is  that Government  of  NCT  of  Delhi  itself  is  employing  teachers  without  CTET qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against, and  reliance  for  this  purpose  is  placed  upon  the  advertisement  dated 13.9.2011   issued   for   recruitment   of   2012   which   does   not   have   the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 5 of 8 requirement of a CTET qualification for a teacher.
The     third submission made is  by  placing  reliance  on the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the case  of Y.V.Rangaiah  and  Others  Vs.  J.Sreenivasa  Rao  and  Others  1983 SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284 that vacancies have to be filled in as per the recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not when the vacancies are filled in.
6 . So  far  as  the first argument,  which  is  urged  on  behalf  the petitioner is concerned that rules of the games cannot be changed mid way because  the  advertisement  did  not  prescribe  the  requirement  of  CTET qualification, in my opinion, this argument if accepted ,
the same will amount to Court becoming a party to gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act , 2009.  Once the law requires a specific  qualification  for  appointment, assuming  that  the authorities  may choose  to  wink  and not  comply  with  the  requirement,  cannot  mean  that Court should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute.  It cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act, 2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after 2009,  there  was  a  requirement  of  CTET  qualification  for  a  teacher.    Once there  is  a  statutory  requirement,
Court  can  give  its  imprimatur  to  an  action WPC 5249/2012 Page 6 of 8 which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications
I  therefore,  refuse  to  accede  to  the  argument that  merely  because  the advertisement  does  not  provide  requirement  of  CTET  qualification,  simply for  that  reason  appointment  should  be  made  ignoring  the  requirement  of CTET  qualification,  and effectively  ignoring  the  statutory  provisions  and statutory notifications.
7. So  far  as  the  second  argument  is  concerned,  the  same  also stands  rejected  in  view  of  the
above discussion of the  first  argument , because ,there cannot be estoppel against law.  I must also observe that I am doubtful  if  merely  by  the  petitioner  filing  the  recruitment  notification  of
2012  for  appointment  of  teachers,  teachers would  have  been  appointed  by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8 .Therefore,   the   argument   that   CTET   qualification   can   be overlooked and can  be
so accepted  by  the  Courts is  not  correct, and  also I cannot accept  the  argument  that  merely  because  advertisement  of  2012 which is   filed does   not   mention   requirement   of CTET   qualification , therefore, actual  recruitment  must  have  been  done  by  the  Govt.  of  NCT  of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers , who did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012 Page 7 of 8
9. The  third  and  the  final  argument  urged  on  behalf  of  the petitioner  did  carry  some  substance  because  it  is  the  law  that  recruitment should  be  as  per  the  recruitment  rules  when  the  vacancies  arise,  however, this argument will not hold good if there is statutory provision covering the field.  As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take  place  recruitments  only  as  per  the  extant  recruitment  rules  when  the vacancies
occurred , however, this is not a universal rule and it has so been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of  Uttar  Pradesh  &  Ors.  (2011)  6  SCC  725
wherein  the  Supreme  Court referred  to  the  earlier  judgment  in  the  case  of Y.V.Rangaiah  (supra) and observed that once there are statutory rules, such statutory rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises.  Once there are statutory rules and statutory provisions which hold the field , the judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) will not apply and which will really apply to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even with respect to administrative circulars , rules and notifications , there may be in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when the  vacancy had  arisen inasmuch  as  it  is  not unknown  to  law  that  if  the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 8 of 8  legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application of  a  particular  requirement  as  per  the  facts  of  each  case , because,
what  is really to be examined is that actually is there a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of  India  i.e  whether  or  not  action of the  employer  is  arbitrary. 
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer in  requiring  the  retrospective  application  of  a  qualification  may  not  be arbitrary,  however  I  need  not  observe  in  this  regard  one way or  the  other , inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions, statutory  rules  and  statutory  notifications  which  bar  the  appointment  of  a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET qualification.
10 . In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25 , 2013 /
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.


SOURCE : http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VJM/judgement/07-12-2013/VJM25112013CW52492012.pdf


 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET