UPTET Allahabad High Court : Challenging TET is Only Eligibility , NOT For Selection , Petition Dismissed

UPTET Allahabad High Court : Challenging TET is Only Eligibility , NOT For Selection , Petition Dismissed

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 75474 of 2011

Petitioner :- Dr. Prashant Kumar Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1.��� Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that Rule 14 (1) and (2) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 as amended by notification dated 9th November, 2011 making amendment in U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 i.e. 12th Amendment is illegal, inasmuch as, it makes the marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "T.E.T.") as the basis for including a person in the list to be prepared by the appointing authority after advertisement issued for appointment which is to be submitted to the Selection Committee though T.E.T. is only eligibility qualification and cannot be a basis for making selection. 
2.��� The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The aforesaid amendment of the Rule by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as contrary to the guidelines issued by National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as "NCTE") inasmuch as, NCTE provides T.E.T. qualification as a necessary qualification for appointment of Primary Teachers but simultaneously provides that it shall not guarantee appointment to any person merely on account of possession of such qualification. The Rules do not go contrary thereto but only provide that before a candidates is to be considered by Selection Committee, list of candidates, who have applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, shall be prepared and in that preparation of list, T.E.T. marks shall be the criteria.� It� is� like� a� guideline� for� ascertaining� zone� of
- 2 -
consideration and field of eligibility but by itself does not provide any guarantee for appointment. The Rules thus cannot be said to be contrary to NCTE guidelines. 
3.��� No interference therefore called for.
4.��� Dismissed. 
Order Date :- 2.1.2012
KA


Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1608010