UPTET/ Allahabad Highcourt : Eligibility of B.Ed. (Special Education) or D.Ed (Special Education) in teachers
**************
You can join Blogs Facebook Group - http://www.facebook.com/groups/uptetallinone/
You can share your Merit Gunank here - http://tetjob.com/uptetmerit/uptet-5.php to guess merit
(Merit ka anumaan lagane ke leeye aap apnaa Gunank oopar deeye link par share kar sakte hain,
iska actual merit se tulnaa to nahin kee ja saktee, lekin aap apna kuch anmaan/visleshan kar sakte hain depne kee logo ne sahee details dee ho)
*******
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7461 of 2012
Petitioner :- Alka Mishra & 81 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy.Deptt.Of Basic Education &2ors
Petitioner Counsel :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Ankit Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg
������������������������������ And
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7364 of 2012
Petitioner :- Shiv Deen Chaudhary & 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Shiksha U.P. & 3 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Arun Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Since controversy involved in both the writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same� are being considered together.�
Heard Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
The submission of Shri S.K. Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Rules of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2012 (in short 'Rules, 2012') were amended vide notification dated 04th December, 2012 and eligibility for Trainee Teachers has been provided as Bachelors Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government equivalent thereto together with B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)/D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification and passed the teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government or by the Government of India.� However, in case of B.Ed. (Special Education) and D.Ed. (Special Education), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners possess the qualification as prescribed under the Rules, 2012, but the Government Order issued on 05.12.2012 and the advertisement which was issued in pursuance thereof for holding the Teachers Eligibility Test for appointment of Trainee Teachers, do not contain the said qualifications.� In this background, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Government Order dated 05.12.2012 is contrary to the existing Rules, which has been amended vide notification dated 04.12.2012.� It is also submitted by Shri Kalia that as per notification dated 23.08.2010 of the National Council for Teacher Education, the teachers of class 1 to 5� possessing B.Ed. qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) or D.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall under go an NCTE recognized six months special programme on elementary education.� Therefore, said persons will not be required to have TET qualifications.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioners are working since 2006, therefore, they are required to complete six months special course.� This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner requires consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to seek instruction/file counter affidavit.� Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
List immediately thereafter.
In the meantime, it is provided that Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. will examine the issue as to whether the Government Order dated 05.12.2012 and the advertisement issued in pursuance thereof, has been issued strictly in accordance with the amended Rules vide notification dated 04.12.2012 or not, before the last date of submission of the application forms.
Order Date :- 21.12.2012
Tanveer/-
Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2275538
