Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.
PART -3
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates /
Teacher Recruitment News
We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocates, Sri Shailendra, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Seemant Singh and other learned Counsels appearing for the appellants. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri B.P. Singh and Sri Shashank Shekhar advocates have been heard for the respondents.
Submissions:
The arguments which have been led in these appeals can be divided in two separate sets. The first set of arguments have been led by Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Shailendra and Sri Seemant Singh whereas, the second set of arguments have been lead by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate.
In support of Special Appeals including special appeal No. 150 of 2013, it is contended that selection process having begun by advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the criteria of selection could not have been changed by the Government Order dated 26.7.2013 as well as by 15th Amendment Rules and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012. It has been submitted that as per advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and 12th Amendment Rules dated 9.11.2011, the selection for the post of Assistant Teachers was to be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Teachers Eligibility Test, which criteria could not have been changed. It is submitted that 15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012 at best was prospective in nature and could not have been applied on the ongoing selection process. It is submitted that after beginning of process of selection, Rules could not have been changed and any change was prospective in nature. It is further submitted that the State Government having decided to accept the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 as a qualifying examination, its decision not to rely on the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test examination for selection was self contradictory and arbitrary.
The arguments which have been led in these appeals can be divided in two separate sets. The first set of arguments have been led by Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Shailendra and Sri Seemant Singh whereas, the second set of arguments have been lead by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate.
In support of Special Appeals including special appeal No. 150 of 2013, it is contended that selection process having begun by advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the criteria of selection could not have been changed by the Government Order dated 26.7.2013 as well as by 15th Amendment Rules and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012. It has been submitted that as per advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and 12th Amendment Rules dated 9.11.2011, the selection for the post of Assistant Teachers was to be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Teachers Eligibility Test, which criteria could not have been changed. It is submitted that 15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012 at best was prospective in nature and could not have been applied on the ongoing selection process. It is submitted that after beginning of process of selection, Rules could not have been changed and any change was prospective in nature. It is further submitted that the State Government having decided to accept the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 as a qualifying examination, its decision not to rely on the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test examination for selection was self contradictory and arbitrary.
****************
When Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 against whom allegedly there were allegations has been decided to be accepted as a "qualifying examination", there was no reason for not adopting the criteria for selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. It is submitted that the State having decided not to cancel the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination 2011 and having decided to debar only the individual candidates against whom there were allegations of irregularity and involvement in any criminal offence, ********************
the other candidates against whom there were no allegations could not be made to suffer. It is submitted that learned Single Judge having accepted that 15th Amendment rules were not applicable in ongoing selection process and having further held that there was no valid reason with the State Government not to proceed with the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the appellants were entitled for grant of relief which was denied by learned Single Judge on a non-existent ground. The view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher hence, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress and the mere fact that the candidates were to be imparted six months' training was not to be treated as making appointment on some different posts of trainee teacher for which according to learned Single Judge there was no cadre. The appointment was contemplated against the post of Masters/Mistress and there was no question of appointment on any different post of Trainee Teachers. The Trainee Teacher was only a nomenclature adopted to define the B.Ed. Teachers who were to be imparted six months' training. Learned Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 651. It is submitted that the entire selection process was entitled to be completed on the basis of advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and the appellants could not be asked to compete against set of persons, who were not even eligible at the time when advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was issued.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate in support of Special Appeal No. 159 of 2013 contended that 1981 Rules were not attracted, while making selection of the candidates for imparting six months' training. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 contemplated selection of the candidates for imparting six months training, which was to be carried out on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test and the question of appointment and applicability of 1981 Rules shall arise after the candidates complete their training. It is submitted that for selection of B.Ed. candidates for imparting six months training, 1981 Rules and the 15th and 16th Amendment Rules are irrelevant hence, the basis for issuance of the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 declaring the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 ineffective was misconceived. It is submitted that no other reasons have been given by the State Government for cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 except that after the enforcement of 15th Amendment Rules, the advertisement has become ineffective which is a fallacious reason. It is submitted by Sri Khare that the submissions of the petitioners that there was no valid reason with the State not to proceed with the selection dated 30.11.2011 having accepted by the learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge having also accepted that 15th Amendment Rules were not applicable for the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher in 1981 Rules, the advertisement is bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the selection and appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress which are cadre posts and for appointment against the said posts the candidates were being selected for imparting six months training, which cannot mean that the candidates were being appointed against any post of Trainee Teacher. It is submitted that there is no necessity of any cadre of trainee teacher and learned Single Judge fell into error in holding the advertisement invalid on the aforesaid ground.
It is further submitted by Sri Khare that the 15th Amendment Rules are unsustainable and are liable to be declared as invalid and inoperative. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed in the writ petition seeking declaration that 15th Amendment rules are invalid. He submits that appointment of candidates having B.Ed. Qualifications was being made on the basis of notification dated 23.8.2010. It is submitted that the appointment of B.Ed. Candidate is not being made in accordance with 1981 Rules, rather it was being made under the notification dated 23.8.2010, issued under section 23 of 2009 Act.
It is submitted that the National Council For Teacher Education has issued guidelines dated 11.2.2011, which require the State to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test for selection on the post of Assistant Teachers. The State could not have disregarded the said guidelines and the 15th Amendment Rules which have been made disregarding the binding guidelines of the National Council For Teacher Education, deserves to be declared invalid on this ground alone. It is
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate in support of Special Appeal No. 159 of 2013 contended that 1981 Rules were not attracted, while making selection of the candidates for imparting six months' training. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 contemplated selection of the candidates for imparting six months training, which was to be carried out on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test and the question of appointment and applicability of 1981 Rules shall arise after the candidates complete their training. It is submitted that for selection of B.Ed. candidates for imparting six months training, 1981 Rules and the 15th and 16th Amendment Rules are irrelevant hence, the basis for issuance of the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 declaring the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 ineffective was misconceived. It is submitted that no other reasons have been given by the State Government for cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 except that after the enforcement of 15th Amendment Rules, the advertisement has become ineffective which is a fallacious reason. It is submitted by Sri Khare that the submissions of the petitioners that there was no valid reason with the State not to proceed with the selection dated 30.11.2011 having accepted by the learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge having also accepted that 15th Amendment Rules were not applicable for the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher in 1981 Rules, the advertisement is bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the selection and appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress which are cadre posts and for appointment against the said posts the candidates were being selected for imparting six months training, which cannot mean that the candidates were being appointed against any post of Trainee Teacher. It is submitted that there is no necessity of any cadre of trainee teacher and learned Single Judge fell into error in holding the advertisement invalid on the aforesaid ground.
It is further submitted by Sri Khare that the 15th Amendment Rules are unsustainable and are liable to be declared as invalid and inoperative. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed in the writ petition seeking declaration that 15th Amendment rules are invalid. He submits that appointment of candidates having B.Ed. Qualifications was being made on the basis of notification dated 23.8.2010. It is submitted that the appointment of B.Ed. Candidate is not being made in accordance with 1981 Rules, rather it was being made under the notification dated 23.8.2010, issued under section 23 of 2009 Act.
It is submitted that the National Council For Teacher Education has issued guidelines dated 11.2.2011, which require the State to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test for selection on the post of Assistant Teachers. The State could not have disregarded the said guidelines and the 15th Amendment Rules which have been made disregarding the binding guidelines of the National Council For Teacher Education, deserves to be declared invalid on this ground alone. It is
submitted by Sri Khare that Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (6) ADJ 310 has already held the guidelines binding on the State. Sri Khare submits that selection on the basis of quality point marks as per Appendix which has now been restored by 15th Amendment Rules, was a criteria at the time when State has not amended its Rules according to the notification dated 23.8.2010. It is stated that notification dated 23.8.2010 is binding on the State and shall overrides the 1981 Rules. It is submitted that marks of Teachers Eligibility Test for selection of Assistant Teachers cannot be disregarded or ignored in view of the notification dated 23.8.2010 as well as the guidelines dated 11.2.2013.
Continued......
