UPTET 2014 : ALLAHABD HIGHCOURT DECISIONS
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 26
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 461 of 2014
Petitioner :- Phool Chand & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Umesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
1.� The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned Notification dated 25.12.2013 placed on record as Annexure-1 to the extent "candidate must possess the D.Ed or BTC or EL.Ed from U.P.". The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in U.P.T.E.T.- 2014 considering their eligibility of having passed D.Ed. course from Madhyamik Education Division, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
2.� The petition has been filed with the foundation that the petitioner nos.1 to 3 are B.A. pass and are studying in two year Diploma in Education course from Madhyamik Education Division, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, however, are permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh.
3.� It has been projected before this Court that Teacher Eligibility Test is required to be conducted. For the said purpose, N.C.T.E. issued guidelines under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.� In brief, it has been projected that because the petitioners are pursuing their D.Ed. course in Madhya Pradesh, their application form is not being entertained. The reason given is that the petitioners should have passed D.Ed course from such institutes, which are recognized by State of U.P. as well as N.C.T.E.. So as to establish the contention above-noted, Annexure-1 has been placed on record.
4.� Shri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that source of Annexure-1 has not been shown in this petition. It has been pointed out that Annexure -1 is an incomplete document. It has also been pointed out that the petitioners are required to rely on the relevant Notification. In regard to issue raised in this petition, Government Order dated 17.4.2013 was issued. The said document has not been placed on record. Shri Ojha, Advocate, has further pointed out that for the purpose of taking TET test, one of the eligibility criteria is that one should have obtained D.Ed. degree from any Institute recognized by N.C.T.E. as well as Rehabilitation Council of India. Further eligibility requirement is that D.Ed. course concluded by a candidate should be of duration of two years along with graduation degree with minimum 50 % marks ( in case of general category) and relaxation of 5% in the marks of graduation will be provided to the candidates belonging to O.B.C., SC/ST, PH, dependents of Freedom Fighter and ex-army man (self category).
5.� Shri Ojha, Advocate, has argued that the petitioners have not brought on record any application made by them, which had been rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner is pursuing his D.Ed. course from Madhya Pradesh. In absence of any such rejection, neither prayer for certiorari could be made nor a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus can be entertained.
6.� I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7.� Before proceeding further, this Court is required to consider as to what is a writ petition.
7(A). A civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and documents annexed in case of a writ petition. When a writ petitioner raises a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts, he must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and accompanying documents. If he is a respondent, the facts asserted are required to be proved from the written statement/ counter affidavit and supporting documents. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the written statement/ counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point.
7(B). Pleadings include documents placed on record as annexures. When a document is placed on record along with a writ petition, it is explained in the body of the writ petition in regard to its relevance and as to why the said document has been placed on record and what ground of challenge emerges therefrom. The respondent thereby is given an opportunity to respond to the pleadings in the writ petition and appended annexures, so as to clarify his stand and point of view.
8.� In view of the nature of the petition, the petitioners, so as to seek relief under extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, were required to show that they have a right under Rules and Regulations and that right is required to be enforced by compelling the respondents. The petitioners are required to establish a prima facie right and further are required to show that right has been violated or denied.
9.� The petitioners have not founded their claim on the basis of a Government Order, Notification or publication in newspapers. Annexure-1 has been placed on record, which purportedly has been sourced from the Internet. Internet site has not been reflected. Document itself is incomplete as only one page of the document has been placed on record as Annexure-1.
10.� Facts pointed out by Shri Ojha, learned Standing Counsel, indicate that a Notification was issued on 6.1.2014. Publication of the Notification was made in the newspapers on 7.1.2014. Government Order was issued on 17th of April, 2013. All the said documents relate to eligibility of a person to appear in U.P.T.E.T. -2014 Examination. None of the documents has been placed on record. Contents of these documents sourced from original Internet site of the Government has also not been placed on record.
11.� In view of the fact that relevant documents, so as to establish a claim, have not been placed on record, adjudication on the issue is not possible.
12.� Perusal of the earlier portion of the Judgment indicates that a civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Facts and the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and documents annexed with the writ petition. In the case in hand, however, the most relevant and necessary documents have not been placed on record for consideration of the Court because of which no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners.
13. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.2.2014
GK Sinha
