RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART -W
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,
PART -W
Though the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court based on the doctrine of approbation and reprobation vis-a-vis candidates who had unsuccessfully participated in a selection process does not admit of any analysis, the invocation of the said doctrine has always been fact oriented.
Noticeably the, oppugnment laid by the respondents/writ petitioners is not merely in the procedural perspectives, but questions the legality and validity of the grundnorms of the recruitment process as a
whole. This plea against the maintainability of the challenge on the ground of estoppel also does not weigh with us.
The radix of the contentious debate, being patently traceable to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (referred to also as 'Act 2009'), expedient it would be to retrace the Statement of Objects and Reasons therefor summarily, before adverting to the
rival assertions.
With the insertion of Article 21A in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 making it obligatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, in a manner, as prescribed by a statute law to the effect i.e. Act 2009 was enacted, to effectuate this ordainment of the National Charter.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this legislative instrument, while acknowledging the crucial role of universal elementary education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through equal opportunities to all, have recorded that notwithstanding, significant spatial and numerical
expansion of elementary schools in the country, yet the goal of universal elementary education had remained elusive. Not only the quality of learning had not been entirely satisfactory in the case of children who could complete elementary education, the number of children belonging to the disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, who dropped out from schools even before completing elementary education, had been noticeably large. In keeping with the underlying objective of Article
21A, the enactment thus, sought to guarantee the following :-
“(a) every child has a right to be provided full time elementary education of satisfactory and
equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain essential norms and standards;
(b) 'compulsory education' casts an obligation on the appropriate Government to provide and
ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education
(c) 'free education' means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her
parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay
any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and
completing elementary education;
(d) the duties and responsibilities of the appropriate Governments, local authorities, parents, schools and teachers in providing free and compulsory education; and (e) a system for protection of the right of children and a decentralized grievance redressal mechanism.”
Not only, as it is clearly decipherable from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this enactment that the avowed objective thereof, is to guarantee full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality to every child, the statute is edificed on the belief that the values of equality, social justice and democracy and the creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through a provision of inclusive elementary education to all. Free and compulsory education of satisfactory
quality thus, is the salubrious mission of this enactment.
For the present adjudicative purpose, it is however, inessential to traverse the framework of the statute Suffice it to state that the comprehension for providing free and compulsory quality education to children is discernibly the quintessential precept of the Act 2009.
Section 23 thereof deals with qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of
teachers and endows the academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification to prescribe the same, so as to be eligible for appointment as such. That the NCTE is this academic authority, as envisaged in Section 23(1) of the Act 2009, is a matter of record.
Indubitably, therefore, NCTE is the statutorily empowered authority to stipulate the minimum qualifications for appointment of a teacher. Under the enactment, power to relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher however, has been reserved with the Central
Government in terms of Section 23(2). The initiatives under scrutiny stem from this legislative backdrop.
The progression of events, as the pleadings would disclose, relate back to the Notification No.F.No.61- 03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE in the dominant exercise of its powers under Section 23(1) of the Act 2009, thereby laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in
Section 2(n) of the Act 2009. The minimum academic qualifications, as recited therein for the two levels i.e.Level I Class I to V and Level II Class VI to VIII in terms of the notification, are as follows:-
“Minimum Qualifications.-
(i) Classes I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with
the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this
regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in
Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.
Ed./BSc.Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed.(Special Education).
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
As would be patent from hereinabove, apart from the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed for the two levels, a pass in the TET, to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines of the NCTE for the purpose, was an inalienable
essentiality. A candidate to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a class in both the levels thus, apart from being possessed of the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed, was indispensably required to pass the TET, as comprehended. Both these requirements for the purpose of eligibility of a person for appointment as a teacher were unmistakably conjunctive, and not in the alternative.
The NCTE followed up this edict by a letter No.76- 4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.2.2011 addressed to all the Secretaries and Commissioners of the State Governments/UTs, thereby circulating its guidelines for conducting the TET by the appropriate Government, as required by its notification dated 23.8.2010.
A plain perusal of the guidelines accompanying the letter dated 11.2.2011, would reveal the abiding
predication to ensure against dilution of quality in such recruitment, and instead, to secure induction of teachers possessed of essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary levels. While reiterating the mandate of a pass in the TET to be a norm of eligibility, rationale therefor was enumerated as hereunder:-
“(i) It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment
process;
(ii) It would induce teacher education institutions and students from these institutions to further improve their performance standards;
(iii) It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special
emphasis on teacher quality.”
Conspicuously thus, the essence of the TET was to infuse a qualitative content in the recruitment process and thus, set a national benchmark for the sake of uniformity in the level of elementary education in the country. The guidelines, apart from laying down the eligibility criteria for appearing in the TET, did also in clause 9 thereof, prescribe the qualifying marks for passing the TET as
hereunder:-
“Qualifying marks.-
9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School
managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently
abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.”
The above extract would proclaim that in terms of the guidelines of the NCTE, a candidate who would score 60% or more in the TET, would be construed to have
passed the same. Liberty was however, accorded to the School management (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided) to grant concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently disabled etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy.
Clause 9(b) though, made it obligatory to provide weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process clarified however, that a pass in the TET would not per se confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment, as such a pass was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment. Clause 9 of the guidelines thus, present the following salient features :-
(a) A candidate to pass the TET examination normally, has to score 60% or more;
(b) School managements (Government, locabodies, government aided and unaided) may grant
concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance
with their extant reservation policy;
(c) weightage has to be given to the TET scores in the recruitment process;
(d) a pass in the TET examination would ipso facto not confer a right on any candidate for
recruitment/employment.
(e) a pass in the TET Examination was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment/recruitment as a
teacher.
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,
टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI
NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI NAUKRI News
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUCl
*****************************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND
RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM
*******************
PART -W
Though the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court based on the doctrine of approbation and reprobation vis-a-vis candidates who had unsuccessfully participated in a selection process does not admit of any analysis, the invocation of the said doctrine has always been fact oriented.
Noticeably the, oppugnment laid by the respondents/writ petitioners is not merely in the procedural perspectives, but questions the legality and validity of the grundnorms of the recruitment process as a
whole. This plea against the maintainability of the challenge on the ground of estoppel also does not weigh with us.
The radix of the contentious debate, being patently traceable to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (referred to also as 'Act 2009'), expedient it would be to retrace the Statement of Objects and Reasons therefor summarily, before adverting to the
rival assertions.
With the insertion of Article 21A in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 making it obligatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, in a manner, as prescribed by a statute law to the effect i.e. Act 2009 was enacted, to effectuate this ordainment of the National Charter.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this legislative instrument, while acknowledging the crucial role of universal elementary education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through equal opportunities to all, have recorded that notwithstanding, significant spatial and numerical
expansion of elementary schools in the country, yet the goal of universal elementary education had remained elusive. Not only the quality of learning had not been entirely satisfactory in the case of children who could complete elementary education, the number of children belonging to the disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, who dropped out from schools even before completing elementary education, had been noticeably large. In keeping with the underlying objective of Article
21A, the enactment thus, sought to guarantee the following :-
“(a) every child has a right to be provided full time elementary education of satisfactory and
equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain essential norms and standards;
(b) 'compulsory education' casts an obligation on the appropriate Government to provide and
ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education
(c) 'free education' means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her
parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay
any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and
completing elementary education;
(d) the duties and responsibilities of the appropriate Governments, local authorities, parents, schools and teachers in providing free and compulsory education; and (e) a system for protection of the right of children and a decentralized grievance redressal mechanism.”
Not only, as it is clearly decipherable from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this enactment that the avowed objective thereof, is to guarantee full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality to every child, the statute is edificed on the belief that the values of equality, social justice and democracy and the creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through a provision of inclusive elementary education to all. Free and compulsory education of satisfactory
quality thus, is the salubrious mission of this enactment.
For the present adjudicative purpose, it is however, inessential to traverse the framework of the statute Suffice it to state that the comprehension for providing free and compulsory quality education to children is discernibly the quintessential precept of the Act 2009.
Section 23 thereof deals with qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of
teachers and endows the academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification to prescribe the same, so as to be eligible for appointment as such. That the NCTE is this academic authority, as envisaged in Section 23(1) of the Act 2009, is a matter of record.
Indubitably, therefore, NCTE is the statutorily empowered authority to stipulate the minimum qualifications for appointment of a teacher. Under the enactment, power to relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher however, has been reserved with the Central
Government in terms of Section 23(2). The initiatives under scrutiny stem from this legislative backdrop.
The progression of events, as the pleadings would disclose, relate back to the Notification No.F.No.61- 03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE in the dominant exercise of its powers under Section 23(1) of the Act 2009, thereby laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in
Section 2(n) of the Act 2009. The minimum academic qualifications, as recited therein for the two levels i.e.Level I Class I to V and Level II Class VI to VIII in terms of the notification, are as follows:-
“Minimum Qualifications.-
(i) Classes I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with
the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this
regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in
Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.
Ed./BSc.Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed.(Special Education).
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
As would be patent from hereinabove, apart from the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed for the two levels, a pass in the TET, to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines of the NCTE for the purpose, was an inalienable
essentiality. A candidate to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a class in both the levels thus, apart from being possessed of the minimum academic qualifications so prescribed, was indispensably required to pass the TET, as comprehended. Both these requirements for the purpose of eligibility of a person for appointment as a teacher were unmistakably conjunctive, and not in the alternative.
The NCTE followed up this edict by a letter No.76- 4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.2.2011 addressed to all the Secretaries and Commissioners of the State Governments/UTs, thereby circulating its guidelines for conducting the TET by the appropriate Government, as required by its notification dated 23.8.2010.
A plain perusal of the guidelines accompanying the letter dated 11.2.2011, would reveal the abiding
predication to ensure against dilution of quality in such recruitment, and instead, to secure induction of teachers possessed of essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary levels. While reiterating the mandate of a pass in the TET to be a norm of eligibility, rationale therefor was enumerated as hereunder:-
“(i) It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment
process;
(ii) It would induce teacher education institutions and students from these institutions to further improve their performance standards;
(iii) It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special
emphasis on teacher quality.”
Conspicuously thus, the essence of the TET was to infuse a qualitative content in the recruitment process and thus, set a national benchmark for the sake of uniformity in the level of elementary education in the country. The guidelines, apart from laying down the eligibility criteria for appearing in the TET, did also in clause 9 thereof, prescribe the qualifying marks for passing the TET as
hereunder:-
“Qualifying marks.-
9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School
managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently
abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.”
The above extract would proclaim that in terms of the guidelines of the NCTE, a candidate who would score 60% or more in the TET, would be construed to have
passed the same. Liberty was however, accorded to the School management (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided) to grant concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently disabled etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy.
Clause 9(b) though, made it obligatory to provide weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process clarified however, that a pass in the TET would not per se confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment, as such a pass was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment. Clause 9 of the guidelines thus, present the following salient features :-
(a) A candidate to pass the TET examination normally, has to score 60% or more;
(b) School managements (Government, locabodies, government aided and unaided) may grant
concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance
with their extant reservation policy;
(c) weightage has to be given to the TET scores in the recruitment process;
(d) a pass in the TET examination would ipso facto not confer a right on any candidate for
recruitment/employment.
(e) a pass in the TET Examination was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment/recruitment as a
teacher.
