SARKARI NAUKRI - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -
TGT HINDI TEACHER KEE BHRTEE KE LIYE YACHEE NE 3 POINTS KA ULLEKH KIYAA -
1. ADVT. NIKALNE KE SAMAY KOEE TET KA ULLEKH NAHIN THAA, AUR GAME SHURU HONE KE BAAD RULES BADLE NAHIN JAA SAKTE
2. DELHI SARKAR KHUD APNE SCHOOLS MEIN BAGER TET KE BHRTEE KARTEE AA RAHEE HAI
3.BHRTEE SHURU HONE KE SAMAY TET ETC. KE NIYAM NAHIN THE.
COURT NE KAHA KEE -
1. GAME KE RULE BEECH MEIN NAHIN BADLE JAA SAKTE KA AGAR HAM SEHYOG KARENE TO FIR HAM BHEE STATUTORY PROVISION KA ULLANGHAN KARENGE. JO HAM NAHIN KAR SAKTE.
2.SUPREME COURT KA GAME CHANGE KA RULE KOEE UNIVBERSAL RULE NAHIN HAI, KHAS POINT YE HAI KI EMPLOYER NE KOEE SWECHHE / ARBITRARY VIOLATION - SAMANTA KE ADHIKAR ARTICLE 14 KA TO NAHIN KIYAA.
AUR VO HAME NAJAR NAHIN AATA.
ISLEEYE YACHEE KEE APPEAL DIMISS WITHOUT ANY RELIEF.
WPC 5249/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the reserved category with the Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School. Petitioner claims that he had the necessary qualifications of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and having been selected in the interview he ought to have been given
appointment.
2.Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education. The school in questionnamely Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School is represented throughWPC 5249/2012 Page2 of 8 respondent nos. 2 and 3. Counter -affidavits filed by these respondents showthat petitioner was not given appointment because as per the relevant provisions Sections 2(a)&(n) & 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 there cannot be appointment of a teacher
in the school unless the teacher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification, and since the petitioner didnot have the CTET qualification , petitioner was not appointed. Along with the counter - affidavit of respondentno.1, the circular of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi da
ted 29.2.2012 has been annexed as Annexure R- 1 to show that schools are illegally appointing persons as teachers in spite of not having the r equirement of CTETqualification
as per the RTE Act, 2009 and schools have been directed to ensure compliance of CT
ET requirement for appointing of a person as a teacher in the school. This circular
dated 29.2.2012 reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification Regarding Recruiting Only CTET Qualified Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012 Page 3 of 8 In pursuance of sub - section (1) or Section 23 of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, theNational Council for Teacher Education,vide their Notification No.215 F.N.61 - 03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S) dated 23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher to teach in the school s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In accordance with the spirit of the RTE Act and theaforementioned Notification issued by the National council for Teacher Education, the Directorate of Education, vide
Notification No. F4(6)(350)/E - IV/2011/621 issued on 07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of the GNCT Delhi, recognized only the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in lieu of State Eligibility Test for appointment of teachers to teach classes I to VIII in the schools referred in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi Gazette Extra Ordinary Part IV on 07.10.2011, and also circulated widely vide Circular No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
- IV/2011/18875 - 18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite the aforesaid provision having come into force with its modification with effect from 07.10.2011, it has been observed that some schools are still considering application
- for recruitment to various teaching posts - submitted by candidates who have not qualified the CTET, which act on their part is unlawful and warrants action as per the as per appropriate provisions of law.
It is, therefore, reiterated that with effect from the aforesaid notification, only CTET qualified teachers shall be employed by the government aided schools as referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.”
WPC 5249/2012 Page 4 of 8 3.
It is therefore clear that no one can be appointed as a teacher in a school after the passing of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short „RTE Act, 2009), read with the notification of National Council for Teacher Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.
4. In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner claims to the post of TGT(Hindi) is after the National Council for Teacher Education notification dated 23.8.2010, and therefore, unless the petitioner has CTET qualification, and admittedly which qualification
the petitioner did not have at the time of his being selected, he cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent - school.
5. Counsel for the petitioner made three submissions before this Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The first is that the advertisement in question did not mention the requirement of CTET qualification and therefore rules of the game cannot be changed once the selection process is set into motion. The second submission is that Government of NCT of Delhi itself is employing teachers without CTET qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against, and reliance for this purpose is placed upon the advertisement dated 13.9.2011 issued for recruitment of 2012 which does not have the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 5 of 8 requirement of a CTET qualification for a teacher.
The third submission made is by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and Others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Others 1983 SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284 that vacancies have to be filled in as per the recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not when the vacancies are filled in.
6 . So far as the first argument, which is urged on behalf the petitioner is concerned that rules of the games cannot be changed mid way because the advertisement did not prescribe the requirement of CTET qualification, in my opinion, this argument if accepted ,
the same will amount to Court becoming a party to gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act , 2009. Once the law requires a specific qualification for appointment, assuming that the authorities may choose to wink and not comply with the requirement, cannot mean that Court should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute. It cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act, 2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after 2009, there was a requirement of CTET qualification for a teacher. Once there is a statutory requirement,
Court can give its imprimatur to an action WPC 5249/2012 Page 6 of 8 which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications.
I therefore, refuse to accede to the argument that merely because the advertisement does not provide requirement of CTET qualification, simply for that reason appointment should be made ignoring the requirement of CTET qualification, and effectively ignoring the statutory provisions and statutory notifications.
7. So far as the second argument is concerned, the same also stands rejected in view of the
above discussion of the first argument , because ,there cannot be estoppel against law. I must also observe that I am doubtful if merely by the petitioner filing the recruitment notification of
2012 for appointment of teachers, teachers would have been appointed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8 .Therefore, the argument that CTET qualification can be overlooked and can be
so accepted by the Courts is not correct, and also I cannot accept the argument that merely because advertisement of 2012 which is filed does not mention requirement of CTET qualification , therefore, actual recruitment must have been done by the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers , who did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012 Page 7 of 8
9. The third and the final argument urged on behalf of the petitioner did carry some substance because it is the law that recruitment should be as per the recruitment rules when the vacancies arise, however, this argument will not hold good if there is statutory provision covering the field. As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take place recruitments only as per the extant recruitment rules when the vacancies
occurred , however, this is not a universal rule and it has so been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725
wherein the Supreme Court referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) and observed that once there are statutory rules, such statutory rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises. Once there are statutory rules and statutory provisions which hold the field , the judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) will not apply and which will really apply to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even with respect to administrative circulars , rules and notifications , there may be in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when the vacancy had arisen inasmuch as it is not unknown to law that if the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 8 of 8 legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application of a particular requirement as per the facts of each case , because,
what is really to be examined is that actually is there a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e whether or not action of the employer is arbitrary.
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer in requiring the retrospective application of a qualification may not be arbitrary, however I need not observe in this regard one way or the other , inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions, statutory rules and statutory notifications which bar the appointment of a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET qualification.
10 . In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25 , 2013 /
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
SOURCE : http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VJM/judgement/07-12-2013/VJM25112013CW52492012.pdf
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
TGT HINDI TEACHER KEE BHRTEE KE LIYE YACHEE NE 3 POINTS KA ULLEKH KIYAA -
1. ADVT. NIKALNE KE SAMAY KOEE TET KA ULLEKH NAHIN THAA, AUR GAME SHURU HONE KE BAAD RULES BADLE NAHIN JAA SAKTE
2. DELHI SARKAR KHUD APNE SCHOOLS MEIN BAGER TET KE BHRTEE KARTEE AA RAHEE HAI
3.BHRTEE SHURU HONE KE SAMAY TET ETC. KE NIYAM NAHIN THE.
COURT NE KAHA KEE -
1. GAME KE RULE BEECH MEIN NAHIN BADLE JAA SAKTE KA AGAR HAM SEHYOG KARENE TO FIR HAM BHEE STATUTORY PROVISION KA ULLANGHAN KARENGE. JO HAM NAHIN KAR SAKTE.
2.SUPREME COURT KA GAME CHANGE KA RULE KOEE UNIVBERSAL RULE NAHIN HAI, KHAS POINT YE HAI KI EMPLOYER NE KOEE SWECHHE / ARBITRARY VIOLATION - SAMANTA KE ADHIKAR ARTICLE 14 KA TO NAHIN KIYAA.
AUR VO HAME NAJAR NAHIN AATA.
ISLEEYE YACHEE KEE APPEAL DIMISS WITHOUT ANY RELIEF.
WPC 5249/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the reserved category with the Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School. Petitioner claims that he had the necessary qualifications of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and having been selected in the interview he ought to have been given
appointment.
2.Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education. The school in questionnamely Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School is represented throughWPC 5249/2012 Page2 of 8 respondent nos. 2 and 3. Counter -affidavits filed by these respondents showthat petitioner was not given appointment because as per the relevant provisions Sections 2(a)&(n) & 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 there cannot be appointment of a teacher
in the school unless the teacher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification, and since the petitioner didnot have the CTET qualification , petitioner was not appointed. Along with the counter - affidavit of respondentno.1, the circular of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi da
ted 29.2.2012 has been annexed as Annexure R- 1 to show that schools are illegally appointing persons as teachers in spite of not having the r equirement of CTETqualification
as per the RTE Act, 2009 and schools have been directed to ensure compliance of CT
ET requirement for appointing of a person as a teacher in the school. This circular
dated 29.2.2012 reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification Regarding Recruiting Only CTET Qualified Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012 Page 3 of 8 In pursuance of sub - section (1) or Section 23 of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, theNational Council for Teacher Education,vide their Notification No.215 F.N.61 - 03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S) dated 23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher to teach in the school s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In accordance with the spirit of the RTE Act and theaforementioned Notification issued by the National council for Teacher Education, the Directorate of Education, vide
Notification No. F4(6)(350)/E - IV/2011/621 issued on 07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of the GNCT Delhi, recognized only the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in lieu of State Eligibility Test for appointment of teachers to teach classes I to VIII in the schools referred in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi Gazette Extra Ordinary Part IV on 07.10.2011, and also circulated widely vide Circular No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
- IV/2011/18875 - 18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite the aforesaid provision having come into force with its modification with effect from 07.10.2011, it has been observed that some schools are still considering application
- for recruitment to various teaching posts - submitted by candidates who have not qualified the CTET, which act on their part is unlawful and warrants action as per the as per appropriate provisions of law.
It is, therefore, reiterated that with effect from the aforesaid notification, only CTET qualified teachers shall be employed by the government aided schools as referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.”
WPC 5249/2012 Page 4 of 8 3.
It is therefore clear that no one can be appointed as a teacher in a school after the passing of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short „RTE Act, 2009), read with the notification of National Council for Teacher Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.
4. In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner claims to the post of TGT(Hindi) is after the National Council for Teacher Education notification dated 23.8.2010, and therefore, unless the petitioner has CTET qualification, and admittedly which qualification
the petitioner did not have at the time of his being selected, he cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent - school.
5. Counsel for the petitioner made three submissions before this Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The first is that the advertisement in question did not mention the requirement of CTET qualification and therefore rules of the game cannot be changed once the selection process is set into motion. The second submission is that Government of NCT of Delhi itself is employing teachers without CTET qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against, and reliance for this purpose is placed upon the advertisement dated 13.9.2011 issued for recruitment of 2012 which does not have the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 5 of 8 requirement of a CTET qualification for a teacher.
The third submission made is by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and Others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Others 1983 SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284 that vacancies have to be filled in as per the recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not when the vacancies are filled in.
6 . So far as the first argument, which is urged on behalf the petitioner is concerned that rules of the games cannot be changed mid way because the advertisement did not prescribe the requirement of CTET qualification, in my opinion, this argument if accepted ,
the same will amount to Court becoming a party to gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act , 2009. Once the law requires a specific qualification for appointment, assuming that the authorities may choose to wink and not comply with the requirement, cannot mean that Court should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute. It cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act, 2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after 2009, there was a requirement of CTET qualification for a teacher. Once there is a statutory requirement,
Court can give its imprimatur to an action WPC 5249/2012 Page 6 of 8 which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications.
I therefore, refuse to accede to the argument that merely because the advertisement does not provide requirement of CTET qualification, simply for that reason appointment should be made ignoring the requirement of CTET qualification, and effectively ignoring the statutory provisions and statutory notifications.
7. So far as the second argument is concerned, the same also stands rejected in view of the
above discussion of the first argument , because ,there cannot be estoppel against law. I must also observe that I am doubtful if merely by the petitioner filing the recruitment notification of
2012 for appointment of teachers, teachers would have been appointed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8 .Therefore, the argument that CTET qualification can be overlooked and can be
so accepted by the Courts is not correct, and also I cannot accept the argument that merely because advertisement of 2012 which is filed does not mention requirement of CTET qualification , therefore, actual recruitment must have been done by the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers , who did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012 Page 7 of 8
9. The third and the final argument urged on behalf of the petitioner did carry some substance because it is the law that recruitment should be as per the recruitment rules when the vacancies arise, however, this argument will not hold good if there is statutory provision covering the field. As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take place recruitments only as per the extant recruitment rules when the vacancies
occurred , however, this is not a universal rule and it has so been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725
wherein the Supreme Court referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) and observed that once there are statutory rules, such statutory rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises. Once there are statutory rules and statutory provisions which hold the field , the judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah (supra) will not apply and which will really apply to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even with respect to administrative circulars , rules and notifications , there may be in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when the vacancy had arisen inasmuch as it is not unknown to law that if the
WPC 5249/2012 Page 8 of 8 legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application of a particular requirement as per the facts of each case , because,
what is really to be examined is that actually is there a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e whether or not action of the employer is arbitrary.
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer in requiring the retrospective application of a qualification may not be arbitrary, however I need not observe in this regard one way or the other , inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions, statutory rules and statutory notifications which bar the appointment of a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET qualification.
10 . In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25 , 2013 /
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
SOURCE : http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VJM/judgement/07-12-2013/VJM25112013CW52492012.pdf
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
