UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
72825 Teacher Selection : Candidates having 70% TET Marks Order in Allahabad High court. 70% Marks candidate demanded appointment letter
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court
Case:- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No 669 of 2015
Appellants:- State of U P through Secretary Department of Basic Education & Ors
Respondent: Kanchan Lata Tripathi
Counsel for appellants: Vivek Shandilya, S C
Counsel for Respondent:- C Prasad
Hon'ble Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J
This special appeal has arisen from an interlocutory order of a learned Single Judge dated 11 March 2015 by which a mandatory direction has been issued to the appellants to issue a letter of appointment to the respondent subject to verification of her eligibility and upon ascertaining the fact of appearance in the process of counselling.
On 13 November 2011, an advertisement was issued by the State for the appointment of 72,825 Assistant Teachers in basic schools and junior basic schools conducted by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. On 17 December 2014, an order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeals filed by the State in State of U P Vs Shiv Kumar Pathak1. By the interim order, the Supreme Court noted that by an earlier order dated 25 March 2014, the State had been directed to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in pursuance of the advertisement issued in November 2011, in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak Vs State of U P2. By the subsequent direction of the Supreme Court dated 17 December 2014, the State Government was directed to appoint those candidates who had obtained at least 70 percent marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test3 (TET) from the open category and 65 percent marks from the reserved category. The relevant part of the directions which were issued on 17 December 2014 is extracted herein below:
"...After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length on various occasions, we are inclined to modify the order passed on 25th March, 2014, and direct that the State Government shall appoint the candidates whose names have not been weeded out in the malpractice and who have obtained/secured seventy percent marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes and the physically handicapped persons, shall be appointed if they have obtained/secured sixty-five percent marks. If there is any policy of the State Government covering any other category for the purpose of reservation, it may be given effect to with the same percentage..."
The respondent belongs to the open category and has secured 105 marks out of 150 marks in the TET which is equivalent to 70 percent. In the course of the first round of counselling, the cut-off was 123 marks out of 150. In the second round of counselling, the cut-off was 109 marks. The respondent participated in the third round of counselling on 8 November 2014. Directions were issued by the Supreme Court on 17 December 2014 stipulating a cut-off of 70 percent marks for the open category and 65 percent for the reserved category.
Initially, a communication was issued on 26 December 2014 by the Director of the State Council for Educational Research and Training4 to the effect that in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 17 December 2014 candidates from the open category and reserved category with 70 percent and 65 percent marks respectively in the TET should be issued letters of appointment from among those who had participated in the first, second and third round of counselling. However, before the letters of appointment were issued, a decision was taken on 5 January 2015 to the effect that a fourth round of counselling would be held and if candidates with higher marks were available, they would be included in the process of counselling.
In the meantime, several writ petitions were filed by candidates who had appeared in the process of counselling which was held for appointment of teachers in senior basic schools for which they had submitted original testimonials. Their grievance was that though the counselling process had been completed, the select list was yet to be declared for senior basic schools. In the meantime they wanted to apply for appointment in primary schools but the Basic Education Officer was not returning their testimonials to enable them to apply. One such writ petition was Mayank Yadav & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors5 in which an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 19 September 2014 directing the Basic Education Officer to allow those petitioners to participate in the counselling for trainee teachers on producing duly attested copies of their testimonials.
After the above interim order dated 19 September 2014 and similar orders which were passed in other writ petitions, teachers who had appeared in the counselling process for posts in secondary basic schools were also required to be considered on the basis of the attested copies of their testimonials.
Following the decision which was taken on 5 January 2015, a combined list of selected candidates has been drawn up in compliance with the cut-off prescribed in the order of the Supreme Court. The last appointed candidate has secured 106 marks. Admittedly the respondent has secured 105 marks, which is below the last selected candidate.
The grievance of the respondent which led to the filing of the writ petition is that, at the end of the third round of counselling, the respondent who had secured 105 marks out of 150 was entitled to be appointed. Hence, it was urged that there was no justification to hold a fourth round of counselling and the fourth round of counselling should have been confined only to those candidates who had not been selected at the end of the third round. The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order on 11 March 2015 directing that an appointment letter should be issued to the respondent subject to verification of her eligibility and that she had appeared in the process of counselling. The interim order has been called into question in this appeal filed by the State.
The short issue before the Court is whether the respondent had a vested right to appointment at the end of the third round of counselling. Admittedly, no letter of appointment had been issued at the end of the third round of counselling. At the highest, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, upon which the respondent has relied upon, can be regarded as a list of candidates at the end of the third round of counselling in order of merit. Equally, the print out of the intimation to the respondent that she was eligible for counselling (Annexure-1) contains a specific instruction that calling a candidate for counselling would not confer a vested right to selection upon the candidate. The respondent would have had a grievance if any candidate below her in the order of merit had been selected. That is admittedly not the case which is urged before the Court. The last selected candidate has 106 marks while the respondent is below that with 105 marks out of 150. At the highest, the grievance of the respondent may be that as a result of the fourth round of counselling, the field of candidates was widened. The effect of it was that persons who were more meritorious on the basis of marks obtained in the TET were also brought into the reckoning. Unless and until a letter of appointment was issued, the respondent would have no vested right.
For these reasons, we see no reason for the learned Single Judge to have entertained the writ petition or to have issued any interim order of a mandatory nature that has been issued. The effect of the interim direction of the learned Single Judge was that the respondent would be issued with a letter of appointment though, admittedly, the last appointed candidate secured 106 marks out of 150. All that can be clarified is that in the event that any vacancies remain to be filled up in accordance with the directions which have already been issued by the Supreme Court in the interim orders dated 25 March 2014 and 17 December 2014, the case of the respondent shall be considered strictly in order of merit. No further direction can be issued. No other point has been pressed in support of the main writ petition which, by consent, has been taken up here in special appeal. The writ petition which has been filed by the respondent shall accordingly stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 11 March 2015 shall stand set aside and the special appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of. The writ petition shall be governed by these directions. A copy of the present judgment shall be placed by the Registry in the file of the writ petition.
However, in the event that the respondent has any grievance at a subsequent stage, we leave it open to the respondent to pursue such remedy as is available in law.
The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.9.2015
AHA
(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
(Yashwant Varma, J)
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
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | 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 / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
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
72825 Teacher Selection : Candidates having 70% TET Marks Order in Allahabad High court. 70% Marks candidate demanded appointment letter
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court
Case:- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No 669 of 2015
Appellants:- State of U P through Secretary Department of Basic Education & Ors
Respondent: Kanchan Lata Tripathi
Counsel for appellants: Vivek Shandilya, S C
Counsel for Respondent:- C Prasad
Hon'ble Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J
This special appeal has arisen from an interlocutory order of a learned Single Judge dated 11 March 2015 by which a mandatory direction has been issued to the appellants to issue a letter of appointment to the respondent subject to verification of her eligibility and upon ascertaining the fact of appearance in the process of counselling.
On 13 November 2011, an advertisement was issued by the State for the appointment of 72,825 Assistant Teachers in basic schools and junior basic schools conducted by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. On 17 December 2014, an order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeals filed by the State in State of U P Vs Shiv Kumar Pathak1. By the interim order, the Supreme Court noted that by an earlier order dated 25 March 2014, the State had been directed to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in pursuance of the advertisement issued in November 2011, in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak Vs State of U P2. By the subsequent direction of the Supreme Court dated 17 December 2014, the State Government was directed to appoint those candidates who had obtained at least 70 percent marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test3 (TET) from the open category and 65 percent marks from the reserved category. The relevant part of the directions which were issued on 17 December 2014 is extracted herein below:
"...After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length on various occasions, we are inclined to modify the order passed on 25th March, 2014, and direct that the State Government shall appoint the candidates whose names have not been weeded out in the malpractice and who have obtained/secured seventy percent marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes and the physically handicapped persons, shall be appointed if they have obtained/secured sixty-five percent marks. If there is any policy of the State Government covering any other category for the purpose of reservation, it may be given effect to with the same percentage..."
The respondent belongs to the open category and has secured 105 marks out of 150 marks in the TET which is equivalent to 70 percent. In the course of the first round of counselling, the cut-off was 123 marks out of 150. In the second round of counselling, the cut-off was 109 marks. The respondent participated in the third round of counselling on 8 November 2014. Directions were issued by the Supreme Court on 17 December 2014 stipulating a cut-off of 70 percent marks for the open category and 65 percent for the reserved category.
Initially, a communication was issued on 26 December 2014 by the Director of the State Council for Educational Research and Training4 to the effect that in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 17 December 2014 candidates from the open category and reserved category with 70 percent and 65 percent marks respectively in the TET should be issued letters of appointment from among those who had participated in the first, second and third round of counselling. However, before the letters of appointment were issued, a decision was taken on 5 January 2015 to the effect that a fourth round of counselling would be held and if candidates with higher marks were available, they would be included in the process of counselling.
In the meantime, several writ petitions were filed by candidates who had appeared in the process of counselling which was held for appointment of teachers in senior basic schools for which they had submitted original testimonials. Their grievance was that though the counselling process had been completed, the select list was yet to be declared for senior basic schools. In the meantime they wanted to apply for appointment in primary schools but the Basic Education Officer was not returning their testimonials to enable them to apply. One such writ petition was Mayank Yadav & Ors Vs State of U P & Ors5 in which an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 19 September 2014 directing the Basic Education Officer to allow those petitioners to participate in the counselling for trainee teachers on producing duly attested copies of their testimonials.
After the above interim order dated 19 September 2014 and similar orders which were passed in other writ petitions, teachers who had appeared in the counselling process for posts in secondary basic schools were also required to be considered on the basis of the attested copies of their testimonials.
Following the decision which was taken on 5 January 2015, a combined list of selected candidates has been drawn up in compliance with the cut-off prescribed in the order of the Supreme Court. The last appointed candidate has secured 106 marks. Admittedly the respondent has secured 105 marks, which is below the last selected candidate.
The grievance of the respondent which led to the filing of the writ petition is that, at the end of the third round of counselling, the respondent who had secured 105 marks out of 150 was entitled to be appointed. Hence, it was urged that there was no justification to hold a fourth round of counselling and the fourth round of counselling should have been confined only to those candidates who had not been selected at the end of the third round. The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order on 11 March 2015 directing that an appointment letter should be issued to the respondent subject to verification of her eligibility and that she had appeared in the process of counselling. The interim order has been called into question in this appeal filed by the State.
The short issue before the Court is whether the respondent had a vested right to appointment at the end of the third round of counselling. Admittedly, no letter of appointment had been issued at the end of the third round of counselling. At the highest, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, upon which the respondent has relied upon, can be regarded as a list of candidates at the end of the third round of counselling in order of merit. Equally, the print out of the intimation to the respondent that she was eligible for counselling (Annexure-1) contains a specific instruction that calling a candidate for counselling would not confer a vested right to selection upon the candidate. The respondent would have had a grievance if any candidate below her in the order of merit had been selected. That is admittedly not the case which is urged before the Court. The last selected candidate has 106 marks while the respondent is below that with 105 marks out of 150. At the highest, the grievance of the respondent may be that as a result of the fourth round of counselling, the field of candidates was widened. The effect of it was that persons who were more meritorious on the basis of marks obtained in the TET were also brought into the reckoning. Unless and until a letter of appointment was issued, the respondent would have no vested right.
For these reasons, we see no reason for the learned Single Judge to have entertained the writ petition or to have issued any interim order of a mandatory nature that has been issued. The effect of the interim direction of the learned Single Judge was that the respondent would be issued with a letter of appointment though, admittedly, the last appointed candidate secured 106 marks out of 150. All that can be clarified is that in the event that any vacancies remain to be filled up in accordance with the directions which have already been issued by the Supreme Court in the interim orders dated 25 March 2014 and 17 December 2014, the case of the respondent shall be considered strictly in order of merit. No further direction can be issued. No other point has been pressed in support of the main writ petition which, by consent, has been taken up here in special appeal. The writ petition which has been filed by the respondent shall accordingly stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 11 March 2015 shall stand set aside and the special appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of. The writ petition shall be governed by these directions. A copy of the present judgment shall be placed by the Registry in the file of the writ petition.
However, in the event that the respondent has any grievance at a subsequent stage, we leave it open to the respondent to pursue such remedy as is available in law.
The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.9.2015
AHA
(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
(Yashwant Varma, J)
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
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | 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 / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
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
