UPTET Junior 29334 Breaking News - सिर्फ बी एड बी
टी सी अंतिम वर्ष के अभ्यर्थी टेट देने व सफल होने पात्र, गणित विज्ञान से स्नातक को सही रूप से नियुक्ति देने की जिम्मेदारी बी एस ए को, सभी गलत नियुक्तियां रद्द करने के आदेश :-
गाइड लाइन में सिर्फ टेट एपियरिंग था, जिसकी कोर्ट ने व्याख्या करते हुए कहा कि एपोइंटमेंट लेटर से पहले में सफल भी होना चाहिए
बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग का मानना था कि जिन्होंने बी एड / बी टी सी में एडमिशन लिया है वे सभी टेट देने के पात्र हैं, जबकि NCTE/कोर्ट ऑर्डर का कहना है कि टीचर ट्रेनिंग कोर्स के अंतिम वर्ष वाले टेट देने के पात्र हैं
The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that sub-section."
According to the appellants only such persons who are appearing in the teacher training course examination would be considered eligible to appear, while according to the respondents a person who has been admitted to the teacher training course would be considered eligible for appearing in the TET.
The judgement rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 26660 of 2013 (Rambabu Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was relied upon by the learned Judge to arrive at a conclusion that "only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination."
The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that before appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must has passed TET after completing training course or such persons were in the final year of their training examination. A person, who does not come in either of the two categories, would not be issued any appointment order.
important is that such persons should have been declared successful in the teachers training course before the date on which the examination result of TET is declared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidate does not pass the teachers' training course, the TET Certificate would be issued to him and this would enable him to seek appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not passed the qualifying examination.
मतलब की टेट का रिजल्ट डिक्लेयर होने के साथ बी एड / बी टी सी में पास होने चाहिए
ऑर्डर का ऑपरेटिंग पार्ट:-
It should, in our opinion, not be left to the writ petitioners to find the out the names of such persons. It is the District Basic Education Officer who should carry out the exercise. Of course, as indicated in the impugned judgement, the appointments of persons who are not eligible but who appeared in the TET examination should be cancelled after providing an opportunity to such persons.
The judgement and order impugned in the Special Appeals is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above and the Special Appeals are disposed of.
सभी गलत नियुक्तियों को रद्द करने के आदेश , जो लोग
अयोग्य थे, लेकिन टेट एग्जाम में शामिल हुए, उनको एक मौका/मतलब उनका प्रत्यावेदन लेकर जांचा जाए, और अयोग्य अभ्यर्थियों की नियुक्ति रद्द कर दी जाए
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 10
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 506 of 2018
Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar Verma And 53 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 33 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Dhananjay Awasthi
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 514 of 2018
Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar And Anr
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Mangla Prasad Rai,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 508 of 2018
Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Bind And 57 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anoop Trivedi,Manu Singh,Pankaj Kumar Singh,Ras Bihari Pradhan,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Shiv Badan,Vibhu Rai,Virendra Chaubey
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 515 of 2018
Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla And 12 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Devi Dayal,Dhananjay Awasthi,Mangla Prasad Rai,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Virendra Chaubey
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 516 of 2018
Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra And 260 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 54 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Deo Dayal,Dhananjay Awasthi,Mangla Prasad Rai,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Rijwan Ali Akhtar,Virendra Chaubey
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 518 of 2018
Appellant :- Divya Prakash Mishra And 4 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anoop Trivedi,Dhananjay Awasthi,Manu Singh,Rijwan Ali Akhtar,Shiv Badan,Vibhu Rai,Virendra Chaubey
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
These Special Appeals have been filed to assail the judgement and order dated 8 May 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court to a limited extent.
The issue that has arisen for determination in the aforesaid Special Appeals is regarding interpretation of Clause 5(ii) of the eligibility conditions for appearing in the Teachers Eligibility Test1 contained in the circular issued by the National Counsel for Teacher Education on 11 February 2011. It declares that the following persons shall be eligible in the TET:
"5. The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:
i. A person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010.
ii. A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010.
iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that sub-section."
According to the appellants only such persons who are appearing in the teacher training course examination would be considered eligible to appear, while according to the respondents a person who has been admitted to the teacher training course would be considered eligible for appearing in the TET.
The judgement rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 26660 of 2013 (Rambabu Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was relied upon by the learned Judge to arrive at a conclusion that "only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination." A direction has accordingly been issued which is reproduced below:
"In view of the interpretation given to the word "pursuing" by this Court, which stands implemented vide Government Order dated 15th of May, 2013, it is clear that only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone, would be entitled to appear in the TET examination.
The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that before appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must has passed TET after completing training course or such persons were in the final year of their training examination. A person, who does not come in either of the two categories, would not be issued any appointment order. The State Government shall implement its Government Order of 15th of May, 2013 and circulars would be issued for its strict compliance by the appointing authorities. The appointing authorities shall also clearly state such fact in the appointment letter issued to the candidates appointed as Assistant Teachers."
It transpires that certain persons who were in the final year of the teachers' training course were granted permission to appear in the TET examination and on the basis of the certificates issued to them, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the various institutions. Liberty was, therefore, granted to the petitioners to challenge such specific appointments before the appointing authority, who was then directed examine such individual grievance on facts after affording opportunity of hearing to the selected candidates.
It transpires from the records that the last date for submission of the forms for appearing at the TET examination was 18 October 2011. The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the result was declared on 25 November 2011.
The issue that arises for consideration is that who would be eligible to appear in the TET examination. As noticed above, under sub-clause (i) of Clause 5 of the circular, a person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010 would be eligible. Under sub-clause (ii) of Clause 5, a person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010 would also be eligible.
We are not concerned with the eligibility declared under sub-clause (i). What sub-clause (ii) provides is that a person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses would also be eligible.
A learned Judge of this Court in case of Rambabu Vishwakarma observed as follows:
"The words "pursuing any of the teacher education course" occurring in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. have been pointed out by Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. To my mind, the same reflects the extension of such a facility to those candidates who have appeared in the final exams of their teacher education course or whose results are awaited at the final stage. This may not be for those who have just taken admission in a teacher education course/training course requiring completion in a year or two. This facility, like in the case of engineering or medical entrance test, where the candidate has already appeared in his 10+2 exams and is awaiting results, and is also eligible to appear in the entrance test is, therefore, to help such candidates who are to finally wrap up their teacher education course.
Thus, the respondents are not to loose anything or prejudice any cause. To the contrary, this would be a correct way of implementing the guidelines of the N.C.T.E.
Accordingly, a certified copy of this order shall be placed by the learned Standing Counsel before the State Government namely Principal Secretary (Basic Education) who shall forthwith convene a meeting in this respect and take notice of the said Eligibility conditions prescribed in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. And issue an appropriate instruction or Government Order in the event it is found that the petitioners are also entitled to appear in the examinations according to the above mentioned guidelines by extending the date for filling up of the application forms accordingly.
A certified copy of this order shall be provided within 24 hours to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for being communicated to the said authority for taking appropriate steps within a week.
All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly."
It transpires that pursuant to the aforesaid judgement, a Government Order was issued by the State on 15 May 2013 and the same is reproduced below:
"bl laca/k esa eq>s vkils ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k ds ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa vU; vgZrkvkas ds lkFk izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dk vkosnu gsrq volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izf'k{k.kjr@ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks jgs (appearing / pursuing) vH;FkhZ f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k esa vkosnu djus gsrq vgZ ugha gSA blls {kqC/k gksdj dfri; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.kjr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk mudh f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dk volj iznku fd;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ csap] y[kuÅ esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 3100¼,e0,l0½@2013 fouksn dqekj flag cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; rFkk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 25670@2013 lq'khy dqekj flag o vU; cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; ;ksftr dh x;hA mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vUrfje vkns'k@fVIi.kh ds n`f"Vxr izdj.k ij iqufoZpkj fd;k x;kA lE;d fopkjksijkUr 'kklu }kjk fuEuor~ fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&
¼d½ 'kklukns'k la[;k 946@15&11&2013&2750@2012 fnukad 17 vizSy] 2013 rFkk dk;kZy; Kki la[;k & 1018@15&11&2013] fnukad 28] vizSy] 2013 ds Øe esa mRrj izns'k f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk ds ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd vgZrk ds vUrxZr izkfo/kkfur f'k{kd&izf'k{k.k vgZrk esa f'k{kd & izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksus ds lkFk&lkFk f'k{kd & izf'k{k.k ijh{kkvksa esa lfEefyr gks jgs vH;FkhZ Hkh f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k esa vkosnu gsrq vgZ ekus tk;sxsA
¼[k½ ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkSicfU/kd :i ls bl 'krZ ds v/khu f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxk fd mudk f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk dk izek.k&i= lEcfU/kr f'k{kd izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksus ij gh ekU; gksxkA
¼x½ ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd@izf'k{k.k vgZrk,a rFkk f'k{kd&izf'k{k.k vgZrk ¼fnukad & 11&08&1997 ds iwoZ ds eksvfYye&,&mnwZ mikf/k/kkjd½ ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA"
It is on reading of the aforesaid provisions of Clause 5(ii) of the Notification and the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 that the learned Judge in the judgement impugned in the Special Appeal observed as follows:
"In view of the notification issued by the NCTE dated 11th of February, 2011, as well as the Government Order issued on 15th of May, 2013, the inescapable conclusion culled out from the provision is that only those persons are eligible to appear in the TET examination who have acquired academic and professional qualification and have either obtained training qualification or are pursuing any of the teacher education courses."
A perusal of Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11 February 2011 issued by the NCTE clearly indicates that a person who is pursuing any of the teachers' training courses specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23 August 2010 would also be eligible. It appears to us that this benefit was considered to be given to such candidates whose teacher training course result had not been declared by the last date specified for filling the online form for TET examination. That is why, such persons who were pursuing the teacher training course could appear at the TET examination.
In our opinion "pursuing any of the teacher training course" should not be restricted only to such persons who were actually appearing in the examination of the teacher training course. It should also include such persons who have studying in the course but examination had not been held. But what is important is that such persons should have been declared successful in the teachers training course before the date on which the examination result of TET is declared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidate does not pass the teachers' training course, the TET Certificate would be issued to him and this would enable him to seek appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not passed the qualifying examination. This clause merely facilitates such person to appear at the TET examination even if the result of the teacher training course has not been declared. This interpretation would subserve the purpose for which such persons were considered eligible. To give any other interpretation would defeat the purpose of the facility that has been provided to such persons.
In support of this interpretation it would be appropriate to refer to the schedule that was placed before the Court for the 2011 examination. The last date for filling the application was 18 October 2011. The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the result was declared on 25 November 2011. The case of the appellants is that persons whose result of the teacher training course has not been declared by 25 November 2011 were issued certificates and on the basis of the certificates they were appointed. According to them the result of the teacher training course was declared on March 2012.
The Government Order dated 15 May 2013 on which reliance has been placed merely seeks to implement the decision dated 13 May 2013 of this Court in Rambabu Vishwakarma.
Learned counsel for the respondents have placed before the Court the condition contained in the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 as also the certificates that have been issued which contain a condition that the certificates would be valid only after the candidates are declared pass in the teachers' training course examination and that they have been permitted provisionally to appear in the TET examination. This condition contained in the Government Order dated 15 may 2013 or the condition contained in the certificate issued by the authority for clearing the TET examination would not make any difference to the meaning of the word "pursuing" which we have taken.
It is also sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 or the appointments of the Assistant Teacher has not been challenged.
This submission cannot be accepted. The prayers contained in Writ Petition No. 27036 of 2016 out of which Special Appeal No. 514 of 2018 arises are as follows:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the appointment of those candidates who have obtained the minimum eligibility i.e. Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2011 and the eligibility i.e. B.Ed./B.T.C. for appearing in TET has obtained in the year 2012.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 to declare the certificates of TET of all candidates who have not obtained the minimum eligibility degree i.e. B.T.C./B.Ed./V.B.T.C./B.Ed. before passing the TET examination; are invalid.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner being eligible for the aforesaid post."
The prayers contained in Writ Petition No. 52021 of 2017 out of which Special Appeal No. 506 of 2018 arises are as follows:
"(i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith dispense with the services of all such persons appointed as Assistant Teachers, Science/Mathematics for Senior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education in pursuance to Government order dated 11.07.2013 including the respondent no. 7 to 34 who were ineligible for appearing in UP Teachers Eligibility Test 2011 as they have passed BTC training certificate/Bachelor of Education degree in the year 2012/2013 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court.
(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to undertook further counseling for filling up the remaining 3219 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers for Science/Mathematics in Senior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education in State of UP in pursuance to Government order dated 11.07.2013 as also with regard to the vacancies caused by exclusion of ineligible candidates covered by prayer no.(i) of the present writ petition and to complete the said exercise within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court.
(iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith grant appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Teacher of Science/Mathematics subject in senior basic school run by Board of Basic Education in State of UP, to permit the petitioner to function as such and to pay the petitioners their regular monthly salary on the said post, regularly, every month.
(iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition."
Another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the nature of the directions that have issued.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that a duty has been cast upon the petitioners to challenge the appointments not made in conformity with Clause 5(ii) before the District Basic Education Officer. The contention is that it is the duty of the District Basic Education Officer to examine all such appointments and determine whether the appointments of Assistant Teachers was in accordance with the eligibility requirement contained in Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11 February 2011, since, it would not be possible for the petitioners to actually find out the names of the Assistant Teachers who had been appointed de-hors the provisions contained in Clause 5(ii) of the Notification. This submission has also been made in connection with the directions issued by the learned Judge with regard to the persons who have passed graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects. It should, in our opinion, not be left to the writ petitioners to find the out the names of such persons. It is the District Basic Education Officer who should carry out the exercise. Of course, as indicated in the impugned judgement, the appointments of persons who are not eligible but who appeared in the TET examination should be cancelled after providing an opportunity to such persons.
The judgement and order impugned in the Special Appeals is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above and the Special Appeals are disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018
A. V. Singh
(Dilip Gupta,J.)
(Jayant Banerji,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
टी सी अंतिम वर्ष के अभ्यर्थी टेट देने व सफल होने पात्र, गणित विज्ञान से स्नातक को सही रूप से नियुक्ति देने की जिम्मेदारी बी एस ए को, सभी गलत नियुक्तियां रद्द करने के आदेश :-
गाइड लाइन में सिर्फ टेट एपियरिंग था, जिसकी कोर्ट ने व्याख्या करते हुए कहा कि एपोइंटमेंट लेटर से पहले में सफल भी होना चाहिए
बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग का मानना था कि जिन्होंने बी एड / बी टी सी में एडमिशन लिया है वे सभी टेट देने के पात्र हैं, जबकि NCTE/कोर्ट ऑर्डर का कहना है कि टीचर ट्रेनिंग कोर्स के अंतिम वर्ष वाले टेट देने के पात्र हैं
The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that sub-section."
According to the appellants only such persons who are appearing in the teacher training course examination would be considered eligible to appear, while according to the respondents a person who has been admitted to the teacher training course would be considered eligible for appearing in the TET.
The judgement rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 26660 of 2013 (Rambabu Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was relied upon by the learned Judge to arrive at a conclusion that "only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination."
The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that before appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must has passed TET after completing training course or such persons were in the final year of their training examination. A person, who does not come in either of the two categories, would not be issued any appointment order.
important is that such persons should have been declared successful in the teachers training course before the date on which the examination result of TET is declared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidate does not pass the teachers' training course, the TET Certificate would be issued to him and this would enable him to seek appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not passed the qualifying examination.
मतलब की टेट का रिजल्ट डिक्लेयर होने के साथ बी एड / बी टी सी में पास होने चाहिए
ऑर्डर का ऑपरेटिंग पार्ट:-
It should, in our opinion, not be left to the writ petitioners to find the out the names of such persons. It is the District Basic Education Officer who should carry out the exercise. Of course, as indicated in the impugned judgement, the appointments of persons who are not eligible but who appeared in the TET examination should be cancelled after providing an opportunity to such persons.
The judgement and order impugned in the Special Appeals is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above and the Special Appeals are disposed of.
सभी गलत नियुक्तियों को रद्द करने के आदेश , जो लोग
अयोग्य थे, लेकिन टेट एग्जाम में शामिल हुए, उनको एक मौका/मतलब उनका प्रत्यावेदन लेकर जांचा जाए, और अयोग्य अभ्यर्थियों की नियुक्ति रद्द कर दी जाए
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 10
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 506 of 2018
Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar Verma And 53 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 33 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Dhananjay Awasthi
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 514 of 2018
Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar And Anr
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Mangla Prasad Rai,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 508 of 2018
Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Bind And 57 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anoop Trivedi,Manu Singh,Pankaj Kumar Singh,Ras Bihari Pradhan,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Shiv Badan,Vibhu Rai,Virendra Chaubey
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 515 of 2018
Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla And 12 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Devi Dayal,Dhananjay Awasthi,Mangla Prasad Rai,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Virendra Chaubey
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 516 of 2018
Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra And 260 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 54 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Deo Dayal,Dhananjay Awasthi,Mangla Prasad Rai,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Rijwan Ali Akhtar,Virendra Chaubey
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 518 of 2018
Appellant :- Divya Prakash Mishra And 4 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anoop Trivedi,Dhananjay Awasthi,Manu Singh,Rijwan Ali Akhtar,Shiv Badan,Vibhu Rai,Virendra Chaubey
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
These Special Appeals have been filed to assail the judgement and order dated 8 May 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court to a limited extent.
The issue that has arisen for determination in the aforesaid Special Appeals is regarding interpretation of Clause 5(ii) of the eligibility conditions for appearing in the Teachers Eligibility Test1 contained in the circular issued by the National Counsel for Teacher Education on 11 February 2011. It declares that the following persons shall be eligible in the TET:
"5. The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:
i. A person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010.
ii. A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010.
iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that sub-section."
According to the appellants only such persons who are appearing in the teacher training course examination would be considered eligible to appear, while according to the respondents a person who has been admitted to the teacher training course would be considered eligible for appearing in the TET.
The judgement rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 26660 of 2013 (Rambabu Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was relied upon by the learned Judge to arrive at a conclusion that "only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone would be entitled to appear in the TET examination." A direction has accordingly been issued which is reproduced below:
"In view of the interpretation given to the word "pursuing" by this Court, which stands implemented vide Government Order dated 15th of May, 2013, it is clear that only those persons, who are in the final year of their teacher training courses, alone, would be entitled to appear in the TET examination.
The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that before appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she must has passed TET after completing training course or such persons were in the final year of their training examination. A person, who does not come in either of the two categories, would not be issued any appointment order. The State Government shall implement its Government Order of 15th of May, 2013 and circulars would be issued for its strict compliance by the appointing authorities. The appointing authorities shall also clearly state such fact in the appointment letter issued to the candidates appointed as Assistant Teachers."
It transpires that certain persons who were in the final year of the teachers' training course were granted permission to appear in the TET examination and on the basis of the certificates issued to them, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the various institutions. Liberty was, therefore, granted to the petitioners to challenge such specific appointments before the appointing authority, who was then directed examine such individual grievance on facts after affording opportunity of hearing to the selected candidates.
It transpires from the records that the last date for submission of the forms for appearing at the TET examination was 18 October 2011. The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the result was declared on 25 November 2011.
The issue that arises for consideration is that who would be eligible to appear in the TET examination. As noticed above, under sub-clause (i) of Clause 5 of the circular, a person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010 would be eligible. Under sub-clause (ii) of Clause 5, a person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010 would also be eligible.
We are not concerned with the eligibility declared under sub-clause (i). What sub-clause (ii) provides is that a person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses would also be eligible.
A learned Judge of this Court in case of Rambabu Vishwakarma observed as follows:
"The words "pursuing any of the teacher education course" occurring in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. have been pointed out by Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. To my mind, the same reflects the extension of such a facility to those candidates who have appeared in the final exams of their teacher education course or whose results are awaited at the final stage. This may not be for those who have just taken admission in a teacher education course/training course requiring completion in a year or two. This facility, like in the case of engineering or medical entrance test, where the candidate has already appeared in his 10+2 exams and is awaiting results, and is also eligible to appear in the entrance test is, therefore, to help such candidates who are to finally wrap up their teacher education course.
Thus, the respondents are not to loose anything or prejudice any cause. To the contrary, this would be a correct way of implementing the guidelines of the N.C.T.E.
Accordingly, a certified copy of this order shall be placed by the learned Standing Counsel before the State Government namely Principal Secretary (Basic Education) who shall forthwith convene a meeting in this respect and take notice of the said Eligibility conditions prescribed in the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. And issue an appropriate instruction or Government Order in the event it is found that the petitioners are also entitled to appear in the examinations according to the above mentioned guidelines by extending the date for filling up of the application forms accordingly.
A certified copy of this order shall be provided within 24 hours to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for being communicated to the said authority for taking appropriate steps within a week.
All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly."
It transpires that pursuant to the aforesaid judgement, a Government Order was issued by the State on 15 May 2013 and the same is reproduced below:
"bl laca/k esa eq>s vkils ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k ds ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa vU; vgZrkvkas ds lkFk izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dk vkosnu gsrq volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izf'k{k.kjr@ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks jgs (appearing / pursuing) vH;FkhZ f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k esa vkosnu djus gsrq vgZ ugha gSA blls {kqC/k gksdj dfri; ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.kjr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk mudh f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dk volj iznku fd;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ csap] y[kuÅ esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 3100¼,e0,l0½@2013 fouksn dqekj flag cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; rFkk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 25670@2013 lq'khy dqekj flag o vU; cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; ;ksftr dh x;hA mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vUrfje vkns'k@fVIi.kh ds n`f"Vxr izdj.k ij iqufoZpkj fd;k x;kA lE;d fopkjksijkUr 'kklu }kjk fuEuor~ fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&
¼d½ 'kklukns'k la[;k 946@15&11&2013&2750@2012 fnukad 17 vizSy] 2013 rFkk dk;kZy; Kki la[;k & 1018@15&11&2013] fnukad 28] vizSy] 2013 ds Øe esa mRrj izns'k f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk ds ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd vgZrk ds vUrxZr izkfo/kkfur f'k{kd&izf'k{k.k vgZrk esa f'k{kd & izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksus ds lkFk&lkFk f'k{kd & izf'k{k.k ijh{kkvksa esa lfEefyr gks jgs vH;FkhZ Hkh f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk mRrj izns'k esa vkosnu gsrq vgZ ekus tk;sxsA
¼[k½ ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkSicfU/kd :i ls bl 'krZ ds v/khu f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxk fd mudk f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk dk izek.k&i= lEcfU/kr f'k{kd izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksus ij gh ekU; gksxkA
¼x½ ekxZn'khZ fl)kUrksa esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd@izf'k{k.k vgZrk,a rFkk f'k{kd&izf'k{k.k vgZrk ¼fnukad & 11&08&1997 ds iwoZ ds eksvfYye&,&mnwZ mikf/k/kkjd½ ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA"
It is on reading of the aforesaid provisions of Clause 5(ii) of the Notification and the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 that the learned Judge in the judgement impugned in the Special Appeal observed as follows:
"In view of the notification issued by the NCTE dated 11th of February, 2011, as well as the Government Order issued on 15th of May, 2013, the inescapable conclusion culled out from the provision is that only those persons are eligible to appear in the TET examination who have acquired academic and professional qualification and have either obtained training qualification or are pursuing any of the teacher education courses."
A perusal of Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11 February 2011 issued by the NCTE clearly indicates that a person who is pursuing any of the teachers' training courses specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23 August 2010 would also be eligible. It appears to us that this benefit was considered to be given to such candidates whose teacher training course result had not been declared by the last date specified for filling the online form for TET examination. That is why, such persons who were pursuing the teacher training course could appear at the TET examination.
In our opinion "pursuing any of the teacher training course" should not be restricted only to such persons who were actually appearing in the examination of the teacher training course. It should also include such persons who have studying in the course but examination had not been held. But what is important is that such persons should have been declared successful in the teachers training course before the date on which the examination result of TET is declared. If such interpretation is not given then even if a candidate does not pass the teachers' training course, the TET Certificate would be issued to him and this would enable him to seek appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not passed the qualifying examination. This clause merely facilitates such person to appear at the TET examination even if the result of the teacher training course has not been declared. This interpretation would subserve the purpose for which such persons were considered eligible. To give any other interpretation would defeat the purpose of the facility that has been provided to such persons.
In support of this interpretation it would be appropriate to refer to the schedule that was placed before the Court for the 2011 examination. The last date for filling the application was 18 October 2011. The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and the result was declared on 25 November 2011. The case of the appellants is that persons whose result of the teacher training course has not been declared by 25 November 2011 were issued certificates and on the basis of the certificates they were appointed. According to them the result of the teacher training course was declared on March 2012.
The Government Order dated 15 May 2013 on which reliance has been placed merely seeks to implement the decision dated 13 May 2013 of this Court in Rambabu Vishwakarma.
Learned counsel for the respondents have placed before the Court the condition contained in the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 as also the certificates that have been issued which contain a condition that the certificates would be valid only after the candidates are declared pass in the teachers' training course examination and that they have been permitted provisionally to appear in the TET examination. This condition contained in the Government Order dated 15 may 2013 or the condition contained in the certificate issued by the authority for clearing the TET examination would not make any difference to the meaning of the word "pursuing" which we have taken.
It is also sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government Order dated 15 May 2013 or the appointments of the Assistant Teacher has not been challenged.
This submission cannot be accepted. The prayers contained in Writ Petition No. 27036 of 2016 out of which Special Appeal No. 514 of 2018 arises are as follows:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the appointment of those candidates who have obtained the minimum eligibility i.e. Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2011 and the eligibility i.e. B.Ed./B.T.C. for appearing in TET has obtained in the year 2012.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 to declare the certificates of TET of all candidates who have not obtained the minimum eligibility degree i.e. B.T.C./B.Ed./V.B.T.C./B.Ed. before passing the TET examination; are invalid.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner being eligible for the aforesaid post."
The prayers contained in Writ Petition No. 52021 of 2017 out of which Special Appeal No. 506 of 2018 arises are as follows:
"(i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith dispense with the services of all such persons appointed as Assistant Teachers, Science/Mathematics for Senior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education in pursuance to Government order dated 11.07.2013 including the respondent no. 7 to 34 who were ineligible for appearing in UP Teachers Eligibility Test 2011 as they have passed BTC training certificate/Bachelor of Education degree in the year 2012/2013 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court.
(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to undertook further counseling for filling up the remaining 3219 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers for Science/Mathematics in Senior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education in State of UP in pursuance to Government order dated 11.07.2013 as also with regard to the vacancies caused by exclusion of ineligible candidates covered by prayer no.(i) of the present writ petition and to complete the said exercise within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court.
(iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith grant appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Teacher of Science/Mathematics subject in senior basic school run by Board of Basic Education in State of UP, to permit the petitioner to function as such and to pay the petitioners their regular monthly salary on the said post, regularly, every month.
(iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition."
Another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the nature of the directions that have issued.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that a duty has been cast upon the petitioners to challenge the appointments not made in conformity with Clause 5(ii) before the District Basic Education Officer. The contention is that it is the duty of the District Basic Education Officer to examine all such appointments and determine whether the appointments of Assistant Teachers was in accordance with the eligibility requirement contained in Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11 February 2011, since, it would not be possible for the petitioners to actually find out the names of the Assistant Teachers who had been appointed de-hors the provisions contained in Clause 5(ii) of the Notification. This submission has also been made in connection with the directions issued by the learned Judge with regard to the persons who have passed graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects. It should, in our opinion, not be left to the writ petitioners to find the out the names of such persons. It is the District Basic Education Officer who should carry out the exercise. Of course, as indicated in the impugned judgement, the appointments of persons who are not eligible but who appeared in the TET examination should be cancelled after providing an opportunity to such persons.
The judgement and order impugned in the Special Appeals is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above and the Special Appeals are disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018
A. V. Singh
(Dilip Gupta,J.)
(Jayant Banerji,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
