UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - TGT Yachee ne Ko Ant Mein Pata Chala Ki TET Mandatory hone Kee Vajhe Se Nokri Nahin Milee -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - TGT Yachee ne  Ko Ant Mein Pata Chala Ki TET Mandatory hone Kee Vajhe Se Nokri Nahin Milee  -

Ek Anya Yachee Ke Pass TET Certificate to Mojood Thee, Lekin Advt Mein TET Mahin Maangne se Usne Submit Nahin Kiyaa Thaa, Usko Court Ne Raahat Pradaan Kar Dee, Aur Nokri Dene Ke Leeye Nirdeshit Kar Deeyaa




IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER
W.P.(C) 5675/2013
Decided on: 12.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
UMA KUMARI                                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with
                                        Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate  
                                        versus
THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL &
ORS.                                                                                ..... Respondents
                              Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with 
                                        Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal, 
                                        Advocates for R-1/School.
                                        Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.
                                        Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM 
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 
1.       The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia  that the  appointment  of  the respondent  No.4  be declared as bad  in law  and her appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be quashed. 
 2.      Briefly  stated,  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that the  IAF  Educational  and Cultural   Society   had   issued   an   advertisement   dated 31.01.2012   for recruitment  of  teaching  and  administrative  staff,  including  the  appointment of  teachers  to  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi),  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  the present petition. The required qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi) was graduation  in  Hindi  (Hons.)  with  50%  marks  and  Bachelors  Degree  in Education.  The  applicants  were  expected  to  submit  their  forms  to  the respondents by 09.02.2012. The eligible candidates had to undergo a written test on 09.02.2012 and those, who would qualify in
the written test, were to participate in a personal interview.  
3.       It  is  the  petitioner’s  case  that  she  had  appeared  in  the  written examination  on  the  date  and  time  mentioned  in  the  advertisement  and  she had  successfully  cleared  the  said  examination.    Vide  intimation  dated 24.02.2012,   the   petitioner   was   called   to   appear   for
   an   interview   on 02.03.2012.  The petitioner had appeared before the  Selection Board on the
assigned day for an interview, whereafter she kept waiting for the results to be  declared  by  the  respondent  No.1/School.  However,   when  the  petitioner accessed the website of the respondent No.1/School,  she discovered that her name was not included as one of the successful candidates.  
4.       Aggrieved by the results declared by the respond ent No.1/School for  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi),  the  petitioner  had  a  legal   notice  dated  9.4.2012  issued to the respondent No.1/School stating interalia that she possessed the desired   educational   qualifications   and   had   also   cle
ared   the   written examination  and  participated  in  the  interview  but  was  not  selected,  in
violation  of  the  rules  and  regulations.    It  was  also    stated  that  as  per  the Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  National  Council  for  Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a candidate to qualify in the Teacher   Eligibility   Test   (in   short   ‘TET’)   which   is
conducted   by   the appropriate  Government  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines  framed  in  that
regard  and  if  the  School  had  appointed  a  teacher,  who  did  not  qualify  the TET, then such an appointment was invalid. 
5.       When   the   petitioner   failed   to   receive   any   response   from   the respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C)  3025/2012  praying  inter  alia  that  the  respondent  No.1/School  be directed to appoint her to the post of TGT (Hindi).
6.       The  aforesaid  petition  was  disposed  of  vide  order  dated  18.05.2012, with  directions  to  the  respondent  No.1/School  that it  should  respond  to  the legal  notice  dated  09.04.2012,  by  passing  a  speaking  order  and  the  same should be communicated to the petitioner.  The afor
esaid order was passed at the  stage  of  admission  and  at  that  time,  the  School  was  not  represented before  the  court.    In  the  meantime,  the  respondent No.1/School  on  its  own
sent  a  reply  dated  19.5.2012  to  the  legal  notice  issued  by  the  petitioner, denying  the  allegations  leveled  against  it  and  stating  inter  alia  that  the petitioner was not found fit for selection to the post of TGT (Hindi) and was therefore,  not  selected.  It  was  also  stated that  th
e  Selection  Committee  had considered  the  candidature  of  all  the  candidates  objectively  and  thereafter, selected  the  eligible  candidates.  Aggrieved  by  the aforesaid  stand  taken  by
the respondent No.1/School, the petitioner has filed the present petition.  
7.       The  leitmotif  of  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  counsel  for  the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the subject  post is that the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010  prescribes that a school  cannot  appoint  teachers  to  the  post  of  Primary  Regu
lar  Teacher  (PRT)  or  TGT  (Class  I  to  VIII)  when  they  do  not  possess  the  TET  certificate.    He  submits that the petitioner herein possesses the TET certificate issued by the Haryana  Education  Board,  but the  respondent  No.4,  who  has  been selected to the subject post, does not possess the said qualification and therefore her appointment ought to be quashed. 
8.       Ms. Palli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/School disputes the  submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of  the   Court   to   the   Circular   dated   06.03.2012   issued   by   the   respondent  No.2/CBSE,  wherein  it  is  stated  that  the  TET  conduc
ted  by  the  Central Government  would  apply  to  schools  under  the  Central   Government  and
Union  Territories  without  Legislature,  and  that  the   Managements  of  the schools  affiliated  to  the  Boards  such  as  CBSE,  ICSE   etc.  may  also  opt  for  the TET conducted by the Central Government. Learned counsel states that the  Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  NCT
E  was  directed  to  be implemented   by   the   CBSE   only   on   06.03.2012,   whereas
   the   subject  advertisement  was  issued  prior  thereto,  on  31.01.2012  and  the  selection
process  was  completed  by  02.03.2012,  which  was  also   prior  in  time  and
therefore,  possession  of  a  TET  certificate  was  not mandatory  for  the candidates at that point in time.  
9.       Supporting   the   aforesaid   submission,   learned   counsel   for   the respondent  No.4  adds  that  though  possession  of  a  TET  certificate  was  not mandatory  prior  to  issuance  of  the  Circular  dated  6.3.2012,  his  client  had passed  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  held  in  November,  2011, as  stipulated  in  the  Notification  dated  23.8.2010  issued  by  the  NCTE.    In
support  of  the  said  submission,  learned  counsel  refers  to  page  215  of  the paper  book,  where he  has  filed    a  copy  of  the  Certificate dated  25.11.2011 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate  Education, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of the respondent No.4, certifying inter alia that she had  passed  Uttar  Pradesh  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  held  in  November,  2011
(Upper Primary Level).  He further states that subsequently in the year 2013, the  respondent  No.4  had  passed  Central  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  (in  short ‘CTET’)  and  was  issued  a  Certificate  dated  02.09.2013,  that  is  placed  at page 216 of the paper book. 
10.     In  view  of  the  documents  placed  on  record  by  the  respondent  No.4 that  include  a  TET  certificate of  Upper  Primary  Level  issued  in  her  favour by the State of U.P. and a CTET certificate issued in her favour by the CBSE, it  is  manifestly  clear  that  she  satisfies  the  requi
rements  of  the  Notification dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  NCTE.    Moreover  as  is  apparent  from  a perusal of the advertisement enclosed with the writ  petition, at the time when
the   subject   advertisement   was   issued   by   the   respondent   No.1/School, inviting   applications   to   fill-up   the   posts   of   TGT   (Hindi),   it   was   not mandatory  for  the  candidates  to  possess  the  TET  certificate.    The  only qualifications  that  a  candidates  was  required  to  possess  was  graduation  in Hindi  (Hons.)  with  50%  marks  and  a  Bachelor’s  degree    in  Education  and the respondent no.4 fulfilled both the qualifications.  
11.     The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the copies of the certificates  filed  by  the  respondent  No.4  ought  to be  verified  by  the respondent No.1/School, is found to be rather incon
gruent in the light of the fact that on her part, the petitioner has chosen not to file any such certificate
to  substantiate  her  claim  that  she  possesses  a  TET certificate  purportedly issued  by  the  State  of  Haryana.    This  demand  is  all   the  more  discordant when  the  sole  argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  to  assail  the appointment of the respondent No.4 is non-possessio
n of the TET certificate by  her.    Had  the  petitioner  wanted  to  file  the  said   certificate,  she  had  an opportunity to do so alongwith the writ petition and having  failed to do so at that  stage,  she  could  have  done  so  while  filing  the   rejoinder  to  the  counter affidavits   filed   by   the   respondent   no.1/School   and respondent   No.4.  However, for reasons best known to her, the petitio
ner elected not to do so. 
Therefore,  counsel  for  the  petitioner  cannot  insist  that  the  respondent  No.4 be directed to produce her original certificates for purposes of verification. 
12.     In view of the  aforesaid  facts and  circumstances, this  Court is of the opinion  that  the  appointment  of  the  respondent  No.4   to  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi) does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness for interference in the  present  proceedings.  The  writ  petition  is  dismi
ssed  as  being  devoid  of merits while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 12, 2014                                                           JUDGE   







 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
 

Read more...

TET SARKARI NAUKRI News - SUPREME COURT ON TET TEACHER MATTER ISSUE FOR RAJASTHAN TEACHER SELECTION - JUDGEMENT - HIGHLIGHT OF DECISION >>>

TET SARKARI NAUKRI   News   -
SUPREME COURT ON TET TEACHER MATTER ISSUE FOR RAJASTHAN TEACHER SELECTION - JUDGEMENT - HIGHLIGHT OF DECISION >>>

DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED ON 20TH MAY 2011 >>>>


GRADUATION / MASTERS DEGREE MEIN 45% MARKS VAALON KO BHEE CHOOT MILEE HAI TET KARNE KE LIYE, AGAR UNHONE ADMISSION NCTE KE NOTIFICATION KE AANE SE PEHLE AUR USKE QUALIFICATION KE ANUROOP LIYA HAI







QUESTIONS ARISES >>>>

“(A) Whether in absence of any eligibility or qualification in the rules the State Government can be permitted to conduct TET without amending the service rules made under Article 309,Constitution of India on the basis of notification dated 23.08.2010 which the Division Bench held vide order dated 13.4.2011 that it is not statutory in character?

(B) Whether in view of the fact that stay order was in existence on 06.05.2011 upon conducting the TET in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3749/2011 an order for modifying the order dated 15.4.2011 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3068/2011 could be made allowing the State Government to go ahead with conducting the TET examination?

(C) Whether once opinion is expressed by the Division Bench that notification dated 23.8.2010 is not statutory in character, the learned Single Bench can pass order permitting the State Government to conduct TET examination which is not even enumerated in the service rules as eligibility or qualification on the basis of notification dated 23.8.2010 which is admittedly found to be administrative instruction by the Division Bench?

(D) Whether in absence of eligibility prescribed in the rules the State Government will suffer any irreparable injury in not conducting TET till adjudication of the matter and whether while conducting TET and declaring any candidate unsuccessful and thereby denying consideration for appointment on the post of Teacher under the existing rules is legal?

(E) Whether the State Government can withhold recruitment on the ground that first they will conduct TET and thereafter proceed for prescribing qualification in the rules?”

*******************
IMPORTANT POINTS CONSIDERED >>>


(1) of the Act of 2009 had laid down the minimum qualifications for being eligible for appointment as Teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009. Such Notification could not have been issued in view of availability of persons under section 23. It could have been done only in cases where there are no adequate institutions offering course or training in teacher education are available with the State Government

******************
NCTE KO KENDRA SARKAR /RTE ACT DWARA QUALIFICATION TAY KARNE KE LIYE ADHIKRAT KIYAA GAYAA HAI >>>


The guidelines for conducting TET as contained in P/6 provides that the implementation of the Act of 2009 requires the recruitment of a large number of teachers. It is necessary to ensure that persons recruited as teachers possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level Class I to VIII. Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2009 provides for minimum qualifications as laid down by the Academic Authority, authorized by the Central Government by notification. NCTE has been authorized by the Central Government to lay down  minimum qualifications and vide notification dated 23^rd August, 2010, NCTE has notified minimum qualifications, which are essential for teaching in any school as referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of the Act of 2009. It is necessary that incumbent 

should pass TET which will be conducted by the appropriate 

Government.

*******

Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification.- The following categories of teachers appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (i) above.

(a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3^rd September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation.

Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed. Qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special education) or D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6- month special programme on elementary education.

(b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. Qualification who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE.

(c) A teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules.

****************************
RTE ACT KE AANE SE PEHLE NCTE REGULATION 2001 FOLLOW KIYA JAYEGAA >>

Teacher appointed after the date of this Notification in certain cases.- Where an appropriate Government or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).

*******************
2009 KE NOTIFICATION MEIN GRADUATE WITH 50% MARKS QUALIFICATION PRESCRIBE KEE GAYEE HAI  >>>


In the Notification dated 31.8.2009, the eligibility criteria laid down was to the effect that candidates with atleast 50% marks either in the Bachelor's Degree and/or in the Master's degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto, were eligible for admission to the programme.
*************

27TH  SEPTEMBER KE NOTIFICATION MEIN BACHELOR DEGREE YA FIR MASTERS DEGREE MEIN 45% MARKS KI QUALIFICATION PRESCRIBED KEE GAYEE HAI


having 45% marks either in the Bachelor's Degree or in the Master's degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto, were eligible for admission with effect from 27.9.2007 and 50% marks with effect from 31.8.2009
***********************


The implementation of the Act of 2009 requires recruitment of large number of teachers and it is desirable to ensure that quality requirement for recruitment of teachers are not diluted at any cost and thus, it is necessary to ensure that persons recruited as teachers possess the essential aptitude


, it has been considered appropriate to ensure that the children, who are future of the Nation, are efficiently taught by the qualified incumbents and for that if TET was prescribed, such prescription cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or impermissible at al

******************

open to the NCTE to lay down such qualifications and they cannot be circumvented by the petitioners in the manner they have suggested. They are bound by the qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 23.8.2010. Only in case they had obtained admission in the requisite course prior to 27.9.2007 or 31.8.2009 as the case may be, without violating the norms of NCTE, they can be permitted to appear in the TET not otherwise. In case they have not taken admission in the requisite course prior to 27.9.2007 or 31.8.2009 and they were not having minimum percentage and qualifications as prescribed vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 or 31.8.2009 even though such qualifications were not applicable in Jammu and Kashmir
*********************


The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in Kanhiya Lal V/s State of UP and ors. (decided on 5^th January, 2010) in which Allahabad High Court has observed that there was valid reason for not treating incumbents obtaining degree from Jammu & Kashmir eligible for admission for Special B.T.C. Course. If the Government decides that such educational qualification, which fulfil the minimum standard set by NCTE would be valid qualification for admission in Special B.T.C. the decision of the Government cannot be treated to be per se illegal as the Bar created in NCTE Act admittedly applies to the State of UP.
********************

UP GOVT NE D ED KO BTC KE EQUIVALAENTIN NAHIN MANA THAA,
SUPREME COURT NE KAHA KI YE RAJYA KA POLICY DECISION HAI.

SUPREME COURT TABHEE HASTAKSHEP KAR SKATEE HAI JAB KAHIN STATUTORY POLICY YA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION KA VIOLATION HO RAHA HO >>>>>

The respondent admittedly got appointment after the Circular dated 11.8.1997 and hence this circular applies to him. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the qualification mentioned in the said circular. He does not either possess BTC, Hindustani Teaching Certificate, JCT or Certificate of Teaching. The DEd Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the Circular dated 11.8.1997. This was a policy decision of the U.P. Government, and it is well settled that the court cannot interfere with policy decision of the Government unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Master of a junior basic school in U.P.15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the court has nothing to do with such matters.

The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence, it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it.”

*************************
45% MARKS VS 50% MARKS IN GRADUATION KE MAMLE MEIN SUPREME COURT NE KAHA KEEE AGAR ADMISSION NOTIFICATION KI DATE SE PEHLE LIYA HO TAB AAPKO RAHAT MIL SAKTEE HAI  >>>

notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009. In case they obtained admission before the said dates in the requisite courses in Jammu & Kashmir, obviously their qualification would be recognized and they can stake their claim in the TET otherwise not.

************************

JO TEACHER  RTE ACT NOTIFICATION KE AANE SE PEHLE KAAM KAR RAHE HAIN, UNKE LIYE NCTE 1 MAHINE KE ANDAR BATAYE KI KISKO CHOOT MIL SAKTEE HAI AUR KISKO NAHIN >>>>>>>>>>>>

we direct the NCTE to specify in State of Rajasthan categories of Teachers, which are exempted as per para 4 of the said Notification. Let it be done within a period of one month

Coming to the submission raised by the petitioners that as they are already working as Teachers, they should be exempted from appearing in the TET. With respect to the aforesaid prayer, provision has been made in para 4 of the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, which provides that categories of teachers mentioned in para 4(a) to (c) appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in para (1) of the said Notification. Para 4(a) provides a teacher appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation. Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed. qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special education) or D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme on elementary education. Para 4 (b) provides a teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. Qualification who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE. Para 4(c) provides a teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules. In case the petitioners fall in the aforesaid categories of teachers, obviously they are not supposed to undergo TET. Since there are various kind of teachers appointed under the Rules in Rajasthan, we direct the NCTE to specify in State of Rajasthan categories of Teachers, which are exempted as per para 4 of the said Notification. Let it be done within a period of one month.

***************************
(A) Whether in absence of any eligibility or qualification in the rules the State Government can be permitted to conduct TET without amending the service rules made under Article 309,Constitution of India on the basis of notification dated 23.08.2010 which the Division Bench held vide order dated 13.4.2011 that it is not statutory in character?

“Answer to question (A):-

The State Government has amended the Service Rules and even otherwise, in our opinion, as Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 was having statutory force of Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009, it was open to the NCTE to prescribe holding of TET even without amending the Service Rules. However, as already stated, Rajasthan Punchayati Raj Rules,1996 have been amended vide notification dated 11.5.2011. Thus, question (A) stands answered accordingly.

----------------

RAJASTHAN PANCHAYTEE RAJ NE RTE ACT KO APPNA LIYAA, ISLEEYE KOEE SAMASYA NAIN HAI

***************************

(B) Whether in view of the fact that stay order was in existence on 06.05.2011 upon conducting the TET in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3749/2011 an order for modifying the order dated 15.4.2011 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3068/2011 could be made allowing the State Government to go ahead with conducting the TET examination?

Answer to question (B):-

The question (B) has assumed academic significance as we have heard the matters and decided the same on merits by this common order.

****************************
(C) Whether once opinion is expressed by the Division Bench that notification dated 23.8.2010 is not statutory in character, the learned Single Bench can pass order permitting the State Government to conduct TET examination which is not even enumerated in the service rules as eligibility or qualification on the basis of notification dated 23.8.2010 which is admittedly found to be administrative instruction by the Division Bench?

Answer to question (C)-

As to question (C), we are of the opinion that since Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 was issued under section 23(1) of the Act of 2009, therefore, it has statutory force. Apart from this, the State Government has amended the Service Rules. Even otherwise, it was open to the NCTE to prescribe conducting of TET. The notification dated 23.8.2010 cannot be said to be administrative instructions, it has legislative force. The prescription of eligibility qualifications has statutory force.

-----------
 RTE ACT EK KANOONEE PRAVDHAN HAI NA KI KOEE PRSASHNIK 

NIRDESH. IS ACT ARTHAAT KANOON KA PAALAN KARNA HEE HAI



************************************

(D) Whether in absence of eligibility prescribed in the rules the State Government will suffer any irreparable injury in not conducting TET till adjudication of the matter and whether while conducting TET and declaring any candidate unsuccessful and thereby denying consideration for appointment on the post of Teacher under the existing rules is legal?

Answer to question (D)-

The question (D) has been rendered unnecessary in view of the final decision being rendered by us. Apart from this, the question has assumed academic importance as the Service Rules has been amended prescribing conducting of TET.

Holding of TET is necessary for manning the teachers in the various schools at large. Thus, non-holding of TET would be detrimental to the public interest as primary and upper primary schools cannot be left without qualified teachers which is dependent upon holding of TET. Hence, holding of TET is necessary for the interest of the children.

***************************

(E) Whether the State Government can withhold recruitment on the ground that first they will conduct TET and thereafter proceed for prescribing qualification in the rules?”

Answer to question (E)

As already stated above, holding of TET is necessary for the recruitment to be made in the schools. Thus, there is no question of State Government withholding recruitment as after TET, recruitment is open to be made.

For the reasons stated above, the interim stay is vacated. The respondents are free to hold the TET examination. The prayer of the petitioners regarding inclusion of qualification of B.Com. in the group of qualification of graduation in the eligibility criteria has already been allowed. The respondents shall not insist on the qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the bachelor's degree or master's degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, in case incumbents have obtained admission in the requisite courses such as B.A., B.Com., B.Sc., B.Ed., B.El.Ed, Senior Secondary etc. prior to prescription of the minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009. It is made clear that the incumbents, who have obtained the B.Ed. etc. before the minimum qualifications were prescribed vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009, shall be allowed to appear in the TET Examination. The incumbents, who have passed out B.Ed. Course from Jammu & Kashmir, have to be dealt with on similar yard sticks in case the qualification is otherwise recognized. Let NCTE specify categories of teachers under para 4 of Notification dated 23.8.2010. As prayed by NCTE, let amended notification be issued within one month covering aforesaid aspects.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. The stay applications also stand disposed.

*********************************




 UPTET  /RTET / 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


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
 

Read more...