Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS)
18 - Institutional Area, Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110016
18 - Institutional Area, Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110016
Saturday, November 23, 2013
NCTE TET EXAM टी ई टी पात्रता वर्सस अहर्ता (TET onliy Qualifying OR Selection cum Qualifying Exam)
टी ई टी पात्रता वर्सस अहर्ता
NCTE TET EXAM टी ई टी पात्रता वर्सस अहर्ता (TET onliy Qualifying OR Selection cum Qualifying Exam)मुझे आश्चर्य इस बात का है कि प्रिंट मीडिया पिछले 2 सालों से एक ही बात कहता आ रहा कि - टी ई टी परीक्षा एक पात्रता परीक्षा है और किसी पात्रता परीक्षा को चयन का आधार कैसे बनाया जा सकता है , कुछ एक्सपर्ट भी ऐसी ही बात बता रहे थे ।
हालाँकि सरकार कि धांधली आदि के आधार पर जो भी मजबूरी रही हो कि टी ई टी परीक्षा को चयन का आधार न बनाते हुए पात्रता परीक्षा में बदल दिया जाये
लेकिन मीडिया कि क्या मजबूरी थी'कि एन सी टी ई गाइड लाइन को गलत रूप से प्रचारित करे ।
मीडिया ने कभी जानने कि कोशिश करी कि अगर टी ई टी परीक्षा पात्रता परीक्षा है तो'आखिर क्यूँ एन सी टी ई गाइड लाइन ने -
१. टी ई टी अंको को चयन में महत्व (वेटेज ) देने को लिखा
२. अभ्यर्थीयों के अंक सुधार हेतु टी ई टी परीक्षा में पुन : शामिल होने कि बात लिखी
देश के अन्य राज्यों में भी टी ई टी के अंको को इसी एन सी टी ई गाइड लाइन के अनुरूप वेटेज दिया जा रहा है
देश के मीडिया को अपनी जिम्मेदारी समझते हुए सही जानकारियां सामने लाना चाहिए
इतनी बड़ी भर्ती को इलेकट्रोनिक मीडिया ने भी बहुत कम कवरेज दिया है ।
सरकार के अपने दायित्व हैं और मीडिया के अपने , सरकार ने अपने अनुसार धांधली कि अनियमितताओं (अगर कुछ हैं तो ) के आधार पर टी ई टी परीक्षा को पात्रता परीक्षा में बदल दिया , लेकिन मीडिया में एन सी टी ई नियमावली कि परिभाषा ही गलत आने लगी, यह नहीं होना चाहिए ।
See Also :
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2012/04/uptet-small-article.html
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2012/03/uptet-blog-editorial-2.html
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2012/01/uptet-blog-editorial-selection-of.html
टी ई टी पात्रता वर्सस अहर्ता कि कुछ विशेष बातें -
एन सी टी ई ने साफ़ शब्दों में कहा है कि टी ई टी अंकों को चयन में वेटेज दीया जाये -
तो साफ है कि ये सिर्फ पात्रता परीक्षा नहीं है , चयन का एक आधार भी देती है
9(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process;
however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for
appointment
टी ई टी अंकों के सुधार / वृद्धी हेतु , अभ्यर्थी पुन : परीक्षा में बैठ सकते -
See :
Frequency of conduct of TET and validity period of TET certificate :-
11 The appropriate Government should conduct a TET at least once every year. The Validity Period of TET qualifying certificate for appointment will be decided by the appropriate Government subject to a maximum of seven years for all categories. But there will be no restriction on the number of attempts a person can take for acquiring a TET Certificate. A person who has qualified TET may also appear again for improving his/her score.
अगर ये ये पात्रता परीक्षा है, तो अंकों के सुधार का क्या मतलब
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/2012/04/uptet-small-article.html#ixzz2lSLLH9TM
UPTET : टीईटी मेरिट से होगा 72825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती का चयन
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates /
Teacher Recruitment News
हम हाईकोर्ट के फैसले का स्वागत करते हैं। न्यायपालिका में हमारी आस्था दृढ़ हुई है। मुख्यमंत्री से सकारात्मक कदम उठाने की अपेक्षा है। -शिव कुमार पाठक, मुख्य याची
See News
यूपी: मेरिट से होगा टीईटी में चयन
इलाहाबाद । बसपा सरकार में शुरू की गई बहत्तर हजार आठ सौ पच्चीस सहायक प्राथमिक शिक्षकों की भर्ती को हाईकोर्ट की हरी झंडी मिल गई है। कोर्ट ने इस भर्ती के लिए जारी विज्ञापन को सही करार देते हुए सपा शासन में किए गए संशोधनों को रद कर दिया है। इसी के साथ चयन के मानकों को लेकर चल रही उहापोह भी खत्म हो गई है। इस भर्ती में चयन का आधार टीईटी की मेरिट ही होगी। अदालत ने निर्देश दिया है कि 31 मार्च, 2014 तक यह पद भर दिए जाएं। अदालत ने टीईटी पास बीएड डिग्रीधारकों को प्रशिक्षु शिक्षक नियुक्त करने के सरकार के फैसले को भी अवैधानिक करार दिया है।
न्यायमूर्ति अशोक भूषण और न्यायमूर्ति विपिन सिन्हा की खंडपीठ ने सपा सरकार के फैसले के खिलाफ दाखिल शिवकुमार पाठक, नवीन श्रीवास्तव व अन्य सैकड़ों विशेष अपीलों पर बुधवार को यह बहुप्रतीक्षित फैसला सुनाया। कोर्ट के समक्ष प्रश्न था कि अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति शैक्षिक गुणांक के आधार पर हो या टीईटी मेरिट के आधार पर। बसपा शासन में बेसिक शिक्षा नियमावली में बदलाव करके टीईटी की मेरिट को चयन का आधार बनाया गया था। बाद में सपा के सत्ता में आने के बाद नियमावली में फिर परिवर्तन करते हुए टीईटी मेरिट के स्थान पर शैक्षिक गुणांक को आधार बना दिया गया था। अदालत ने कहा कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा विज्ञापन में निर्धारित नियुक्ति मानक में परिवर्तन कर शैक्षिक अंकों को मानक बनाने का फैसला कानून के विपरीत है। सरकार क्राइटेरिया नहीं बदल सकती। इसके साथ ही कोर्ट ने सपा सरकार में इस नियुक्ति के संदर्भ में किए गए संशोधनों और शासनादेशों को रद कर दिया। कहा है कि 30 नवंबर 2011 में जारी विज्ञापन के आधार पर भर्ती प्रक्रिया पूरी की जाय। कोर्ट ने कहा है कि अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति पर लगी रोक की याचिका पहले ही खारिज हो चुकी है। ऐसे में भर्ती प्रक्रिया पूरी करने में कोई अवरोध नहीं है।
कोर्ट ने कहा है कि प्रदेश में एक लाख 25 हजार परिषदीय प्राथमिक विद्यालय है। जिनमें दो लाख 70 हजार सहायक अध्यापकों के पद खाली पड़े हैं। ऐसे में सरकार यह नहीं कह सकती कि उसने अनिवार्य शिक्षा के केंद्रीय कानून का पालन किया है। गौरतलब है कि केंद्र सरकार ने 10 सितंबर की अधिसूचना से धारा 23 (2) के अंतर्गत अनिवार्य शिक्षा कानून लागू करने की समय सीमा 31 मार्च 14 तक बढ़ा दी है। इससे पहले ही सरकार को भर्ती करनी होगी।
कब क्या हुआ
9 नवंबर, 2011: बसपा सरकार ने बेसिक शिक्षा नियमावली 1981 में संशोधन किया, टीईटी मेरिट को चयन का आधार बनाया।
13 नवंबर, 2011: राज्य शैक्षिक पात्रता परीक्षा आयोजित हुई।
25 नवंबर, 2011: परिणाम घोषित, तीन लाख से अधिक सफल घोषित।
30 नवंबर, 2011: 72825 प्राथमिक शिक्षकों के रिक्त पदों के लिए विज्ञापन जारी।
31 अगस्त, 2012: सपा सरकार ने बेसिक शिक्षा नियमावली में संशोधन किया, शैक्षिक गुणांक को चयन का आधार बनाया।
छह सितंबर, 2012: सरकार के फैसले के खिलाफ हाईकोर्ट में याचिका
पांच दिसंबर, 2012: राज्य सरकार ने टीईटी पास बीएड अभ्यर्थियों को प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों के रूप में नियुक्त करने की प्रक्रिया शुरू की।
16 जनवरी 2013: सरकार के संशोधन के खिलाफ दाखिल याचिका खारिज।
29 जनवरी, 2013: विशेष अपील दाखिल, एकल न्यायाधीश के आदेश को चुनौती।
चार फरवरी, 2013: अंतरिम आदेश, खंडपीठ ने काउंसिलिंग पर रोक लगाई।
20 मई, 2013: हाईकोर्ट का फैसला, टीईटी की मेरिट ही चयन का आधार, सपा सरकार के संशोधन असंवैधानिक करार।
*****
हम हाईकोर्ट के फैसले का स्वागत करते हैं। न्यायपालिका में हमारी आस्था दृढ़ हुई है। मुख्यमंत्री से सकारात्मक कदम उठाने की अपेक्षा है। -शिव कुमार पाठक, मुख्य याची
*****
टीईटी-2011 की परीक्षा में 10 लाख दो हजार 909 छात्रों ने आवेदन किया था। पांच लाख 86 हजार 955 आवेदन अर्ह पाए गए। 3 लाख 22 हजार 223 ने परीक्षा दी। दो लाख से अधिक सफल हुए थे
News Sabhaar : Jagran (21.11.13)
UPTET /72825 Teacher Recruitment : टीईटी आवेदकों ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दाखिल की कैविएट
UPTET /72825 Teacher Recruitment : टीईटी आवेदकों ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दाखिल की कैविएट
इलाहाबाद (ब्यूराे)। हाईकोर्ट द्वारा परिषदीय विद्यालयों में 72825 पदों पर टीईटी मेरिट से भर्ती के निर्णय के बाद टीईटी पास आवेदकों ने शुक्रवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में कैविएट दाखिल कर दिया है। यानी प्रदेश सरकार शिक्षक भर्ती के मामले में अगर सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाती है तो इससे पहले उसे याचिका कर्ताओं को इसकी सूचना देनी होगी। कैविएट शिवकुमार पाठक और संजीव मिश्रा की ओर से दाखिल की गई है।
बताया कि लाखों आवेदकों का इंतजार दो साल बाद खत्म हुआ है। अब नहीं चाहते हैं कि नौकरी मिलने में किसी भी तरह की दिक्कत आए। बुधवार को हाईकोर्ट द्वारा टीईटी मेरिट के आधार पर भर्ती देने के फैसले के बाद ही आवेदकों ने निर्णय ले लिया था कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट के कैविएट दाखिल किया जाएगा। परिषदीय विद्यालयों में 72825 पदों की भर्ती के लिए ढाई लाख से अधिक आवेदक हैं, जिन्हें नौकरी का इंतजार है।
News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (23.11.13)
*********************
According to Facbookiyans :
Caveat filed in Supreme Court of India in the matter of DB Judgment dated 20.11.2013 on 72825 Trainee Teachers Recuitment by Anil Kumar, Vijay Singh Tomar and Devendra Singh..
****
Vijay Singh Tomar
15th amendment ko court ne 3 tarike se galat bataya hai...
1. Acdm. merit , Samanta ke Maulik adhikar ka hanan hai (article 14)
2. TET guidelines ko ye amendment follow nahi karta tha
3. Iska effect retrospective nahi ho sakta isliye 72825 ki bharti par laago nahi hota
Ab Sarkar agar SC jati bhi hai article 14 ko lekar to bhi 15th amendment mein TET ka weightage na hone ke karan to ye waise hi khariz hoga...
Ab rahi hamari baat to court ne 12 amendment ko poori tarah sahi mana hai isliye agar gov. TET ka weighage dene ka baad SC se article 14 ko lekar gidgidaye to bhi hamari bharti 12 amendment se hi hogi.. Isliye no tension
Ab agar gov. SC jaye bhi to TET morche ko sirf itna karna hi ki ek bahut achha lawyer karke SC ko sirf ye baat samjhani hai ki Ham 15 amendment se pehle hi paida ho gaye the isliye RTE ki samay seema ko dekhte hue hamari Counselling ko na roke baki agar usko 15 amendment par behas karni ho to kyoki wo hamari bharti se alag matter hai uski sunwayi alag kare...
Ab hame kya karna hai to sirf itna ki apni Counselling shuru karwani hai iske liye mere bhaiyo sabhi log Khoob kha-pee kar sehat bana lo kyoki agar ye sarkar seedhe na mani to abki baar jo hamlog LKO gaye to wapas niyukti parta lekar hi aayenge...
Aur ha.. jinko ye chinta hai ki kuch logo ne purane form ke paise wapas le liye hai to unke liye, jab wo apna pratyawedan denge to unse mool draft naya banwa kar fir se jama karwa liye jayega (Ye baat ek BSA adhikari ki varta par adharit hai)
Aur Sath jo bhartiya sarkar ne 26/07/2012 ke baad 15 amendment par kari hai wo waise hi galat hai kyoki jab koi mamla court mein challenge tha to Gov ko kisi bhi tarah ki bharti karni hi nahi chahiye thi...isliye ye sarkar ka tension hai hamara nahi
*********************
Shyam Dev Mishra> Struggle for Right to Education Implementation" एक पहल"
Supreme Court kisi niyamavali ya Shasanadesh ko ya uske kisi ansh ko tabhi tak sahi tharata hai jabtak wah Bharteeya Samvidhan ya kisi Adhiniyam ke viruddh na ho. Samanta ke Adhikar ki Ghoshna karnewale Samvidhan ke Anuchchhed 14 ke aadhar par Shuddh Academik ko Avaidh karar dete hue Khandpeeth ne is bat ki pakki vyavastha kar di hai ki 72825 Trainee Teacher ke pado par niyukti Shuddh TET merit se ho! Purane vigyapan ki kisi takneeki khami ko sudharna, yadi koi ho, ek samanya bat hai kyunki RTE Act, 2009 ke uddeshyon ki purti ke liye Sarkar dwara uthaye gaye kisi kadam, Jaise Sachiv dwara Vigyapan nikalna, ko Jayaj thahrane ke liye RTE Act me ''Action in Good Faith'' ko Sanrakshan dene ka spasht pravdhan hai. Waise bhi 72825 pado par chayan-prakriyaprarambh hone ke samay Niyamavali 1981 me Prathmik Star par matra Snatak B.Ed. TET utteern abhyarthiyo ko niyukti pradan karne ki koi vyavastha nahi thi, aur RTE Act ke pariprekshya me NCTE ki adhisuchna ke alok me aisa kiya jana vidhi-sammat tha. Jahir hai, Shikshako ki kami puri karke Bal Shiksha ka adhikar pradan karne ke liye Niyamavali 1981 ke tatkaleen pravdhano se pare koi aisi vyavastha apariharya thi jo NCTE adhisuchna ke anusaran me Shikshako ki niyukti ka rasta saf kar sake, aur Tatkaleen Sarkar ne Shasanadesh ke jariye aisa kiya jo ki Good Faith me uthaya gaya kadam tha. 1981 ka jo bhi pravdhan us samay NCTE adhisuchna ke viruddh tha, pratikul tha, swabhavik roop se arth-heen tha aur uske anupalan ke liye nyayalay se yachna karna vyarth hi tha, aur aaj bhi vyarth hai.
Supreme Court me Jane se yadi kisi ko wastav me darna chahiye to wo do paksh hain.
1. Sarkar - Filhaal Sarkar ke par Khandpeeth ke adeshanusar 72825 pado par TET merit se nyukti karne aur Niyamavali 1981 ke radd ho chuke 15th Amendment ke sthan par ek aur Sanshodhan karke TET-wieght sahit ek naya chayan-adhar banaane ka rasta khula hai jiske aadhar par Junior Bharti puri ki Ja sake. Supreme Court jane ki sthiti me vaha Shuddh Gunank merit to banne se rahi, NCTE Guidelines ko khandpeeth dwara bhadhyakari thahra diye jane ke bad TET-weightage to milna to tay hai, sath hi is bat ke bhi prabal aasar hai ki alag-alag Boards/Universities ke asaman Mulyankan-Paddhati ke aadhar par Maujuda Quality Point Pranali aur Sabhi Board/Universitie ke anko ko saman mahatv diye jane ko punah galat batate hue tulanatmak aadhar par alag-alag board/univerities ke bhinn-bhinn praptank pratishato ko saman mana jaye aur uske sath TET-weightage ki vyavastha di jaye. Yah nishchit roop se ek do-dhari tallwar par chalne ke saman hoga.
2. Third Party (Jo 3rd Party ban hi nahi pai): Jis yachi ne apne kisi hit ke prabhavit hue bina ekal peeth me matra BSA ke sthan par Sachiv dwara vigyapan nikale jane ke aadhar par 72825 pado par chayan ki rok ki mang ki, jabki usne swayam us prakriya me avedan kiya tha, aur Khandpeeth me usne BSA wali bat ko sire se gayab karke TET-Merit ki bajay shuddh Acadamik Aadhar par chayan ki mang ki, jo Khandpeeth ke nirnay me me ''intervener's submission'' ke roop me darj ho chuka hai, yah dikhane ko paryapt hai ki is vyakti ne kisi kanuni aadhar par ya janhit ke liye ya apne kisi vaidh adhikar ki raksha ke liye nyayalay ki sharan nahi li, balki apne vyaktigat swarth ki purti ke liye kisi na kisi tarah, har uplabdh avasar par is prakriya ko baadhit karne ki kucheshta ki. In par yadi RTE ke uddeshyon ko badhit karne ke dushprayas, court ko gumrah karne aur bar-bar apna stand badalne ke aadhar par Supreme Court dwara tagda Jurmana lagaya jaye to isme kuchh bhi ashcharyajanak na hoga.
Isliye purv-vigyapanyaTET-merit se chayan ke sabhi pakshdhar katai pareshan na ho, Supreme Court me Caveat file kake is bat ki vyavastha kar li gai hai ki mamla yaha aane par pratipakshiyon ki bachi-khuchi ijjat ka faluda kayde se banaya jaye!
Satyamev Jayate.
इलाहाबाद (ब्यूराे)। हाईकोर्ट द्वारा परिषदीय विद्यालयों में 72825 पदों पर टीईटी मेरिट से भर्ती के निर्णय के बाद टीईटी पास आवेदकों ने शुक्रवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में कैविएट दाखिल कर दिया है। यानी प्रदेश सरकार शिक्षक भर्ती के मामले में अगर सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाती है तो इससे पहले उसे याचिका कर्ताओं को इसकी सूचना देनी होगी। कैविएट शिवकुमार पाठक और संजीव मिश्रा की ओर से दाखिल की गई है।
बताया कि लाखों आवेदकों का इंतजार दो साल बाद खत्म हुआ है। अब नहीं चाहते हैं कि नौकरी मिलने में किसी भी तरह की दिक्कत आए। बुधवार को हाईकोर्ट द्वारा टीईटी मेरिट के आधार पर भर्ती देने के फैसले के बाद ही आवेदकों ने निर्णय ले लिया था कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट के कैविएट दाखिल किया जाएगा। परिषदीय विद्यालयों में 72825 पदों की भर्ती के लिए ढाई लाख से अधिक आवेदक हैं, जिन्हें नौकरी का इंतजार है।
News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (23.11.13)
*********************
According to Facbookiyans :
Caveat filed in Supreme Court of India in the matter of DB Judgment dated 20.11.2013 on 72825 Trainee Teachers Recuitment by Anil Kumar, Vijay Singh Tomar and Devendra Singh..
****
Vijay Singh Tomar
15th amendment ko court ne 3 tarike se galat bataya hai...
1. Acdm. merit , Samanta ke Maulik adhikar ka hanan hai (article 14)
2. TET guidelines ko ye amendment follow nahi karta tha
3. Iska effect retrospective nahi ho sakta isliye 72825 ki bharti par laago nahi hota
Ab Sarkar agar SC jati bhi hai article 14 ko lekar to bhi 15th amendment mein TET ka weightage na hone ke karan to ye waise hi khariz hoga...
Ab rahi hamari baat to court ne 12 amendment ko poori tarah sahi mana hai isliye agar gov. TET ka weighage dene ka baad SC se article 14 ko lekar gidgidaye to bhi hamari bharti 12 amendment se hi hogi.. Isliye no tension
Ab agar gov. SC jaye bhi to TET morche ko sirf itna karna hi ki ek bahut achha lawyer karke SC ko sirf ye baat samjhani hai ki Ham 15 amendment se pehle hi paida ho gaye the isliye RTE ki samay seema ko dekhte hue hamari Counselling ko na roke baki agar usko 15 amendment par behas karni ho to kyoki wo hamari bharti se alag matter hai uski sunwayi alag kare...
Ab hame kya karna hai to sirf itna ki apni Counselling shuru karwani hai iske liye mere bhaiyo sabhi log Khoob kha-pee kar sehat bana lo kyoki agar ye sarkar seedhe na mani to abki baar jo hamlog LKO gaye to wapas niyukti parta lekar hi aayenge...
Aur ha.. jinko ye chinta hai ki kuch logo ne purane form ke paise wapas le liye hai to unke liye, jab wo apna pratyawedan denge to unse mool draft naya banwa kar fir se jama karwa liye jayega (Ye baat ek BSA adhikari ki varta par adharit hai)
Aur Sath jo bhartiya sarkar ne 26/07/2012 ke baad 15 amendment par kari hai wo waise hi galat hai kyoki jab koi mamla court mein challenge tha to Gov ko kisi bhi tarah ki bharti karni hi nahi chahiye thi...isliye ye sarkar ka tension hai hamara nahi
*********************
Shyam Dev Mishra> Struggle for Right to Education Implementation" एक पहल"
Supreme Court kisi niyamavali ya Shasanadesh ko ya uske kisi ansh ko tabhi tak sahi tharata hai jabtak wah Bharteeya Samvidhan ya kisi Adhiniyam ke viruddh na ho. Samanta ke Adhikar ki Ghoshna karnewale Samvidhan ke Anuchchhed 14 ke aadhar par Shuddh Academik ko Avaidh karar dete hue Khandpeeth ne is bat ki pakki vyavastha kar di hai ki 72825 Trainee Teacher ke pado par niyukti Shuddh TET merit se ho! Purane vigyapan ki kisi takneeki khami ko sudharna, yadi koi ho, ek samanya bat hai kyunki RTE Act, 2009 ke uddeshyon ki purti ke liye Sarkar dwara uthaye gaye kisi kadam, Jaise Sachiv dwara Vigyapan nikalna, ko Jayaj thahrane ke liye RTE Act me ''Action in Good Faith'' ko Sanrakshan dene ka spasht pravdhan hai. Waise bhi 72825 pado par chayan-prakriyaprarambh hone ke samay Niyamavali 1981 me Prathmik Star par matra Snatak B.Ed. TET utteern abhyarthiyo ko niyukti pradan karne ki koi vyavastha nahi thi, aur RTE Act ke pariprekshya me NCTE ki adhisuchna ke alok me aisa kiya jana vidhi-sammat tha. Jahir hai, Shikshako ki kami puri karke Bal Shiksha ka adhikar pradan karne ke liye Niyamavali 1981 ke tatkaleen pravdhano se pare koi aisi vyavastha apariharya thi jo NCTE adhisuchna ke anusaran me Shikshako ki niyukti ka rasta saf kar sake, aur Tatkaleen Sarkar ne Shasanadesh ke jariye aisa kiya jo ki Good Faith me uthaya gaya kadam tha. 1981 ka jo bhi pravdhan us samay NCTE adhisuchna ke viruddh tha, pratikul tha, swabhavik roop se arth-heen tha aur uske anupalan ke liye nyayalay se yachna karna vyarth hi tha, aur aaj bhi vyarth hai.
Supreme Court me Jane se yadi kisi ko wastav me darna chahiye to wo do paksh hain.
1. Sarkar - Filhaal Sarkar ke par Khandpeeth ke adeshanusar 72825 pado par TET merit se nyukti karne aur Niyamavali 1981 ke radd ho chuke 15th Amendment ke sthan par ek aur Sanshodhan karke TET-wieght sahit ek naya chayan-adhar banaane ka rasta khula hai jiske aadhar par Junior Bharti puri ki Ja sake. Supreme Court jane ki sthiti me vaha Shuddh Gunank merit to banne se rahi, NCTE Guidelines ko khandpeeth dwara bhadhyakari thahra diye jane ke bad TET-weightage to milna to tay hai, sath hi is bat ke bhi prabal aasar hai ki alag-alag Boards/Universities ke asaman Mulyankan-Paddhati ke aadhar par Maujuda Quality Point Pranali aur Sabhi Board/Universitie ke anko ko saman mahatv diye jane ko punah galat batate hue tulanatmak aadhar par alag-alag board/univerities ke bhinn-bhinn praptank pratishato ko saman mana jaye aur uske sath TET-weightage ki vyavastha di jaye. Yah nishchit roop se ek do-dhari tallwar par chalne ke saman hoga.
2. Third Party (Jo 3rd Party ban hi nahi pai): Jis yachi ne apne kisi hit ke prabhavit hue bina ekal peeth me matra BSA ke sthan par Sachiv dwara vigyapan nikale jane ke aadhar par 72825 pado par chayan ki rok ki mang ki, jabki usne swayam us prakriya me avedan kiya tha, aur Khandpeeth me usne BSA wali bat ko sire se gayab karke TET-Merit ki bajay shuddh Acadamik Aadhar par chayan ki mang ki, jo Khandpeeth ke nirnay me me ''intervener's submission'' ke roop me darj ho chuka hai, yah dikhane ko paryapt hai ki is vyakti ne kisi kanuni aadhar par ya janhit ke liye ya apne kisi vaidh adhikar ki raksha ke liye nyayalay ki sharan nahi li, balki apne vyaktigat swarth ki purti ke liye kisi na kisi tarah, har uplabdh avasar par is prakriya ko baadhit karne ki kucheshta ki. In par yadi RTE ke uddeshyon ko badhit karne ke dushprayas, court ko gumrah karne aur bar-bar apna stand badalne ke aadhar par Supreme Court dwara tagda Jurmana lagaya jaye to isme kuchh bhi ashcharyajanak na hoga.
Isliye purv-vigyapanyaTET-merit se chayan ke sabhi pakshdhar katai pareshan na ho, Supreme Court me Caveat file kake is bat ki vyavastha kar li gai hai ki mamla yaha aane par pratipakshiyon ki bachi-khuchi ijjat ka faluda kayde se banaya jaye!
Satyamev Jayate.
News पीजीआई में 2003 में नर्सों की भर्ती में धांधली का मामला
News पीजीआई में 2003 में नर्सों की भर्ती में धांधली का मामला
घोटालेबाज अफसर को सजा क्यों नहीं
लखनऊ। हाईकोर्ट ने राजधानी के संजय गांधी पोस्ट ग्रेजुएट इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मेडिकल साइंसेज (एसजीपीजीआई) में वर्ष 2003 में हुई नर्सों की भर्ती में कथित धांधली के मामले में रिव्यू कमेटी को जल्द निर्णय लेने व तीन माह में कार्रवाई पूरी करने के निर्देश दिए हैं। कोर्ट ने कहा कि इसके बाद अनियमितताओं में शामिल व लापरवाह पाए जाने वाले किसी भी अफसर के खिलाफ कानून के मुताबिक वांछित जरूरी कार्रवाई की जाएगी।
हाईकोर्ट के मुख्य न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति डॉ. धनंजय यशवंत चंद्रचूड़ और न्यायमूर्ति ऋतुराज अवस्थी की खंडपीठ ने शुक्रवार को यह आदेश ‘भ्रष्टाचार मुक्त भारत’ संस्था की पीआईएल का निपटारा करके दिया। इसमें दोषियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई किए जाने तथा वर्ष 2013 में हुई भर्ती प्रक्रिया की जांच कराए जाने के निर्देश दिए जाने का आग्रह किया गया था। याची की तरफ से आरोप लगाकर कहा गया कि 2003 में नर्सों की भर्ती में कई अनियमितताएं मिली थीं। पीजीआई के अतिरिक्त निदेशक ने जांच के बाद 22 सितंबर 2008 को अपनी रिपोर्ट पेश की थी। इसमें उन्होंने भर्ती प्रक्रिया में पहली नजर में दोषी पाए गए अफसरों के खिलाफ अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई की सिफारिश की थी। इसके बावजूद कोई कार्रवाई नहीं हुई। एसजीपीजीआई के वकील ने अदालत को बताया कि अतिरिक्त निदेशक की रिपोर्ट पर गौर करने के लिए एक रिव्यू समिति बनाई गई है जो अपनी सिफारिशें देगी।
अदालत ने फैसले में कहा कि 2003 के मुद्दे को लंबित रखा जाना तर्कसंगत नहीं है और यह जरूरी व उचित है कि 22 सितंबर 2008 की रिपोर्ट को किसी तर्कपूर्ण नतीजे पर लाया जाए। कोर्ट ने रिव्यू समिति को निर्देश दिया कि मामले में जल्द निर्णय ले व कार्रवाई तीन माह में पूरी करे।
कोर्ट ने 2013 की भर्ती प्रक्रिया के संबंध में कहा कि इसकी बाबत बताया गया है कि 435 पदों के लिए गत 17 व 19 नवंबर को लिखित परीक्षा हो चुकी है। करीब 7000 आवेदन मिले थे और देशभर से 4229 अभ्यर्थी इसमें शामिल हुए। परीक्षा के पहले भाग का परिणाम घोषित हो चुका है और 1588 अभ्यर्थियों ने परीक्षा पास कर ली है। इसके बाद दूसरे भाग की परीक्षा हुई। यह भी बताया गया कि इसके लिए अफसरों की कोर कमेटी भी बनाई गई है।
अदालत ने कहा, चूंकि पर्याप्त सामग्री कोर्ट के समक्ष नहीं पेश की गई है, ऐसे में वर्ष 2013 की भर्ती प्रक्रिया के संबंध में हम कोई निर्देश जारी नहीं करते हैं। अदालत ने इस टिप्पणी के साथ 2013 की भर्ती प्रक्रिया में दखल देने से इन्कार कर दिया
News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (23.11.13)
घोटालेबाज अफसर को सजा क्यों नहीं
लखनऊ। हाईकोर्ट ने राजधानी के संजय गांधी पोस्ट ग्रेजुएट इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मेडिकल साइंसेज (एसजीपीजीआई) में वर्ष 2003 में हुई नर्सों की भर्ती में कथित धांधली के मामले में रिव्यू कमेटी को जल्द निर्णय लेने व तीन माह में कार्रवाई पूरी करने के निर्देश दिए हैं। कोर्ट ने कहा कि इसके बाद अनियमितताओं में शामिल व लापरवाह पाए जाने वाले किसी भी अफसर के खिलाफ कानून के मुताबिक वांछित जरूरी कार्रवाई की जाएगी।
हाईकोर्ट के मुख्य न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति डॉ. धनंजय यशवंत चंद्रचूड़ और न्यायमूर्ति ऋतुराज अवस्थी की खंडपीठ ने शुक्रवार को यह आदेश ‘भ्रष्टाचार मुक्त भारत’ संस्था की पीआईएल का निपटारा करके दिया। इसमें दोषियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई किए जाने तथा वर्ष 2013 में हुई भर्ती प्रक्रिया की जांच कराए जाने के निर्देश दिए जाने का आग्रह किया गया था। याची की तरफ से आरोप लगाकर कहा गया कि 2003 में नर्सों की भर्ती में कई अनियमितताएं मिली थीं। पीजीआई के अतिरिक्त निदेशक ने जांच के बाद 22 सितंबर 2008 को अपनी रिपोर्ट पेश की थी। इसमें उन्होंने भर्ती प्रक्रिया में पहली नजर में दोषी पाए गए अफसरों के खिलाफ अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई की सिफारिश की थी। इसके बावजूद कोई कार्रवाई नहीं हुई। एसजीपीजीआई के वकील ने अदालत को बताया कि अतिरिक्त निदेशक की रिपोर्ट पर गौर करने के लिए एक रिव्यू समिति बनाई गई है जो अपनी सिफारिशें देगी।
अदालत ने फैसले में कहा कि 2003 के मुद्दे को लंबित रखा जाना तर्कसंगत नहीं है और यह जरूरी व उचित है कि 22 सितंबर 2008 की रिपोर्ट को किसी तर्कपूर्ण नतीजे पर लाया जाए। कोर्ट ने रिव्यू समिति को निर्देश दिया कि मामले में जल्द निर्णय ले व कार्रवाई तीन माह में पूरी करे।
कोर्ट ने 2013 की भर्ती प्रक्रिया के संबंध में कहा कि इसकी बाबत बताया गया है कि 435 पदों के लिए गत 17 व 19 नवंबर को लिखित परीक्षा हो चुकी है। करीब 7000 आवेदन मिले थे और देशभर से 4229 अभ्यर्थी इसमें शामिल हुए। परीक्षा के पहले भाग का परिणाम घोषित हो चुका है और 1588 अभ्यर्थियों ने परीक्षा पास कर ली है। इसके बाद दूसरे भाग की परीक्षा हुई। यह भी बताया गया कि इसके लिए अफसरों की कोर कमेटी भी बनाई गई है।
अदालत ने कहा, चूंकि पर्याप्त सामग्री कोर्ट के समक्ष नहीं पेश की गई है, ऐसे में वर्ष 2013 की भर्ती प्रक्रिया के संबंध में हम कोई निर्देश जारी नहीं करते हैं। अदालत ने इस टिप्पणी के साथ 2013 की भर्ती प्रक्रिया में दखल देने से इन्कार कर दिया
News Sabhaar : Amar Ujala (23.11.13)
Friday, November 22, 2013
Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART -7
Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.
PART -7
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates /
Teacher Recruitment News
In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid issues on merits.
It is necessary to note certain relevant facts which are on record before proceeding to answer the aforesaid issues. After enactment of the Act, 2009, notification dated 23.8.2010, was issued by the National Council for Teacher Education laying down the minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers in primary schools. Notification dated 23.8.2010, was further amended vide notification dated 29.7.2011. The State of U.P. has also framed rules namely: The Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. Rule 15 of the aforesaid rules provided that minimum educational qualifications for teachers laid down by an authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be applicable for every school. The National Council for Teacher Education has also issued guidelines dated 11.2.2011, for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test and for providing weightage to the marks of the Teacher Eligibility Test while making appointment on the post of teachers. The State of U.P. amended the Rules, 1981 to make it in conformity with the notification dated 23.8.2010 as well as with the guidelines of the National Council for Teacher Education dated 11.2.2011. The 12th amendment rules dated 09.11.2011, was issued by the State providing for qualifications by National Council for Teacher Education as an essential qualification and providing that the basis of preparing the select list shall be the marks obtained by the candidate in the Teacher Eligibility Test examination. The State of U.P. authorized the U.P. Board of High School and U.P. Intermediate Education to conduct the Teacher Eligibility Test. Teacher Eligibility Test examination was held on 13.11.2011. 596733 candidates appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test examination for Classes I to V. 524577 candidates appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test examination for Classes VI to VIII. The U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education has authorised one M/s S.K. Printed Data Creative Solution-303 New Delhi to conduct the entire work of preparing the question papers and moderation and evaluation. On 14.11.2011, model answers were uploaded on the website. On 25.11.2011 the result of the Teacher Eligibility Test examination was declared. 49.09% candidates were declared successful in the Teacher Eligibility Test examination for Classes 1 to V and 50.51% candidates were declared successful in the Teacher Eligibility Test examination for Classes VI to VIII. The result of the Teacher Eligibility Test examination was modified on account of the change of key answers of certain questions on 30.11.2011, 05.1.2012 and 09.1.2012.
Several writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the result of the Teacher Eligibility Test examination. This Court in Writ Petition No.71563/2011, Lalit Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, disposed of the writ petition on 16.12.2011, directing that the marks to be given on six questions on the basis of earlier key answers as well as modified key answers. In Writ Petition No.74109/2011, Tahira Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, a direction was given to give marks on two questions. Writ Petition No.71558/2011, Sita Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors and Writ Petition No.72433/2011, Govind Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors were filed challenging the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 as well as the 12th amendment rules dated 09.11.2011. Both the writ petitions were dismissed on 12.12.2011 and 14.12.2011 respectively. Directions of the Court as noted above was implemented by modifying the result. On 20.12.2011, a modified advertisement was issued inviting applications for the posts of 72825 Teachers. On 31.12.2011, in a regular checking of vehicles, the police of District Ramabai Nagar detained 5 persons who were carrying huge cash and a list of 30 candidates. An F.I.R. was lodged being Case Crime No.675/2011 under Section 420/120 B I.P.C. and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The money was allegedly collected for getting the candidates passed in the Teacher Eligibility Test examination and to get them appointed. The allegations made against the Teacher Eligibility Test examination were taken notice by the State Government and a High Powered Committee was constituted by Government Order dated 10/4/2012 headed by Chief Secretary of the State to look into the allegations made against the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination 2011 and submit a report regarding recruitment of teachers and Teacher Eligibility Test Examination. The High Powered Committee submitted its report on 01.5.2012. The High Powered Committed noted that there are about 2.70 lacs posts of Primary Teachers lying vacant in the State of U.P. The allegations made against the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 were taken note of by the High Power Committee. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramabai Nagar had submitted its report before the High Power Committee on the basis of the investigation in Case Crime No.675/2011. The Director of Education also submitted its report. The High Powered Committee noted that some of the original OMR Sheets were not sent to the firm and on the basis of the carbon copy evaluation was made under the direction of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. In certain OMR Sheets whitener was also used. It also noted that moderation of papers was left to the firm which was not done by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Errors in the key answers was noted and the orders of this Court passed in Lalit Mohan's case and Tahira Begum's case was also noted. The High Powered Committee in its report submitted that large number of posts of teachers being lying vacant in the State of U.P., it is not desirable to cancel the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination 2011. The High Powered Committee further recommended that the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 be made only qualifying examination and the criteria for selection which was earlier prevalent i.e. on the basis of quality points marks should be restored. The High Powered Committee submitted following nine recommendations which are quoted below:
"laLrqfr
27& vr% la{ksi esa lfefr dh laLrqfr fuEuor~ gS%&
1- v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk dks vgZdkjh ijh{kk j[kk tk;A
2- Hkkjr ljdkj ls ch0,M0 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds p;u gsrq iwoZ fu/kkZfjr 01 tuojh] 2012 dh frfFk dks 31 ekpZ] 2015 rd c<+k;s tkus dk fu.kZ; ;Fkk'kh?kz djk;k tk;A
3- izns'k ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk ds lkFk&lkFk dsUnzh; ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk vk;ksftr v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk dks Hkh fu;eksa esa la'kks/ku dj vgZdkjh eku fy;k tk;A
4- lgk;d v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq ckjgosa la'kks/ku ds iwoZ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij osVst nsus dh O;oLFkk dks cgky fd;k tk;A
5- Ng ekg ds fof'k"V ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k gsrq p;fur ch0,M0 dkWystksa dks Hkh vf/kd`r fd;k tk;A
6- tks vH;FkhZ v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk 2011 ls lacaf/kr fdlh vfu;ferrk@vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa fyIr ik;s tk;sa] mudks izfrcaf/kr fd;k tk; ,oa mudk p;u fujLr dj fn;k tk;A
7- izns'k ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr dh tkus okyh v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk 2012 dks vxys 6 ekg ds vanj djkus ds fy, vko';d rS;kjh dh tk;A
8- bl lEiw.kZ izdj.k dh foHkkxh; tkap gsrq iz'kkldh; foHkkx lesfdr izLrko izLrqr djsaxsA
9- v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk ds fy, mi;qDr ijh{kk laLFkk ds laca/k esa vyx ls fopkj dj iz'kkldh; foHkkx izLrko izLrqr djsaxsA"""
The two important recommendations which were suggested by the High Powered Committee were, firstly, that the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 be made only qualifying examination and the criteria for selection which was prior to 12th amendment rules should be restored and, secondly those candidates against whom there are allegations of any irregularity or criminal offence shall be prohibited from participating in the aforesaid examination and their selection shall be cancelled. The above recommendations of the High Powered Committee were considered by the Cabinet and the Cabinet after deliberation took a decision to approve the recommendation of the High Powered Committee. Government Order dated 26.7.2012 was issued accepting and reiterating the above quoted nine recommendations of the High Powered Committee.
Writ Petitions were immediately filed after the issuance of the Government Order dated 26.7.2012. Following the decision taken by the Cabinet 15th amendment rules were published on 31.8.2012 amending the Rules, 1981 by which the criteria for selection as was prevalent prior to 12th amendment rules was restored. The Government Order dated 31.8.2012 was issued to the effect that in view of the 15th amendment rules the earlier advertisement dated (30/11/2011) has become ineffective and be cancelled. The U.P. Basic Education Board issued a communication dated 31.8.2012 to the effect that the criteria for selection having been changed the earlier advertisement dated 30112011 and 20.12.2011 have become ineffective and are cancelled.
Decision of the State Government dated 26.7.2012
The High Powered Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State had taken into consideration all the allegations made against the Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 and it was decided not to cancel the result of Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011. It was further decided that the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 be made only qualifying examination and the criteria for selection which was prevalent prior to 12th amendment rules shall be restored. The High Powered Committee recommended that those candidates against whom there are allegations of any irregularity or criminal offence shall be prohibited from participating in the said examination and their result be cancelled. The High Powered Committee suggested that an undertaking on affidavit be taken from all the candidates that in event any irregularity or any involvement in criminal offence is found, there selection shall be cancelled. The Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 has been made a minimum qualifying examination by notification dated 23.8.2010 issued under Section 23 of the Act, 2009. It was not within the power of the State to not accept the Teacher Eligibility Test qualification as an essential qualification. The decision of the High Powered Committee and the Government that the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 be allowed to continue only as a minimum qualification was of no consequence. The State was bound by the notification dated 23.8.2010 and could not have taken any other decision. When the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 was not cancelled and allowed to be continued as a minimum qualification in the selection of the post of Assistant Teacher, the decision not to give weightage to the marks obtained in the Teacher Eligibility Test was unsustainable. The material which was on the record relates to the allegations made against few hundreds of candidates. There was no allegations of any mass copying or leaking of the question papers. More than 10 lacs students have appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 and the State having taken the decision not to cancell the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011, full effects ought to have been given to the result of the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 including the marks obtained by the candidates. The ill effect of the irregularity and involvement in criminal offence was met in the recommendations that those candidates against whom there were allegations shall be prohibited to appear in the selection and their result be cancelled and further an undertaking on affidavit be taken from all the candidates. The decision having been taken by the State after due deliberation to continue with the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 and to rely upon it for minimum qualification for selection there was no requirement for embarking on the amendment of Rules and to change the very criteria for selection.
While deciding the Issue No.3 we have already held that the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education require the State to give weightage of the marks obtained in the 'Teacher Eligibility Test' Examination -2011 in appointment on the post of Teachers. The guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education have been held to be binding. A Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma (Supra) in paragraph 88 (as quoted above) has already laid down that the State Government has to give weightage to the marks of the Teacher Eligibility Test in the recruitment process. In view of the binding nature of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma's case (Supra) the State Government could not have taken any decision to ignore the weightage of the marks of the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011. It is relevant to note that immediately after the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, as well as the 12th amendment Rules dated 09.11.2011, by which the selection was contemplated as per the marks of the Teacher Eligibility Test, a challenge to advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and 12th Amendment Rules was raised in this Court by means of Writ Petition No.71558/2011, Seeta Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors and Writ Petition No.72433/2011, Govind Kumar Dixit & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No.71558/2011, Seeta Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors was dismissed on 12.12.2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court who repelled the challenge to the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, as well as the 12th amendment Rules dated 09.11.2011. While dismissing the writ petition following was laid down in paragraph 9. :
"9. So far as making of qualifying examination basis of selection is concerned, it is always permissible to the rules framing authority to determine the criteria for selection which may base on the merits of the candidate possessed in various academic qualifications or qualifying test or any other criteria which may otherwise be valid and once it is so determined, unless it can be said that the same amendment in the rule is contrary to any statutory provision or otherwise ultra vires or vitiated in law, the same cannot be interfered."
Writ Petition No.72433/2011, Govind Kumar Dixit & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.12.2011. The decision of the State Government dated 26.7.2012 to the effect that the criteria for selection as was prevalent prior to the 12th amendment rules be restored, thus cannot be sustained, which being clearly against the guidelines of the National Council for Teacher Education dated 11.2.2011. As noted above, the learned Single has already held that the grounds mentioned in the resolution of the State Government under the Government Order dated 26.7.2012 as not in accordance with law.
15th Amendment Rules.
While challenging the 15th Amendment Rules, Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the State was obliged to follow the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education which are binding and which has already been upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma's case (supra). It is submitted by Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Teacher Eligibility Test has been introduced by the notification dated 23.8.2010 for the purposes of maintaining a standard of teacher's education and for the purposes of bringing uniformity in the teacher's selection process. He submits that the candidates obtain educational qualification through different boards with different criteria of marking on account of which selection of teachers only on educational qualifications cannot be said to be on uniform merit. It is submitted that the Teacher Eligibility Test being now a essential qualification in selection of teachers, performance of a candidate in a Teacher Eligibility Test cannot be ignored. He submits that the Teacher Eligibility Test is the most surer test of examining the merit of a candidate.
The grounds for challenge of a statute are well settled. A subordinate legislation can be challenged on the ground of violating the constitutional provisions, the parent statute or any other statutory law. Violation of Part 3 of the Constitution has always been accepted as a ground to strike-down a legislative or executive action. It shall be sufficient to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors Vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors, (2011) 8 SCC, 737, wherein the grounds of legislative arbitrariness has been dealt with. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 50,51,52 and 53.
"50. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487, this Court held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. Whenever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the legislature or of the executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. (See also : E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; and Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597).
51. In Sharma Transport Vs. Government of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322, this Court defined arbitrariness observing that party has to satisfy that the action was not reasonable and was manifestly arbitrary. The expression "arbitrarily means" act done, in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will alone.
52. In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, AIR 2006 SC 1489, this Court held that arbitrariness on the part of the legislature so as to make the legislation violative of Article 14 of the Constitution should ordinarily be manifest arbitrariness.
53. In Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board, AIR 2007 SC 2276; and Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees and Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Limited, AIR 2009 SC 2337, this Court held that a law cannot be declared ultra vires on the ground of hardship but can be done so on the ground of total unreasonableness. The legislation can be questioned as arbitrary and ultra vires under Article 14. However, to declare an Act ultra vires under Article14, the Court must be satisfied in respect of substantive unreasonableness in the statute itself."
The 15th amendment rules has been challenged on the ground of it being arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The notification dated 23.8.2010 issued under Section 23 (1) of the Act, 2009 being under a Parliamentary enactment has to prevail over any rules made by the State under a State Act. The Rules, 1981 right from 1993 contains an Appendix which provides a formula for selecting a teacher. Appendix indicates that selection was based only on the educational qualification of an candidate including the training qualification. After the notification dated 23.8.2010 and guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, the State amended its Rules, 1981 by 12th amendment rules to bring it in conformity with the above notification and guidelines. The 12th amendment rules was perfectly in accordance with law and the challenge to the aforesaid rules have also been repelled by this Court in two judgments of Seeta Ram and Govind Kumar Dixit's case (supra). The decision of the State Government not to give any weightage to the marks obtained in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination-2011 cannot be said to be in conformity with the guidelines of the National Council for Teacher Education referred to above and was clearly arbitrary. The Full Bench of thisCourt in Shiv Kumar Sharma's case (supra) has already held that the State Government cannot disregard the guidelines of National Council For Teacher Education dated 11.2.2011. The 15th Amendment Rules is thus also contrary to law declared by this Court. The Teacher Eligibility Test (Examination-2011) which has been recognised as an essential qualification for the teachers selection, hence without giving any weightage to the said examination the State cannot proceed with the selection. As noted above, the allegations made against few candidates of committing irregularities in the Teacher Eligibility Test or involvement in criminal offence cannot be a ground to deny benefit of Teacher Eligibility Test to lacs and lacs of the candidates against whom there is neither any allegation nor any charge. The State having not cancelled the Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 and having allowed the Teacher Eligibility Test to be utilised for qualification of candidates ought to have given full effect to the result of the Teacher Eligibility Test examination. The allegations of irregularities and involvement in criminal offence by some candidates was fully neutralised by the State's decision to debar any such candidates from the selection against whom there are allegations of irregularities or involvement in criminal offence. The High Powered Committee has further stated in its report that an undertaking be taken on an affidavit from all the candidates that in event anything adverse is found against them, their selection shall be cancelled. The State having given effect to the notification dated 23.8.2011 as well as the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education by amending its rules by 12th amendment rules, which was in consonance with the scheme under the Act, 2009, a Parliamentary enactment cannot be allowed to go back and resort to its old criteria for selection which was prevalent prior to the Act, 2009 and prior to the notification dated 23.8.2010 and guidelines dated 11.2.2011. We are, thus of the view that Rule 14(3) of the 15th amendment rules by which the criteria for selection was changed has to be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable and deserves to be struck down. The Government Order dated 31.8.2012 was issued by the State in consequence to the 15th amendment rules. The Government Order dated 31.8.2012 states that in view of the 15th amendment rules the earlier advertisement (dated 30.11.2011) has become ineffective and thus be cancelled. For cancelling the advertisement no other reason have been given except the changed criteria of selection by 15th amendment rules. The Government Order dated 31.8.2012 having not given any other reason for cancelling the advertisement except that it had become ineffective after the 15th amendment rules, thus the Government Order dated 31.8.2012, also deserves to be set-aside including the consequential communication dated 31.8.2012 issued by the Board of Basic Education.
Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the various judgments of the Apex Court which need to be noted. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. O. Chakradhar, 2002 (2) Supreme 50. In the said case the Railway Recruitment Board had issued advertisement for the post of Junior Clerk-cum typist in which the respondent was appointed. After appointment various irregularities of serious nature in the conduct of selection was found and the Railway Administration cancelled the entire panel and terminated the services of the respondent. The decision was challenged before the Tribunal which had set-aside the termination of service. The High Court affirmed the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal against which the Union of India went in appeal. The Apex Court had noted that from the report of the CBI the whole selection smacks of arbitrariness and malafides. Following was observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 11:-
"11. As per the report of the CBI whole selection smacks of malafide and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing final result......"
The Apex Court allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the railway administration. Present is not a case where the State had cancelled the Teacher Eligibility Test-2011, rather it decided not to cancel the examination with a rider to debar those candidates against whom there are allegations of irregularity or involvement in criminal offence. Thus, the said case does not help the respondents. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Apex Court laid down, that in our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter.
The next judgment relied on by Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General is Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board & Anr Vs. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors, (2010) 6 SCC 614. In the said case the decision of Railway Board directing the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) to conduct retest for recruitment to Group D posts, for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in first written examination against which large-scale irregularities and malpractices were noticed, was subject matter of consideration. The High Court interfered with the decision against which the appeal was filed. The Apex Court held that the decision of the High Court was not justified. The Apex Court had occasion to consider the Wedenesbury and proportionality principle. Following was laid down in paragraphs 18, 41, 42 and 43:
"18. We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the question whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision taken by the Board in conducting a re-test for those who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test and directing the Board to go ahead with the recruitment process on the basis of first written test against which there were serious allegations of irregularities and malpractices. When this matter came up for admission before this Court on 20.01.2006, this Court permitted the Board to declare the result of the second test and proceed to appoint the selected candidates, however, it was ordered that the appointments made be subject to the result of these appeals. We are informed that candidates who got qualified in the re-test were already appointed and have joined service.
41.We have already indicated the three alternatives available to the decision- maker (Board) when serious infirmities were pointed out in the conduct of the first written test. Let us examine which was the best alternative, the Board could have accepted applying the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Was the decision taken by the Board to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have decided so and whether the Board before reaching that conclusion had taken into account the matters which they ought not to have taken into account or had refused to take into account the matters that they ought to have taken into account and the decision taken by it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it? Judging the decision taken by the Board applying the standard laid down in the Wednesbury principle unreasonableness, the first alternative that is the decision to cancel the entire written test and to conduct a fresh written test would have been time consuming and expensive. Initially 10,02,909 applications were received when advertisement was issued by the Board out of which 5,86,955 were found to be eligible and call letters were sent to them for appearing in the written test held at various centres. 3,22,223 candidates appeared for the written test, out of which 2690 were selected. Further the candidates who had approached the Court had also not opted that course instead many of them wanted to conduct a re-test for 2690 candidates, the second alternative. The third alternative was to go ahead with the first written test confining the investigation to 62 candidates against whom there were serious allegations of impersonation. The Board felt in the wake of the vigilance report and the reports of the CBI, it would not be the best option for the Railway Administration to accept the third alternative since there were serious allegations of malpractices against the test. From a reasonable man's point of view it was felt that the second option i.e. to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test was the best alternative.
42. We will now apply the proportionality test to three alternatives suggested. Principle of proportionality, as we have already indicated, is more concerned with the aims of the decision maker and whether the decision maker has achieved the correct balance. The proportionality test may require the attention of the Court to be directed to the relative weight according to interest and considerations. When we apply that test and look at the three alternatives, we are of the view that the decision maker has struck a correct balance in accepting the second alternative. First alternative was not accepted not only because such a process was time consuming and expensive, but nobody favoured that option, and even the candidates who had approached the court was more in favour of the second alternative. Applying the proportionality test also in our view the Board has struck the correct balance in adopting the second alternative which was well balanced and harmonious.
43. We, therefore hold, applying the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness as well as the proportionality test, the decision taken by the Board in the facts and circumstances of this case was fair, reasonable, well balanced and harmonious. By accepting the third alternative, the High Court was perpetuating the illegality since there were serious allegations of leakage of question papers, large scale of impersonation by candidates, mass copying in the first written test."
The Apex Court approved the decision of the Railway Board by which retest was directed.
In the present case, no one has challenged the decision of the High Powered Committee and the decision of the State Government not to cancel the result of the Teacher Eligibility Test-2011. The said judgment also thus does not help the State in the present case.
The next judgment relied on by Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General is in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal,M.P. Vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samity & Ors, (1998) 9 SCC 236. In the said case, examination was cancelled by the Board on the report of the Naib Tehsildar that the students were found copying. The Apex Court upheld the decision of the Board for cancelling the entire result and set-aside the judgment of the High Court.
The next judgment relied on by Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General is in The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Ors, 1970 (1) SCC 648. In the said case, the Apex Court also held that when the examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale it was wrong to insist that the board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case. Following was laid down in paragraph 13:
"13.This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases ? We think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go."
Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that it is within the power of the State to amend the rules even if the process of selection has begun. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of M.P. & Ors Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav & Ors, (1994) 6 SCC 151. In the said case it was held by the Apex Court that the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified the recruitment and to issue a fresh notification on the basis of correction by amended rules. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Yogesh Kumar & Ors Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 548. The Apex Court in the said case laid down that that it is open to the recruitment authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made.
The case of Devendra Singh (supra) has already been noted above. The last case relied on by Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General is Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani & Ors, 2008 (9) SCC 242. The Apex Court in the said case laid down that the matter relating to source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection and evaluation of service records of the employees falls within the exclusive domain of the employer. It was further held by the Apex Court that the judicial review comes into play only after the State's action is contrary to constitutional or statutory provision. Following was laid down in paragraph 37.
"37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration."
There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as noted above. Present is not a case where the Court is determining the methodology of the recruitment or laying down the criteria for selection. The issue is as to whether the State Government which having adopted the criteria for selection as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education, could have changed the criteria for selection of teachers arbitrarily, more so, when the notification dated 23.8.2010 and guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education are binding on the State.
As noted above, the learned Single Judge has held in the impugned judgment that after the start of process of selection it was not open for the State to change the criteria for selection. Reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of P. Mahendran & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, AIR 1990 SC 405.
Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants has placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court in A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education & Anr, (1983) 3 SCC 33 and N.T. Devin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors, (1990) 3 SCC 157, for the proposition that the 15th amendment rules would be applicable to selection proceedings initiated subsequent to said rules.
Shri Rahul Agarwal placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors, (2013) 4 SCC 540. In the said case the question as to whether the procedure for selection can be changed by the State, has been referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Noticing the relevant judgments, the Apex Court in paragraph 15 has observed following:
"15. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the "rules of the game" insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293] etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the "rules of the game" stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard."
As noted above, we having already considered the 15th amendment rules, and having come to the conclusion that the 15th amendment rules being arbitrary and unreasonable is unsustainable, it is not necessary to enter into the issues as to whether the State could have amended the Rules, 1981 after the start of the process of selection.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we conclude that the decision of the State Government to change the criteria of selection by restoring the criteria of selection as prevalent prior to 12th amendment rules was not in conformity with law. The 15th amendment rules, in so far as Rule 14(3) as well as the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 were also not sustainable.
Reliefs.
Now comes the question as to what reliefs the appellants are entitled to. It is to be noted that the learned Single Judge has denied the reliefs to the appellants only on the ground that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 mentions the posts of Teachers as "Trainee Teachers", whereas there is no cadre of Trainee Teachers under the Rules, 1981, the notification itself was bad. The learned Single Judge although accepted the case of the appellants that the decision of the Government by Government Order dated 26.7.2012 was not in conformity with law, but denied the relief giving following reasons:
"However, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, inasmuch as this Court has come to the conclusion that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 itself was bad and therefore no direction can be issued by this Court to complete the process of selection in terms of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, as it would only amount to perpetuating the illegalities, which can never be purpose of the order of a writ Court.
In such circumstances, although this Court has come to the conclusion that the reasons mentioned in the order of the State Government for cancelling the advertisement are not in accordance with law, yet no relief can be granted to the petitioners for the reasons recorded."
We having already held that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, for selection of teachers on 72825 posts was advertised for existing cadre under the Rules, 1981. 72825 vacancies in the existing cadre having already been determined, the reason for denying the reliefs to the petitioners/appellants by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. The appointment of candidates having B.Ed qualification with certain percentage of marks in the graduation is a relaxation granted under the notification dated 23.8.2010 for a limited period. The Central Government vide its notification dated 10.9.2012 issued under Section 23 (2) has extended the period of candidates mentioned in para 3 sub-clause (1) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 till 31.3.2014. The State Government has to complete the process of selection and make appointment of the candidates within the time allowed by the Central Government.
There are about 1.25 lacs primary schools in the State of U.P. run by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. 2.70 lacs posts of teachers being lying vacant, the State Government cannot be said to have complied its statutory obligation as laid down under the Act, 2009. The process for recruitment of B.Ed teachers against the 72825 vacancies was initiated vide advertisement dated 30.11.2011 after amending the rules in accordance with law.
By an order dated 04.1.2012, the process for recruitment of B.Ed teachers was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No.76039/2011, which petition has already been dismissed by this Court. There is thus no legal impediment in proceeding with the selection initiated by the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 as modified on 20.12.2011.
In the result all the Special Appeals are allowed to the following extent:
1. The Government Order dated 26.7.2011 insofar as it directs for restoration of criteria for selection as was prevalent prior to 12th amendment rules is set-aside.
2.The U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Amendment Rules, 2012 (15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012) in so far as Rule 14 (3) is concerned is declared to be ultra-vires to Article 14 of the Constitution and are struck down. Consequently, the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 as well as the communication dated 31.8.2012 issued by the board of Basic Education are set-aside.
3. Respondents are directed to proceed and conclude the selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 as modified on 20.12.2011 to its logical end within the time allowed by the Central Government vide its notification issued under Section 23 (2) of the Act, 2009.
4. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 20.11.2013
LA/Sandeep
Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2927338
Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 6
Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.
PART -6
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates /
Teacher Recruitment News
Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel has relied on Clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010. Clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 provides as follows:
"3. Training to be undergone. A person
(a) with BA/B.S.c with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class 1 to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in elementary Education.
(b) with D.ed (Special Education) or B.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education."
It is to be noted that the B.Ed qualification is not a qualification provided for in para 1 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 nor the B.Ed qualification was recognised as a qualification under the Rules, 1981 for appointment of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in the Junior Basic Schools. There being shortage of teachers in primary schools throughout the country, the National Council for Teacher Education vide its notification dated 23.8.2010 provided in Clause 3 that those candidates who have passed B.Ed with B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks shall also be eligible for appointment for Class 1 to V upto 1st January, 2012, thus, the appointment of B.Ed passed candidates was envisaged for a limited period.
Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has pointed out that the date 01.1.2012 has been relaxed by the order of the Central Government under Section 23 (2) up to 31.3.2014. Clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 uses two words "for appointment" and "after appointment". The statutory scheme provides that a person with B.A/B.S.C. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed shall also be eligible "for appointment" provided he undergoes "after appointment" an NCTE recognized 6-month special programme in Elementary Education. The statutory scheme contemplates appointment of a person for teaching upto Classes 1 to V and contemplates sending the candidates for training "after appointment". Thus, the statutory scheme indicates that appointment has to be first made of the person having B.Ed and thereafter he will be sent for training. The advertisement dated 30.11.2011, has to be read in the light of the statutory scheme delineated by clause 3. The statutory provision under 2009 Act has to prevail over any advertisement or any administrative decision of the State of U.P. The candidates who are graduate with required percentage and who have passed B.Ed have been treated to be eligible for appointment and the six months training is not a pre-condition for their appointment. It may be another thing that a teacher who has been appointed does not successfully completes the training and may loose his appointment on account of not having successfully completed six months training, but the scheme does not provide for six months training as a pre-condition for appointment or a person has to be first selected for six months training and thereafter appointed as Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress. In this context reference is to be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, JT 2007 (7) SC 13, in which the Apex Court was considering the Rules, 1981 in context of Special BTC Training Course as envisaged by the Government Order dated 14.1.2004. The Apex Court in the said context had observed that the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 deal with the post training scenario, hence the Rules, 1981 were not applicable for selection of the candidates for imparting special Basic Training Course-2004. In the said case, the petitioners were not selected for imparting Special Basic Training Course 2004, they claimed that they should be given preference in the Special Basic Training Course 2004. The case of Devendra Singh (supra) is distinguishable since unless the candidate does not obtain a Special BTC Training Course 2004, they do not get eligibility to be appointed as Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress under the Rules, 1981.Special Basic Training Course 2004 was to be given, to make a candidate eligible for consideration of appointment. The present case is distinguishable from the aforesaid scheme of the Government Order dated 14.1.2004 since by virtue of clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010, the B.Ed candidates with requisite percentage in graduation are treated to be eligible for appointment and they are to be imparted six months special training "after appointment". Thus, the submission made by Shri Ashok Khare appearing for the appellants that the Rules, 1981 are not applicable for making the selection of B.Ed candidates as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, cannot be accepted. The Rules, 1981 read with the notification dated 23.8.2010 issued under Section 23 (1) and the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education are fully applicable for appointment of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, hence the submission made by Shri Ashok Khare,learned counsel for the appellants that the Rules, 1981 are not applicable cannot be accepted.
Issue No. 2:
Now we take issue No. 2. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has denied relief to the petitioner-appellants only on the ground that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 contemplated appointment as "trainee teacher", which cadre being not under the 1981 Rules, the advertisement itself was invalid.
1981 Rules have been framed by the State providing for cadre strength, recruitment and other conditions. Rule 4(1) and (2) provides as follows:
"4. Strength of the Service.-(1) There shall be separate cadres of service under these rules for each local area.
(2) The strength of the cadre of the teaching staff pertaining to a local area and the number of the posts in the cadre shall be such as may be determined by the Board from time to time with the previous approval of the State Government:
Provided that the appointing authority may leave unfilled or the Board may hold in abeyance and post or class of posts without thereby entitling any person to compensation:
Provided further that the Board may, with the previous approval of the State Government, create from time to time such number of temporary posts as it may deem fit."
Rule 5 relates to source of recruitment. Various categories of posts have been mentioned under Rule 5. Post of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress of junior basic school has been mentioned at serial No. (a) (ii) which is a recognised cadre for appointment of teachers. The advertisement dated 30.11.2011 has to be looked into to find out as to on which posts the applications for selection were invited. Learned Single Judge has quoted the entire advertisement in the impugned judgment. The advertisement contemplates selection of 'Trainee-teacher'. The qualifications mentioned in clause 1 of the advertisement are qualifications prescribed for appointment of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress under Rule 8. Clause 8(Chha) contemplates appointment of selected candidates in the primary institutions as per 2008 Postings Rules. Clause 10 further contemplates substantive appointment in accordance with the 1981 Rules as amended by 12th Amendment Rules. The note given at the end of the advertisement is also relevant which is to the following effect:
"uksV& mijksDr foKkiu ds dze esa ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ftl tuin gsrq p;uksijkar fu;qfDr dh tk,xh mudk vUrtZuinh; LFkkukUrj.k tuinh; laoxZ gksus ds dkj.k vuqeU; ugha gksxkA"
The advertisement thus, clearly indicates that appointment has to be made on a cadre post in primary schools. Along with the advertisement details/allotment of vacancies for appointment have also been mentioned. Allotment of various vacancies to different 75 districts have been mentioned in the table. Total 72,825 posts have been included in the vacancies. Obviously, the vacancies which are referred to in the table are existing vacancies of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in each of the district in the State of U.P.
In this context, reference to the notification dated 23.8.2010 is also necessary since the advertisement for appointment was issued for B.Ed. qualified candidates as per clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010. As noted above, the notification dated 23.8.2010 makes eligible the candidates having B.Ed. with specified percentage of marks in the graduation for appointment till 1.1.2012 ( which date has now been extended as 31.3.2014). The notification dated 23.8.2010 further contemplates sending of the candidates for six months special training after appointment. Thus, the appointment of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress has to be made first and thereafter they will be send for training. The advertisement contemplates appointment on the existing 72,825 vacancies of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress and in the advertisement those teachers were mentioned as trainee teachers since they were contemplated to be sent for training. As noted above, sending the said candidates for training did not in any manner affect their nature of appointment.
Six months training was not a pre-condition for appointment under clause 3. The notification dated 23.8.2010, which has an overriding effect over any action of the State under the 1981 Rules or advertisement, has to be given effect to. When the notification dated 23.8.2010, under which Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress were to be appointed does not contemplate any appointment of trainee teacher, mere use of phrase for such selection as 'trainee-teacher' shall not detract from the real nature of the appointment. There was no necessity or requirement of creating any separate cadre of "trainee teacher" for appointment under clause 3 in the notification dated 23.8.2010. The substance of the advertisement has to be looked into and not mere form. The description in the advertisement of such teacher as trainee teacher was inconsequential which had no effect on the cadre on which they were to be appointed. We thus, are of the view that the advertisement invited applications for appointment on the existing cadre of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in primary schools of U.P. Basic Education Board with regard to which 72,825 vacancies were already determined and allotted to different districts as is apparent from the table attached to the advertisement.
It is relevant to note that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has also noted that advertisement covers the post of teachers governed by the 1981 Rules. It is useful to quote the following observations of learned Single Judge:
"It is not in dispute that the State Government did not create any post of Apprentice Teachers by any other notification. The appointments under the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 were to be made against the cadre posts covered by ''1981 Rules' is well supported from the first line of the advertisement, which is being reproduced again here under:-
"mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds v/khu lapkfyr izkFkfed fo+|ky;ks esa izf'k{kq f'k{kdksa ds p;u gsrqA"
The clause 9 of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 specifies that selected candidate shall be appointed in an Parishadiya institution of the District concerned and he shall then undergo training of three months at District Institution of Education and Training of the district concerned (DIET) and three months training at the institution.
The stipulation in clause 10 of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 is that the selected candidate on successful completion of the training would become entitled to be considered for appointment on the substantive post as a teacher in accordance with the ''1981 Rules' is in itself sufficient to establish that the advertisement was with regard to the posts covered under the ''1981 Rules'."
Again in the latter part of the judgment, learned Single Judge has further held that the advertisement makes it clear that selections were to be made against the post of Assistant Teachers in Parishadiya Vidyalaya. Following observations were made:
"From a reading of the first paragraph of the advertisement, it is apparently clear that the selections were to be made against the post of Assistant Teacher in Parishadiya Vidyalayas. From clause 9 of the advertisement, it is further apparent that after selection, the candidate would be appointed in a Parishadiya Vidyalaya of the District concerned. Out of the six months training prescribed, three months of training had to be undergone by actual working in the institution concerned. These three clauses of the advertisement make it abundantly clear that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 intended appointments against the cadre posts covered by '1981 Rules' in Parishadiya Vidyalayas. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioners lead by Sri Ashok Khare, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior Advocates and Sri Shailendra Advocate to the effect the '1981 Rules' will not apply, cannot be accepted."
From the above observations of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has noted the advertisement which provided appointment to the cadre post covered by the 1981 Rules ie. the post of Assistant Teachers (Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress). When the learned Single Judge found that the advertisement intended to make appointment in the existing cadre of 1981 Rules, there was no reason to hold the advertisement bad only on the ground that appointments were to made on a post of trainee teacher which cadre was non-existent in Rule, 1981. Learned Single Judge recorded findings in following manner:
"It is held that the advertisement as published by the State Government on 30.11.2011 necessarily referred to the cadre post covered by the '1981 Rules'. There being no stipulation of appointment of Trainee Teacher under the said '1981 Rules, the advertisement itself was bad."
We are thus, of the view that the reason on which the learned Single Judge held the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 bad, was fallacious. The advertisement dated 30.11.2011 clearly intended to make appointment on 72825 vacant posts of existing cadre under the 1981 Rules i.e. Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress which vacancies have already been determined and allotted. Holding the advertisement bad on the ground that appointments were for the post of trainee-teacher which was not a cadre in 1981 Rules, cannot be sustained. Mere description of person to be appointed as trainee teacher cannot detract the nature of their appointment and the posts on which they were to be appointed under the advertisement. The said teachers were described as trainee teacher due to the reason that those teachers after appointment were to be sent for six months' training as was contemplated by clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010. We are thus, of the view that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for holding the advertisement bad is unsustainable and cannot be upheld. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to 16th Amendment rules dated 4.12.2012 by which the posts of trainee teacher has been provided for under the 1981 Rules. We may observe that creating of cadre of trainee teacher by 16th Amendment Rules is a redundant exercise. As observed above, the notification dated 23.8.2010 contemplated appointment of persons having B.Ed. qualifications till 1.1.2012 and thereafter they were to be imparted six months special training. The notification dated 23.8.2010 did not contemplated the appointment of trainee teacher since the training is to be imparted to such teachers after appointment which has been clearly mentioned in clause 3 of the notification as quoted above. As observed above, the rules framed by the State or any of its action for making appointment of the Assistant Teachers has to be in consonance with the notification dated 23.8.2010, which shall have overriding effect on any rule or any action of the State. The notification dated 23.8.2010 shall override any contrary rule or scheme of the State.
Issue No. 3:
Now comes the issue No. 3 as to whether the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council For Teacher Education are binding on the State. The National Council For Teacher Education has been constituted under the 1993 Act for planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for the regulation and for proper maintenance of norms and standards in teachers education system. Section 12 of the National Council For Teacher Education Act enumerates the function of the Council. Section 12(d) specifically empowers Council to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum of qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher. Section 12(d) is as follows:
"FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may -
(a) ................
(b) ..............
(c) .................
(d)lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions;"
Section 32 empowers the National Council For Teacher Education to make regulations. Section 32(2) (d) (i), which is relevant is quoted as below:
"32. POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS
(1).........
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :-
(a) ...........
(b) ........
(c) .........
(d) the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of -
(i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher under clause (d) of section 12"
Thus, the 1993 Act clearly empowers the National Council For Teacher Education to issue guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher. Regulation making powers further empowers it to lay down the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of minimum qualifications.
It is relevant to look into the guidelines issued by the National Council For Teacher Education. The guidelines circulated by letter dated 11.2.2011 are part of the writ petition which has been filed as Annexure-5. Paragraphs 1,2 and 3 which gives the background and paragraph 9 which provides for qualifying marks are relevant, which are quoted below:
"The implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 requires the recruitment of a large number of teachers across the country in a time bound manner. Inspite of the enormity of the task, it is desirable to ensure that quality requirement for recruitment of teachers are not diluted at any cost. It is therefore 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.
2 In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has laid down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII, vide its Notification dated August 23, 2010. A copy of the Notification is attached at Annexure 1. One of the essential qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in any of the schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act is that he/she should pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) which will be conducted by the appropriate Government.
3 The rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is as under:
i. It would bring national standards and benchmark of teacher quality in the recruitment process;
ii. It would induce teacher education institutions and students from these institutions to further improve their performance standards;
iii.It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality
Qualifying marks
9 A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as Teachers Eligibility Test pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)
(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;
(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment"
The guidelines dated 11.2.2011 came for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma's case (supra). The Full Bench after noticing section 12A of the 1993 Act, laid down that the National Council For Teacher Education is authority to fix the norms and qualifications for teachers of all categories of institutions. The provisions of guidelines dated 11.2.2011 providing that State should give weightage to the marks in Teachers Eligibility Test for appointment of teachers were specifically considered by the Full Bench and it was held that the said guidelines are binding. Paragraphs 85 and 88 of the judgment which laid down the above proposition, are quoted herein below:
"85. Thus in addition to the provisions under 2009 Act this fruitful amendment has re-emphasised the authority of the National Council for Teacher Education to fix norms and qualifications that are to be possessed by teachers of all categories of institutions including elementary education.
88.It may be emphasised that there is no challenge raised to such appointments against rules, but the law is certain that appointment de-hors the rules cannot be said to be valid. After the enforcement of the notification dated 23.8.2010 every candidate aspiring to become a teacher of elementary education in any of the institutions defined under the 2009 Act has to be possessed of the qualifications prescribed therein. The intention therefore of the legislature is clear that no teacher without such a qualification can be allowed to continue as a teacher in the institution. We wish to clarify that the binding effect of the notifications and the guidelines is such that the weightage which is contemplated under the guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 cannot be ignored. The minimum score that is required of a candidate is 60% to pass the teacher eligibility test. A concession of 5% has been made in favour of the reserved category candidates including the physically challenged and disabled persons. This norm therefore cannot be diluted. Apart from this, the State Government has to take notice of the fact that weightage has to be given in the recruitment process as well. It is for the State Government to suitably adopt the said guidelines and we do not wish to add anything further at this stage as we are only concerned with the essentiality of the qualification of the teacher eligibility test to be possessed by any candidate aspiring to be appointed as a teacher."
The guidelines which have been issued by the National Council For Teacher Education are incidental and consequential to the object which is sought to be achieved by the 1993 Act and 2009 Act. Statutory authority has to be conceded all incidental and consequential powers, which effectuates the purpose and object of the Act. In this context, it is useful to quote the observations made by the apex Court in 1982(2) SCC 7 V.T. Khanzode & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr in paragraph 16, which are as follows:
"The doctrine of ultra vires in relation to the powers of a statutory corporation has to be understood reasonably and so understood, "whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the Legislature has authorised ought not (unless expressly prohibited) to be held by judicial construction, to be ultra vires." (See Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Ry. Co.(2) The Central Board has, therefore, the power to make service regulations under section 58 (1) of the Act."
We thus, respectfully following the Full Bench judgment in
Shiv Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), conclude that the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 are binding on the State, which could not be disregarded by the State, while proceeding to make recruitment of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in primary schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board.
Issues Nos.4,5 and 6
The learned Single in his impugned judgment dated 16.1.2013, has answered all the above three issues in favour of the appellants. The learned Single Judge held that both the grounds mentioned in the resolution of the State Government as notified under the Government Order dated 26.7.2012 are not in conformity with law. It is useful to quote the relevant findings given by the learned Single Jude in his order dated 16.1.2013 holding that the reasons mentioned in the resolution of the State Government as notified under the Government Order dated 26.7.2012 are not in conformity with law. Following was observed by the learned Single Judge.
"Similarly, this Court also finds force in the contention of the petitioners that merely because some malpractices had been noticed in holding of the TET Examination, the State Government could have taken a decision to cancel the proceedings of selection in terms of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, inasmuch as as per the records made available to this Court, the mal practice is confined to very few districts of the State. If necessary, an attempt could have been made to segregate the bad part from the good part. This Court therefore holds that both the grounds mentioned in the resolution of the State Government as notified under the Government Order dated 26.07.2012 are not in conformity in law."
The learned Single while considering the 15th amendment Rules, 2012, has held that the 15th amendment Rules, 2012, shall not adversely affect the selection proceedings which had already begun and 15th amendment Rules, 2012, shall only be prospective in nature. In this context following are the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.
"Once the applicability of the '1981 Rules' to the posts advertised is answered in affirmative, the second question to be determined is as to whether the 15th amendment in the '1981 Rules' should have adversely affected the proceedings of the selections initiated under the advertisement dated 30.11.2011? The issue may not detain the Court for long. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that any amendment in the Rules laying down the manner for selection/appointment would be prospective in nature.
Once the vacancies have been advertised and the process of selection has commenced, then any subsequent amendment will not affect the proceedings of selection already initiated (Ref: P. Mahendran & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others, AIR 1990 SC, 405). This Court, therefore, holds that irrespective of the amendments made in '1981 Rules', the process of selection initiated under the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 could not have been adversely affected because of the 15th amendment in '1981 Rules'."
Although the learned Single Judge had decided all the above three issues in favour of the appellants, but Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General in these appeals has challenged the aforesaid view of the learned Single Judge and supported the judgment dismissing the writ petition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in their submissions have supported the above finding of the learned Single Judge which were in their favour. Challenge to the 15th amendment rules, 2012, has been reiterated before us. Learned counsel for the appellants has requested to consider the prayer for declaring the 15th amendment rules, 2012 invalid which prayer was prayed to be added in the Writ Petition No.39674/2012 by filing an amendment application. Learned Single Judge noted the amendment prayed for but we do not find any formal order for adding the prayer. We permit the prayers as made in the amendment application to be added in the writ petition.
Continued.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)