RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM
RTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility
Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI
NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI
NAUKRI
News
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,
*****************************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND
RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM
*******************
****
मुझे पूरी तरह से स्पष्ट नहीं है , लेकिन
कुछ समाचार में पढ़ा था की राजस्थान सरकार ने इसके बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट में विशेष अपील फाइल करने का मन बनाया ,
लेकिन कुछ समय बाद विशेष अपील वापस ले ली
कुछ समाचार में पढ़ा था की राजस्थान सरकार ने इसके बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट में विशेष अपील फाइल करने का मन बनाया ,
लेकिन कुछ समय बाद विशेष अपील वापस ले ली
****
आरटेट 2011: हाईकोर्ट ने कहा 60% से कम वाले शिक्षक बनने योग्य नहीं
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
*********************
IMPORTANT PARTS OF JUDGEMENT
********************
NOTE: WE PUBLISHED HERE IMPORTANT PORTIONS OF JUDGEMENT.
IT IS ADVISED TO READ OFFICIAL AUTHENTIC COPY FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDNG.
***********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH:JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1484/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(2) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1329/2012
Hemlata Kanojia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(3) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1333/2012
Sunita Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(4) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1470/2012
Mukesh Kumar Jitarwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
(5) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1476/2012
Vikas Sankhala & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(6) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1496/2012
Sumer Singh Rajawat & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
(7) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1502/2012
Manju Kumari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(8) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1512/2012
Mahesh Chand Nekela & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(9) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1518/2012
Smt. Mamta Kumari & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(10) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1532/2012
Babita vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(11) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1533/2012
Bhanwari Kharia vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(12) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1541/2012
Kuldeep Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(13) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1542/2012
Shiv Raj Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(14) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1556/2012
Mukesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors
(15) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1558/2012
Hari Singh Meena & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(16) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1567/2012
Manoj Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(17) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1573/2012
Ramesh Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(18) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1575/2012
Rajesh Kumar Raigar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(19) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1576/2012
Priyanka Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(20) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1580/2012
Bhanwar Lal Somarwal & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal &
Ors.
(21) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1597/2012
Anita Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(22) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1615/2012
Reena Chourasia vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(23) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1631/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Shimbhu Dayal Khateek &
Anr.
(24) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1633/2012
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Mohit Dixit
(25) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1638/2012
Anil Kumar & Anr. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
(26) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1646/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sunayna Dadich
(27) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1666/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vijay Singh
(28) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1667/2012
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal Rakshawat
(29) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.59/2013
Rakhi Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Date when the judgment
was reserved ::- 29.3.2013
Date of pronouncement
of judgment ::- 2.7.2013
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy
Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Nisha Gupta
Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG )
Mr.Tanveer Ahmed )
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma )
Mr.Kuldeep Aswal )
Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma )
for Rajendra Yadav )
Mr.R.D.Meena )
Mr.Aswani Chobisa )-for the appellants.
Mr.A.R.Meena )
Mr.Gajendra Sharma )
Mr.J.S.Rathore )
Mr.Rajendra Soni )
Mr.Vijay Poonia )
Mr.V.B.Srivastava )
Mr.Sanjay Srivastava )
Mr.Vigyan Shah )
Mr.Shantanu Sharma )
Mr.Anand Sharma ) -for the respondents.
Mr.V.K.Gupta )
JUDGMENT
----------------------------
Mukhya Ansha :
The answering
respondents iterated that the NCTE permitted and granted relaxation upto 5% to the candidates belonging to reserved category qua the qualifying marks in the academic qualification i.e.senior secondary or it equivalent examination, graduation etc. only and that the said concession had no nexus at all with the pass marks to qualify the TET.
it was contended that relaxation upto 5% marks to the candidates belonging to the reserved category was with regard to the minimum marks specified in paragraph
(Iske Baad NCTE / RTE guidelines ke paragraph ka jikra hai )
it was not permissible for the State Government to grant relaxation beyond 5% in the qualifying marks for TET examination under the garb of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011
---
Asserting that the notification dated 11.5.2011 adjusting the reserved category candidates, who had availed the benefit of relaxations in the qualifying marks, against the quota of the general
category candidate is patently illegal, the petitioner has referred to circulars dated 17.6.1996, 4.3.2002 and 24.6.2008 of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan
--
The migration of the reserved category candidates benefited by the concession qua qualifying marks for passing the TET into the portion of the unreserved category candidate, has been repudiated thus to be illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
--
By an interim application, the petitioners have also brought on record the fact that out of 40,000 posts of Teacher, only 20% candidates belonging to general category has been selected in view of the arbitrary and unallowable large scale relaxation granted to the candidates of reserved category in the qualifying marks for TET in gross violation of the NCTE guidelines resulting in induction of persons lower in merit thereby rendering the salutary and underlying objectives of the Act of 2009 nugatory.
---
relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% and thus, all pleas to the contrary are wholly untenable and are liable to be rejected in limine.
--
The learned counsel for the NCTE while adopting the arguments on behalf of the appellant-State referred to the Regulations of 2009 to justify the grant of 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation examination. According to him, such relaxation not having been granted in the notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down the minimum qualifications to be eligible for appointment as Teacher, the same was permitted on representations being filed seeking such concession.
---
The learned counsel endorsed the empowerment of the State Government as per guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant concession to the reserved category candidates as per its extant reservation policy
----
Single Judge erred in dealing with the same while adjudicating the issues raised in the writ proceedings.
----
concession contemplated in the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 was distinctly different from that notification dated 29.7.2011 and operated in independent domains.
----
the relaxation in the qualifying percentage of pass therein, is an apparent compromise with this salutary objective and thus, the concession ranging from 10% to 20% as accorded by the State Government is impermissible and invalid
---
Referring to the notification dated 29.7.2011, Mr.Shah emphatically urged that the relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks did signify in no uncertain terms that no
candidate securing less than 55% marks could have been declared to have passed TET
------
He urged as well that the candidates, who had secured marks between 55% to 60% on availing such relaxation could not be accommodated against the seats identified for unreserved category, as the same, if permitted, would denote compromise on merit, a consequence extinctive of the cardinal objectives of the Act of 2009.
------
the reserved category candidates availing the benefit of concession in qualifying marks could not have been accommodated against the seats meant for open category candidates. The learned counsel urged in
this backdrop that the circular no.F.7(1)DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011 of the Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan permitting such migration is non est or in the alternative, has a prospective effect and could not have been applied to the selection process in hand.
-------
With the insertion of Article 21A in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 making it obligatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, in a manner, as prescribed by a statute law to the effect i.e. Act 2009 was enacted, to effectuate this ordainment of the National Charter.
-------
Section 23 thereof deals with qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of
teachers and endows the academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification to prescribe the same, so as to be eligible for appointment as such. That the NCTE is this academic authority, as envisaged in Section 23(1) of the Act 2009, is a matter of record.
-----
The NCTE followed up this edict by a letter No.76- 4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.2.2011 addressed to all the Secretaries and Commissioners of the State Governments/UTs, thereby circulating its guidelines for conducting the TET by the appropriate Government, as required by its notification dated 23.8.2010.
------
While reiterating the mandate of a pass in the TET to be a norm of eligibility, rationale therefor was enumerated as hereunder:-
“(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 TET 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 above extract would proclaim that in terms of the guidelines of the NCTE, a candidate who would score 60% or more in the TET, would be construed to have
passed the same. Liberty was however, accorded to the School management (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided) to grant concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently disabled etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy.
Clause 9(b) though, made it obligatory to provide weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process clarified however, that a pass in the TET would not per se confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment, as such a pass was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment. Clause 9 of the guidelines thus, present the following salient features :-
(a) A candidate to pass the TET examination normally, has to score 60% or more;
(b) School managements (Government, locabodies, government aided and unaided) may grant
concessions to the persons belonging to SC/ST,OBC, differently abled persons etc., in accordance
with their extant reservation policy;
(c) weightage has to be given to the TET scores in the recruitment process;
(d) a pass in the TET examination would ipso facto not confer a right on any candidate for
recruitment/employment.
(e) a pass in the TET Examination was one of the eligibility criteria for appointment/recruitment as a
teacher.
---------
A candidate who thus, pass the TET would be eligible to participate in a process
of recruitment to the post of a teacher in both the levels, provided he/she is possessed of the academic
qualifications prescribed therefor and would further be entitled to weightage of the marks scored by him/her in the TET examination, if he/she passes the same.
-------------
While 60% or more marks was prescribed for a pass in the said test for the general category candidates, concessions to the extent as set out in the letter dated 23.3.2011, were accorded to the three classes of reserved category candidates mentioned therein
-----
In Item No.(ii) of this paragraph, under the caption “Reservation Policy”, it was provided that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks would be allowed to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories i.e.SC/ST/OBC/PH.
Whereas, the respondent-State insists that this relaxation is qua the minimum marks in the qualifying
examination of senior secondary/graduation etc.
---
A
cursory perusal of the contents of this quote would demonstrate that
paragraph 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 dealt exclusively with
the aspect of NCTE recognized 6-months Special Programme in Elementary Education by way of training of the persons with qualifications mentioned therein, after appointment. There was neither any comprehension nor any provision for reservation or relaxation of marks
***************************
Academic qualifications with minimum percentage of marks was
however, referred to.
In the amended paragraph 3, introduced by the notification dated 29.7.2011, apart from modified
academic qualifications with percentage of marks, relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks was provided for the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH. The texts of the two paragraphs of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 when juxtaposed, in our estimate, connote that the concession of 5% in the qualifying marks pertains to the percentage
of marks in the qualifying examination of Senior Secondary/Graduation etc
and not to the percentage of pass marks in TET
***********
clarifying that following the issuance of the notification dated 23.8.2010, it had received representations from the State Government and other stakeholders that in respect of SCs/STs etc.
relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks should be allowed, since such relaxation is permissible by the NCTE for admission in various teacher education courses.
**********
it was elucidated that following its meeting held on 16.3.2011 it was decided that relaxation upto 5% in such qualifying marks would be available to SCs/STs etc., in accordance with the extant policy of the State Government /UTs and other school managements. There is no reference of such relaxation to pass marks in the TET.
*************
Relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks in the amended paragraph 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010, in our comprehension, is thus wholly unrelated to the percentage of pass marks in the TET.
**********
The notification dated 29.7.2011 having regard to the scheme and purport thereof has to be essentially co-related with the one dated 23.8.2010,
which originally did not contemplate any relaxation.
Logically, thus, this notification does not supersede the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 governing the conduct of the TET.
***********
relaxation referred to therein does not relate to the percentage of marks to be secured in the TET to pass the same, cannot be construed to be in supersession either of the guidelinesdated 11.2.2011 or the letter dated 23.3.2011 of the
State Government.
**********************************
क्या था राजस्थान हाई कोर्ट की सिंगल बेंच का निर्णय
What was the decision of Rajasthan High Court Single Bench about Reservation Policy :
In view of the discussion made above, all these writ petitions are partly allowed with the following directions -
1. The circular dated 11.5.2011 would not be applicable to the present selection in view of the judgment in the case of K.Manjusree (supra), wherein, it was held that rules of game cannot be changed in the midst of selection thus respondents are directed to make appointment without applying circular dated 11.5.2011 in the present matter as initiation of recruitment is prior to the circular dated 11.5.2011 so as the advertisement. The migration of reserve category candidates to open/ general category can be permitted as per earlier circular dated 24.6.2008 and Standing Order applicable to present selection and not as per circular issued on 11.5.2011 as it is much subsequent to the advertisement and not given retrospective effect.
2. The circular dated 11.5.2011 provides for migration of reserve category candidates to open/ general category in the case where the candidates have taken special concession. The aforesaid circular needs to be given proper interpretation. It would be applicable in the case where reserve category candidates have taken benefit of concession of fee and relaxation in age. In those cases, one would be allowed to migrate to open/general category if obtained equal or more marks to the last candidate in open/general category. In case of any other concession or relaxation during the process of selection by reserve category candidate, he would not be allowed to migrate to open/general category as the 'level playing field' during the course of selection does not remain the same. Thus, respondents are directed to implement circular dated 11.5.2011 in the light of the directions given above but it would not be applicable to this selection as indicated in the first para of directions.
See Details Here :http://joinrtet.blogspot.in/2014/08/rajasthan-high-court-judgement.html
