UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - MODEL SCHOOL QUALIFICATION CHALANGED IN COURT, COURT SUGGEST TO REPRESENT TO EMPLOYER/ STATE GOVT -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R
Court No. - 26
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1495 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Neha Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Intermediate Education & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivam Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Heard
Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
These
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been
instituted by the petitioner challenging the advertisement dated
17.03.2015, in so far as it restricts selection to the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher (English) only to the candidates, who have graduated
with English in all the three years of their Graduation Course, to the
exclusion of candidates credited with a degree of Post Graduation in
English.
In effect, the p
etitioner
challenges the educational qualification prescribed by the respondent
no.2 for selection/appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (English),
according to which, only those Graduates in English will be eligible,
who have studied English as a subject in all the three years of their
Graduation Course.
The State Government has taken a decision to
establish Model Schools in the State of Uttar Pradesh and for the said
purpose Rajya Model School Organization, Uttar Pradesh, has been
established as a Society. The purpose of establishing Rajya Model School
Organization, it appears, is to establish Model Schools on the pattern
of Kendriya Vidyalayas established throughout the country by Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan. The Rajya Model School Organization, Uttar Pradesh
has advertised various teaching posts to be filled in these Model
Schools, which are to be established and affiliated with the Central
Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.As per the
annexure no.3 annexed with this petition, the essential qualification
prescribed for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in English is that
the candidate should possess Graduation Degree in English with 50%
minimum marks along with the degree of B.Ed./L.T. from a University
established under law or from any other Institution.
The petitioner
is a Post Graduate in English from University of Lucknow. She is also
possessed of a B.Ed. Degree from Indra Gandhi National Open University.
Further, the petitioner has also qualified the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary
Education, New Delhi. The petitioner also possesses a Graduation Degree
from Lucknow University. She studied Geography and Psychology as two
subjects in the third and last year of her B.A. Course. In the first and
second year of B.A. Course, the petitioner had studied English as one
of the subjects.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner possesses a qualification higher than the
educational qualification prescribed by the Rajya Model School
Organization, and hence, she is better equipped to teach the students,
who are to be imparted education in class VI to X. It has further been
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if a candidate
possesses higher qualification than the essential qualification
prescribed, the same cannot be permitted to come as a hurdle in his/her
way to seek public employment.
It has also been stated by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Model Schools being established by
the State of Uttar Pradesh, are going to be affiliated with Central
Board of Secondary Education for the purposes of admitting the students
to participate in the examination conducted by the said Board and
Central Board of Secondary Education has framed bye laws for the
purposes of regulating various aspects of the institutions, which are
affiliated with it. He has further stated that the Central Board of
Secondary Education affiliation bye laws prescribe qualification for
appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (English) as Graduation in/with
the subject, recognized Degree/Diploma in Education and B.A.B.Ed. with
English of the Regional College of Education. He has further submitted
that since the Model Schools are going to be affiliated with Central
Board of Secondary Education, hence, it was incumbent upon the Rajya
Model School Organization to have borrowed the qualification prescribed
by the Central Board of Secondary Education in its affiliation bye laws.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that higher
qualification should not come to the disadvantage of a candidate seeking
employment, has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and ors. vs. District and Sessions
Judge, Nagpur and others, (Civil Appeal No.1010 of 2000), rendered on
11.02.2000.
Per contra, Shri Pratyush Tripathi and Shri Ajay Kumar,
learned Standing Counsels, have submitted that the qualification
prescribed by the Rajya Model School Organization for the post of
Trained Graduate Teacher in English, have been borrowed from the
prescriptions made for the said purpose by the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan. It has also been stated by the learned Standing Counsels that
it is not only that the qualification for the post in question only has
been borrowed from the prescriptions made by the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, but it has been borrowed for all the teaching posts.
The
question, thus, which calls for determination by the Court is as to
whether a candidate, possessing a Master's Degree in English having
studied English only in two years of his/her Graduation Course, instead
of studying English in all the three years of the course, can be said to
have been wrongly excluded by the respondents from the zone of
eligibility.
Before dealing with the submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case, it would be
apt to state that this is not the province of this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go
into and prescribe the essential qualification for selection/appointment
on a post. In the case of University of Mysore and Another vs. C.D.
Govinda Rao & another, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491,it has been
observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that normally it is wise and safe for
the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts, who are
more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can
be.
It is equally well settled principle of law that it is the
policy of the Government or the employer to create a post or to
prescribe the qualification for the post. The Court or any Tribunal is
devoid of any power to give any such direction. The judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras vs.
Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram and others, reported in [(1997) 1
SCC 253] can be referred to in this regard. Yet another judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission and
others vs. Kamini and others, reported in [(2007) 5 SCC 519, can be
mentioned to reiterate the aforesaid principle, wherein Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that it is well settled that in the field of education, a
Court of Law cannot act as an expert.
In the case of J. Ranga Swamy
vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in [(1990) 1 SCC
288, it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is not for the Court
to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various
posts.
Reference may also be had to another judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and
others, reported in [(2008) 10 SCC 1], wherein it has been laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the decision of the employer to create
or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of
recruitment and laying down the qualification, etc. is not immune from
judicial review. However, the Court will always be extremely cautious
and circumspect in interfering in such matters.
Para 59 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Official Liquidator (supra) is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:
"The
creation and abolition of posts, formation and
structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of
recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection etc. are
matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although
the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to
prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and laying down the
qualification etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will
always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the
exercise of discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal
over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or
number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of
recruitment. 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 provisions or is patently arbitrary
or vitiated by mala fides."
Thus, in view of the aforesaid
pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court it can safely be summed up that
the grounds of judicial review by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case
where challenge is made to the prescription of essential educational
qualification for a teaching post, is very limited.
It has been
stated by the learned Standing Counsel, which fact is not disputed, that
essential educational qualification for all the posts in Model Schools
to be established by the State of Uttar Pradesh including the post of
Trained Graduate Teacher (English) has been borrowed from the
prescription made for the said purpose by the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan.
One of the purposes, as observed above, for establishing
the Model Schools in the State of U.P. is to establish these
institutions on the pattern on which Kendriya Vidyalayas in the entire
country have been established by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, which
functions under the aegis of Central Government. Thus, it cannot be said
that educational qualification prescribed for the post in question by
the Rajya Model School Organization, U.P. is without any basis.
As
already observed above, the qualification which has been prescribed for
the post in question has been borrowed from the prescription made in
that regard by Kendriya Vidyalaya, hence, the ground being urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the qualification is
unreasonable and without any basis, in so far as it excludes the Post
Graduates in English from the zone of eligibility is not tenable.
So
far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that since the institutions, which are going to be set up by Rajya Model
School Organization, are to be affiliated with the Central Board of
Secondary Education, as such the qualification prescribed in the
affiliation bye laws framed by the said Board are binding and
appointment of teachers in these institutions should also be made in
accordance with the prescriptions made in the affiliation bye laws is
concerned, It may only be indicated that the said bye laws do not appear
to be binding for the reason that Kendriya Vidyalaya established by
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, have also been affiliated with the Central
Board of Secondary Education and Kendriya Vidyalayas' prescription for
appointment to the post of TGT (English), is Graduation in English with
the condition that the candidate should have studied English in all the
thee years of his Bachelor's Course.
The last submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and ors.
(supra) that a criteria which denies a candidate his right to be
considered for appointment against a post on the ground that he is
having higher qualification than the qualification prescribed cannot be
reasonable also does not have any bearing on the fate of this writ
petition.
In the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and ors. (supra),
the matter which caught attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court was in
relation to appointment of peons in the subordinate judiciary of the
Bombay High Court. The qualification prescribed for the post of peon in
the said case was "not lower than a pass in the Examination of Standard
IV in the Regional Language." Certain candidates desirous of appointment
to the said post of peon were having higher qualification and at the
time of short listing, the candidates having higher qualification than a
pass in Examination of Standard IV, were excluded from the zone of
consideration. Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the rules relating
to various posts, including the posts where recruitment was made by way
of making promotion from amongst the peons and qualification for such
higher posts was higher than the qualification prescribed for the post
of peon, has considered that in case a peon having higher qualification
is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment on the said
post, then promotion to the posts from amongst the peons, who did not
fulfill the requirement of higher qualification, could not be made.
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the said case of Mohd. Riazul
Usman Gani and ors. (supra) in the facts of the said case, relevant
observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case is as
follows:
"A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his
right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having
higher qualification, than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not
been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed
qualifications equivalent to SSC examination could also not be
considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and
should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal
application."
(Emphasis supplied by the Court)
From a perusal
of the aforequoted observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and ors. (supra) makes it clear that the
proposition that a candidate cannot be denied his participation for
selection for appointment on a post on the basis that he is having
higher qualification, thus, cannot be applied universally. The
application of the said principle of law would depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
In the instant case, it is not known as to
whether the incumbent, who would be appointed on the post of TGT
(English) teacher, would have any avenues of promotion. Even if the
promotional avenues are made available to such TGT (English) teacher,
what would be the eligibility criteria for promotion to the higher post
is also not known. Thus, looking to the facts of this case, the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman
Gani and ors. (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
At
the cost of reiteration, it may be stated that the fact that the
respondents have borrowed the qualification for appointment to the post
in question on the prescriptions made in that regard by Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, itself is sufficient to sustain the qualification
prescribed by the respondents which has been challenged in this writ
petition.
It may further be observed that in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, neither the
prescription made by the respondents for appointment to the post in
question can be set aside nor any Mandamus can be issued to include the
candidates having Post Graduate qualification in English within the
eligibility zone. Such matters, as observed above, are in the exclusive
domain of the employer or the Government being a policy matter.
For
the reasons given and discussions made above in the preceding
paragraphs, I do not find any illegality in the impugned qualification
prescribed by the respondents for the post in question.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Before
parting the case, I may, however, observe that for consideration of
candidates having Post Graduate qualification in English for
consideration of appointment on the post of TGT (English), since such
authority lies with the employer, it would be open to the petitioner to
take up her cause before the authority concerned by way of making a
representation. If the petitioner in this regard makes a representation
to the authority concerned raising all the pleas, which may be available
to her, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority
concerned without being influenced by any of the observations made
hereinabove.
There will be no order as to costs.Order Date :- 7.4.2015
akhilesh/-
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet |
Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News |
72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher
Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825
Teacher Recruitment Uptet News
Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank
District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher
Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
