CTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
दिल्ली हाई
कोर्ट के फैसले में एयर फ़ोर्स सी बी एस ई स्कूल में यू पी टेट पास को टी जी टी
नौकरी नहीं मिली , सिर्फ सी टेट पास को ही केंद्र
सरकार संचलित /सहायता प्राप्त स्कूलों को अर्ह माना , टी जी टी नौकरी के लिए टी ई टी पास
होना जरूरी बताया गया
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT :
SERVICE MATTER
W.P.(C)
5675/2013
Decided
on: 12.11.2014
IN THE
MATTER OF :
UMA
KUMARI
.....
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with
Mr.
Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
versus
THE
CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL &
ORS.
.....
Respondents
Through:
Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with
Ms.
Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal,
Advocates
for R-1/School.
Mr. Atul
Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.
Mr. L.R.
Khatana, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM
HON'BLE
MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA
KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1.
The
present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
that the
appointment of the respondent No.4 be declared as bad in law and her
appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be quashed.
2. Briefly
stated, the facts of the case are that the IAF Educational and
Cultural
Society had issued an advertisement dated 31.01.2012 for
recruitment
of teaching and administrative staff, including the appointment of teachers to
the post of TGT (Hindi), which is the subject matter of the present petition.
The required qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi) was graduation in Hindi
(Hons.) with 50% marks and Bach
elors
Degree in Education. The applicants were expected to submit their forms to the respondents
by 09.02.2012. The eligible candidates
had to
undergo a written test on 09.02.2012 and those, who would qualify in the
written test, were to participate in a personal interview.
3. It is
the petitioner’s case that she had appeared in the written examination on the
date and time mentioned in the advertisement and she had successfully cleared
the said examination. Vide intimation dated
24.02.2012,
the petitioner was called to appear for an interview on
02.03.2012.
The petitioner had appeared before the Selection Board on the assigned day for
an interview, whereafter she kept waiting for the results to be declared by the
respondent No.1/School. However,
when the
petitioner accessed the website of the respondent No.1/School,she discovered
that her name was not included as one of the successful candidates.
4. Aggrieved
by the results declared by the respondent No.1/School for
the post
of TGT (Hindi), the petitioner had a legal notice dated 9.4.2012
issued to
the respondent No.1/School stating inter alia that she possessed the desired
educational qualifications and had also cle
ared the
written examination and participated in the interview but was not selected, in violation
of the rules and regulations. It was also stated that as per the Notification
dated 23.08.2010 issued by the Nationa
l Council
for Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a
candidate
to qualify in the Teacher Eligibility Test (in short ‘TET’) which is conducted
by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed in that regard
and if the School had appointed a teacher, who did not qualify the TET, then
such an appointment was invalid.
5. When
the petitioner failed to receive any response from the
respondent
No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C)
3025/2012 praying inter alia that the respondent No.1/School be directed to
appoint her to the post of TGT (Hindi).
6. The
aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2012,
with
directions to the respondent No.1/School that it should respond to the legal
notice dated 09.04.2012, by passing a speaking order and the same should be
communicated to the petitioner. The aforesaid order was passed at the stage of
admission and at that time, the School
was not
represented before the court. In the meantime, the respondent
No.1/School
on its own sent a reply dated 19.5.2012 to the legal notice issued by the
petitioner, denying the allegations leveled against it and stating inter alia
that the petitioner was not found fit for selection to the p
ost of
TGT (Hindi) and was therefore, not selected. It was also stated that the
Selection Committee had considered the candidature of all the candidates objectively
and thereafter, selected the eligible candidates. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
stand taken by the respondent No.1/School, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
7. The
leitmotif of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
petitioner
to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the subject post is that
the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010
prescribes
that a school cannot appoint teachers to the post of Primary Regular Teacher
(PRT) or TGT (Class I to VIII) when they do not possess the TET certificate. He
submits that the petitioner herein possesses the TET certificate issued by the Haryana
Education Board, but the respondent No.4, who has been selected to the subject
post, does not possess the said qualification and therefore her
appointment
ought to be quashed.
8. Ms.
Palli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/School disputes the submission
made by the counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of the
Court to the Circular dated 06.03.2012 issued b
y the
respondent No.2/CBSE, wherein it is stated that the TET conducted by the
Central Government would apply to schools under the Central Government and Union
Territories without Legislature, and that the Managements of the schools
affiliated to the Boards such as CBSE, ICSE etc. may also opt for the TET
conducted by the Central Government. Learned counsel states that the
Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE was directed to be implemented
by the CBSE only on 06.03.2012, whereas the subject advertisement was issued
prior thereto, on 31.01.2012 and the selection process was completed by
02.03.2012, which was also prior in time and
therefore,
possession of a TET certificate was not mandatory for the
candidates
at that point in time.
9. Supporting
the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the
respondent
No.4 adds that though possession of a TET certificate was not mandatory prior
to issuance of the Circular dated 6.3.2012, his client had passed the Uttar
Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test held in November, 2011, as stipulated in the
Notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by the NCTE. In support of the said
submission, learned counsel refers to page 215 of the paper book, where he has
filed a copy of the Certificate dated 25.11.2011 issued by the Board of High
School and Intermediate
Education,
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of the respondent No.4, certifying inter
alia that she had passed Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test held in
November, 2011 (Upper Primary Level). He further states that subsequently in the
year 2013, the respondent No.4 had passed Central Teacher Eligibility Test (in
short
‘CTET’)
and was issued a Certificate dated 02.09.2013, that is placed at
page 216
of the paper book.
10. In
view of the documents placed on record by the respondent No.4
that
include a TET certificate of Upper Primary Level issued in her favour
by the
State of U.P. and a CTET certificate issued in her favour by the CBSE, it is
manifestly clear that she satisfies the requirements of the Notification dated
23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE. Moreover as is apparent from a perusal of the
advertisement enclosed with the writ
petition,
at the time when the subject advertisement was issued by the respondent
No.1/School, inviting applications to fill-up the posts of TGT (
Hindi),
it was not mandatory for the candidates to possess the TET certificate. The
only qualifications that a candidates was required to po
ssess was
graduation in Hindi (Hons.) with 50% marks and a Bachelor’s degree in Education
and the respondent no.4 fulfilled both the qualifications.
11. The
submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the copies of the certificates
filed by the respondent No.4 ought to be verified by the
respondent
No.1/School, is found to be rather incongruent in the light of the fact that on
her part, the petitioner has chosen not to file any such certificate to
substantiate her claim that she possesses a TET
certificate
purportedly issued by the State of Haryana. This demand is all
the more
discordant when the sole argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner to
assail the appointment of the respondent No.4 is non-possession of the TET
certificate by her. Had the petitioner wanted to file the said certificate, she
had an opportunity to do so alongwith the writ petition and having failed to do
so at that stage, she could have done so while filing the rejoinder to the
counter affidavits filed by the respondent no.1/School and respondent No.4.
However,
for reasons best known to her, the petitioner elected not to do so.
Therefore,
counsel for the petitioner cannot insist that the respondent No.4 be directed
to produce her original certificates for purposes of verification.
12. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion
that the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of TGT
(Hindi)
does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness for interference in the
present proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits
while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
(HIMA
KOHLI)
NOVEMBER
12, 2014
JUDGE
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
