/* remove this */

Friday, November 22, 2013

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







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.....


Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 5

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.





PART -5








Importance of Education.
These appeals relates to filling up of 72,825 posts of Assistant Mater/Mistress in Junior Basic Schools in the State of U.P. Although, the above posts were advertised on 30.11.2011, but for the last about 2 years, neither the selection nor appointment could be completed due to one or the other reason.

Education plays a fundamental role in development of a society and nation. Imparting education to its children is of paramount importance to every society and nation. Development of a child is directly dependent on the quality of education which he or she receives in the beginning of life. In a welfare State, the paramount responsibility is of the State to ensure that all children are provided a quality education to enable them to develop into a good citizen for all round progress of society and nation.

Earl Warren, CJ of U.S. Supreme Court in Brown Vs. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) emphasised the right of education in the following words:

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and Local Governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment."

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions.
Part IV of the Constitution of India incorporated a directive principles of State Policy. Article 45 of the Constitution is quoted below:-

"45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children.- The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years."

The right to education has been accepted as a fundamental right. By Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, Article 21A has been inserted in the Constitution which is to the following effect:

"21A-Right to education. The State shall provide free and compulsory eduction to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by law, determined".

In the State of U.P., the primary education was imparted through local bodies namely: Zila Parishad in rural areas and municipal Boards in urban areas. The administration of education at above level was not satisfactory and was deteriorating day by day. The Government on public demand took immediate steps for improving the education. The State Government took control of the primary education in its own hand for reorganising, reforming and expanding the same. With the above object the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted and a Board namely: Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education was constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The rules have been framed under the Act, 1972 by the State namely: Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 providing for cadre, qualification, method of recruitment and other connected matters.

After Constitution (Forty-two amendment) Act, 1976, Entry 25 List III of 7th schedule of the constitution is as follows:

"25.    Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."

The Parliament enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. Section 12 enumerates functions of the council. Section 12 enumerates various functions of the council. Section 12 sub-clause (d) is as follows:

"12.    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."


The Parliament for achieving the goal of providing free and compulsory education to all children enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (hereinafter called the "Act, 2009"). Section 8(a), (d) and (g) provide as follows:

"8:Duties of appropriate Government.- The appropriate Government shall--

(a) provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child:

(b) .....................

(c) ....................

(d) provide infrastructure including school building, teaching staff and learning equipment;

(e) ....................

(f) ...................

(g) ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule."

Section 23 of the Act, 2009 provides for qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. Section 23 of the Act, is as follows:

"23.Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.-(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.

(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed."


The Central Government vide notification dated 31.3.2010, has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The State Government vide its notification dated 23.8.2010, in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, 2009 laid down minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class 1 to VIII. Clauses 1 to 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 which are relevant in the present case are as follows:

"NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2010
F.No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S).- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), and in pursuance of Notification No.S.O. 750 (E) dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby lays down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from the date of this notification:-

1. Minimum Qualifications:-
(i) CLASSES I - V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A/B.Sc and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR
B.A/B.Sc with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to beconducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education:- For the purposes of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered.
However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed (Special Education), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.

3. Training to be undergone :- A person-(a) with B.A/B.Sc with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I 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."

The above notification was further amended by National Council for Teacher Education vide notification dated 29.7.2011 which is to the following effect:
"3(i) Training to be undergone,- A person -
(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she 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 recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education...."

As noted above, the qualifications, recruitment and criteria for selection of teachers in junior Basic School is regulated by the Rules 1981. It is relevant to note the relevant provisions of the Rules, 1981 as they were existing on the date when notification dated 23.8.2010 was issued. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1981 provided for qualifications of candidates. Rule 8 sub-rule (ii) which relates to Assistant Master/Mistress of junior Basic school is as follows:

Post     Academic Qualification
(ii) Assistant Master
and Assistant Mistress
of Junior Basic School
A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Vishist Basic Teachers certificate (B.T.C.) two years
BTC Urdu Special Training Course, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto:
Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course.


Rule 14 of the Rules, 1981 provides for determination of vacancies and preparation of list. Rule 14 sub-rule (4) provided for criteria which was to be adopted while preparing the list. Rule 14 sub-rule (4) provided for arranging select list in accordance with the quality points specified in the Appendix. Rule 14 (4) as well as the appendix to the rules are to the following effect:

"14. Determination of vacancies and preparation of list.-
(1)    .....
(2)    .....
(3)    .....
(4)    The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidates who have passed the required training course earlier in point of time shall be placed higher than those who have passed the said training course later and the candidates who have passed the training course in a particular year shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in the Appendix."

APPENDIX
[See Rule 14(4)]
Quality points for selection of candidates.
Name     of Quality points
Examination/Degree
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
1. High School     Percentage of marks
10
2. Intermediate Percentage of marks X 2
3. Graduation degree    Percentage of marks X 4
10

4. Training     First Division Second Division Third Division
(a) Theory     12     6     3
(b) Practical 12     6     3.

The education being subject matter of Entry 25 of List III by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, the law made by the Parliament shall prevail over any law made by the State. Thus, the notification issued under Section 23(1) of the Act, 2009 shall prevail over any law made by the State on the subject. The minimum qualification of teachers as provided in the Rules, 1981 thus has to give way to the minimum qualification as provided under the Act, 2009. Recognising the aforesaid, the State Government has made rules in exercise of power under Section 38 of the Act, 2009 namely: Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. Rule 15 of the Rules, 2011 provides as follows:

"15. Minimum qualification of teachers:
Section 23 (1).-The minimum educational qualifications for teachers, laid down by an authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be applicable for every school referred to in clause (n) section 2."



The State amended its Rules, 1981 to make it in consonance with the notification issued under Section 23(1) dated 23.8.2010, by virtue of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Twelth Amendment) Rules, 2011 dated 09.11.2011. Existing Rule 8 which provides for academic qualification was amended with regard to Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress which is to the following effect:

2. In the said rules for rules 8 set out in Column-I below the rules as set out in Column II shall be substituted namely:
Column-I   
Existing Rule
Column-II
Rule as hereby substituted
Post
Academic Qualifications
Post
Academic Qualifications
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School
A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Vishist Basic Teachers certificate (B.T.C.) two years BTC Urdu Special Training Course, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto:

Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course.
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools
Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC), two years BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC and have passed teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.


One most important feature which was brought in the statutory scheme under the provisions of the Act, 2009 is Teacher Eligibility Test. The Teacher Eligibility Test has been envisaged as a test which is to be passed by every candidate who is to be considered for appointment as Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in a primary school. The Teacher Eligibility Test was to be held by every State as per the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. Teacher Eligibility Test for primary schools is akin to "National Eligibility Test" which has been now provided as qualification for appointment of teachers in graduate and Post Graduate colleges i.e. for higher education.

The Teacher Eligibility Test has been introduced to choose a candidate for appointment as teachers in primary school who conform to a uniform standard. The National Council for Teacher Education has issued a guidelines dated 11.2.2011, in respect of Teacher Eligibility Test. The guidelines dated 11.2.2011, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education apart from providing background and rationale, eligibility also laid down giving weightage to the marks of the Teacher Eligibility Test in appointment of Teachers. Paragraph 9 of the guidelines which has a heading of qualifying marks provides as follows:

"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 State following the notification dated 23.8.2010, and the aforesaid guidelines dated 11.2.2011, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education also amended the Rule 14 (4) which provides criteria for selection of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress, the earlier criteria of selection was given a go-bye and sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 provided as follows:

"(3) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that their names shall be placed in descending order on the basis of the marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher."

Thus the State by 12th amendment rules provided for selection of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress on the basis of marks obtained in the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Government of U.P.

As noted above, the Teacher Eligibility Test in the State of U.P. was conducted on 13.11.2011, the result of which was declared on 25.11.2013. The advertisement dated 30.11.2011, was issued for 72825 posts of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in the Junior Basic School to be filled up in accordance with the criteria as brought into force by 12th amendment rule dated 09.11.2011 which was in accordance with the notification dated 23.8.2010 and the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 of National Council for Teacher Education. One more amendment in the rules which needs to be noted is the 15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012. By 15th Amendment Rules, Rule 14 was amended and the criteria as provided for by Rule 14(3) by 12th amendment rules was withdrawn and the earlier criteria of selecting the teachers on the basis of the 'quality points' marks specified in "Appendix" was restored. Rule 14(3) as amended on 31.8.2012 was to the following effect:

"(3) The names of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points specified in appendix. In the said rules the following appendix shall be inserted at the end.

Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher."
Issue No.1.

After considering the relevant statutory schemes regarding the criteria to be adopted for selection of Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress in the Junior Basic School, now we proceed to consider the issues as noted above.

The first issue to be considered is as to whether the Rules, 1981 are applicable for selection of B.Ed candidates for imparting 6 months training and appointment.

Shri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the Rules, 1981 have no application when the candidates having B.Ed qualifications are being selected for imparting 6 months training. He submits that the B.Ed candidates are selected for imparting 6 months training in accordance with the notification dated 23.8.2010 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, 2009 and they are not being selected under the Rules, 1981 for imparting 6 months training, hence the Rules, 1981 have no application. He further submits that the Rules, 1981 having no application the 15th and 16th amendment rules need not to be looked into.

The learned Single Judge in his impugned judment has held that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, notified appointments against the cadre posts covered by the the Rules, 1981 in Parishadiya Vidyalaya, hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Rules, 1981 are not applicable cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge rejected the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in the following words:

"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."

Continued......

Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 4

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.





PART -4








Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants contended that it is the State which has been empowered to lay down the criteria for selection of teachers in the schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. It is submitted that there being serious allegations against the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011, the High Power Committee decided not to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test although the Teachers Eligibility Test as minimum qualification was retained as per the recommendations of the High Power Committee and the Cabinet decision.

He submits that the decision not to give wieightage to the marks of Teachers Eligibility Test Examination-2011 was a conscious decision taken on account of allegations of irregularity, malpractices and illegality in the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011. It is submitted that the decision was taken to deny the benefits of marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test on account of serious allegations. It is submitted that the State had every right to amend the criteria and restoration of earlier criteria by 15th Amendment Rules was well within the powers of the Rule making authority. Learned Additional Advocate General has defended the judgment of learned Single Judge taking the view that there being no cadre of trainee teacher, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was invalid. He submits that the State having realised the mistakes in issuance of advertisement dated 30.11.2011, has corrected the mistake. It is submitted that 16th Amendment Rules thus have been made to provide for a cadre of trainee teachers thereafter fresh process has been initiated. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the Government Order dated 10.4.2012 constituting High Power Committee and the report of the High Power Committee dated 1.5.2012 which have been filed along with the short counter affidavit. It is submitted that the above material has been brought on record in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 4.2.2013, passed in Special Appeal No. 150 of 2013. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 initiates the process of recruitment for appointment hence, 1981 Rules and other Rules are fully applicable. It is submitted that apart from advertisement dated 30.11.2011, no further advertisement is required. The State is following the guidelines of National Council For Teacher Education dated 11.2.2011. On a request of the State Government, Central Government has extended the date for completing the process of appointment of B.Ed. Teachers up to 31.3.2014. The petitioner appellants' case that they should be selected on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test cannot be accepted. The Cabinet has taken decision after due consideration.

Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the issue as to whether the rules of recruitment can be amended during the continuing process has been referred to larger Bench of the Supreme Court. He has referred to judgment of the apex Court in (2013) 4 SCC 540 Tej Prakash Pathak & others Vs. Rajasthan High Court. Sri Agrawal supported the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. He also sought to challenge the findings, which were recorded in favour of the writ petitioner by the learned Single Judge. Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing for another intervenor has submitted that after 12th Amendment, Rules 17 and 17 A have not been amended due to which, an anomalous situation has arisen. He also supported the judgment of learned Single Judge. He submitted that State has removed the anomaly. He submitted that appointment on the basis of Teachers Eligibility Test marks cannot be made the sole criteria. Learned Counsel for the appellants in their rejoinder affidavit has reiterated their submission. It has been submitted that there being no material with the State Government to cancel the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011, at best the State could prohibit those candidates only against whom there were allegations of irregularity, illegality and malpractices.

Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar Advocate appearing for the National Council For Teacher Education has also been heard.
Issues:
From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings on record, following are the issues which arise for consideration in this bunch of appeals.

1.Whether 1981 Rules are applicable for selection of B.Ed. Candidates for imparting six months training for appointment as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools?
2.Whether the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 for selection and appointment as trainee teacher against 72,825 posts in different junior basic schools was invalid on the ground that there was no cadre of trainee teachers in 1981 Rules ?
3.Whether the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the National Council For Teacher Education requiring that State should give weightage to the marks of Teachers Eligibility Test while appointing the teachers were not binding on the State and could have been ignored while making selection and appointment on the post Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools?
4.Whether the State Government's order dated 26.7.2012 to make Teachers Eligibility Test only as a minimum qualification and restoration of the mechanism of giving weightage only on the basis of educational qualification for appointment of teachers as was in force prior to 12th Amendment Rules was in accordance with law?
5. Whether there were valid reasons for the State Government to declare the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 as ineffective and to cancel the advertisement?
6.Whether the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (15th Amendment) Rules dated 31.8.2012 and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 were in accordance with law?

7. To what reliefs, the appellants are entitled in these appeals, if any?



Continued.....


Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART - 3

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.





PART -3







We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocates, Sri Shailendra, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Seemant Singh and other learned Counsels appearing for the appellants. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri B.P. Singh and Sri Shashank Shekhar advocates have been heard for the respondents.
Submissions:
The arguments which have been led in these appeals can be divided in two separate sets. The first set of arguments have been led by Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Shailendra and Sri Seemant Singh whereas, the second set of arguments have been lead by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate.

In support of Special Appeals including special appeal No. 150 of 2013, it is contended that selection process having begun by advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the criteria of selection could not have been changed by the Government Order dated 26.7.2013 as well as by 15th Amendment Rules and the Government Order dated 31.8.2012. It has been submitted that as per advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and 12th Amendment Rules dated 9.11.2011, the selection for the post of Assistant Teachers was to be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Teachers Eligibility Test, which criteria could not have been changed. It is submitted that 15th Amendment Rules dated 31.8.2012 at best was prospective in nature and could not have been applied on the ongoing selection process. It is submitted that after beginning of process of selection, Rules could not have been changed and any change was prospective in nature. It is further submitted that the State Government having decided to accept the Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 as a qualifying examination, its decision not to rely on the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test examination for selection was self contradictory and arbitrary.  
****************
When Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 against whom allegedly there were allegations has been decided to be accepted as a "qualifying examination", there was no reason for not adopting the criteria for selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. It is submitted that the State having decided not to cancel the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination 2011 and having decided to debar only the individual candidates against whom there were allegations of irregularity and involvement in any criminal offence,  ********************
the other candidates against whom there were no allegations could not be made to suffer. It is submitted that learned Single Judge having accepted that 15th Amendment rules were not applicable in ongoing selection process and having further held that there was no valid reason with the State Government not to proceed with the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the appellants were entitled for grant of relief which was denied by learned Single Judge on a non-existent ground. The view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher hence, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress and the mere fact that the candidates were to be imparted six months' training was not to be treated as making appointment on some different posts of trainee teacher for which according to learned Single Judge there was no cadre. The appointment was contemplated against the post of Masters/Mistress and there was no question of appointment on any different post of Trainee Teachers. The Trainee Teacher was only a nomenclature adopted to define the B.Ed. Teachers who were to be imparted six months' training. Learned Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 651. It is submitted that the entire selection process was entitled to be completed on the basis of advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and the appellants could not be asked to compete against set of persons, who were not even eligible at the time when advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was issued.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate in support of Special Appeal No. 159 of 2013 contended that 1981 Rules were not attracted, while making selection of the candidates for imparting six months' training. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 contemplated selection of the candidates for imparting six months training, which was to be carried out on the basis of marks of Teachers Eligibility Test and the question of appointment and applicability of 1981 Rules shall arise after the candidates complete their training. It is submitted that for selection of B.Ed. candidates for imparting six months training, 1981 Rules and the 15th and 16th Amendment Rules are irrelevant hence, the basis for issuance of the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 declaring the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 ineffective was misconceived. It is submitted that no other reasons have been given by the State Government for cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 except that after the enforcement of 15th Amendment Rules, the advertisement has become ineffective which is a fallacious reason. It is submitted by Sri Khare that the submissions of the petitioners that there was no valid reason with the State not to proceed with the selection dated 30.11.2011 having accepted by the learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge having also accepted that 15th Amendment Rules were not applicable for the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge that there being no cadre of Trainee Teacher in 1981 Rules, the advertisement is bad, is unsustainable. It is submitted that the selection and appointment was contemplated against 72,825 posts of Assistant Masters/Mistress which are cadre posts and for appointment against the said posts the candidates were being selected for imparting six months training, which cannot mean that the candidates were being appointed against any post of Trainee Teacher. It is submitted that there is no necessity of any cadre of trainee teacher and learned Single Judge fell into error in holding the advertisement invalid on the aforesaid ground.

It is further submitted by Sri Khare that the 15th Amendment Rules are unsustainable and are liable to be declared as invalid and inoperative. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed in the writ petition seeking declaration that 15th Amendment rules are invalid. He submits that appointment of candidates having B.Ed. Qualifications was being made on the basis of notification dated 23.8.2010. It is submitted that the appointment of B.Ed. Candidate is not being made in accordance with 1981 Rules, rather it was being made under the notification dated 23.8.2010, issued under section 23 of 2009 Act.

It is submitted that the National Council For Teacher Education has issued guidelines dated 11.2.2011, which require the State to give weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test for selection on the post of Assistant Teachers. The State could not have disregarded the said guidelines and the 15th Amendment Rules which have been made disregarding the binding guidelines of the National Council For Teacher Education, deserves to be declared invalid on this ground alone. It is 
submitted by Sri Khare that Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (6) ADJ 310 has already held the guidelines binding on the State. Sri Khare submits that selection on the basis of quality point marks as per Appendix which has now been restored by 15th Amendment Rules, was a criteria at the time when State has not amended its Rules according to the notification dated 23.8.2010. It is stated that notification dated 23.8.2010 is binding on the State and shall overrides the 1981 Rules. It is submitted that marks of Teachers Eligibility Test for selection of Assistant Teachers cannot be disregarded or ignored in view of the notification dated 23.8.2010 as well as the guidelines dated 11.2.2013.

Continued......


Read more...

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept. PART 2

Final Decision of Allahabad Highcourt for recruitment of 72825 Teachers in Basic Education Dept.



PART -2










Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

(Per Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

All these special appeals filed against the same judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.1.2013 being connected, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The appellants possessing B.Ed. qualification and Teachers Eligibility Test had applied against 72,825 posts of Teachers of primary schools advertised on 30.11.2011, which selection was to take place on the basis of marks obtained in Teachers Eligibility Test, filed the writ petitions challenging the decision of the State Government by which Teachers Eligibility Test was decided to be only a minimum qualification and not the basis of selection. The petitioners had also prayed for completion of selection process on the basis of advertisement dated 30.11.2011. Learned Single Judge although held that neither criteria for selection can be changed after start of selection process nor there was sufficient reason for not proceeding with the selection advertised on 30.11.2011, denied the relief to the petitioner-appellants only on the ground that there being no cadre of 'Trainee Teacher' under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 itself was invalid. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge have come up in these appeals.

Facts:
The background facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions need to be noted for deciding the issues, which have arisen for consideration in this bunch of special appeals. U.P. Basic Education Board constituted under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act') is running various junior basic schools and Senior basic schools from classes I to VIII. The criteria and procedure for selection is regulated by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 framed under the 1972 Act. For achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith, the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 was enacted by Parliament (hereinafter referred to as 1993 Act). The Right of Education having been recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India and the State being responsible to provide free and compulsory education to the children up to 6 to 14 years, Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 
 Under section 23 of 2009 Act the National Council for Teacher Education has been authorised by the Central Government to lay down minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers. The National Council For Teacher Education vide notification dated 23.8.2010 laid down various qualifications for appointment of teachers.
Passing of Teachers Eligibility Test has been laid down as one of the qualifications, which is to be possessed by a candidate for appointment as a teacher. Under clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010, candidates having B.Ed. qualification have also been treated as eligible provided they are imparted six months' special training programme in the elementary education. On 11.2.2011, the National Council For Teacher Education issued guidelines for conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test which further provides for giving weightage to the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test in the recruitment of teachers.
On 9.11.2011, 1981 Rules were amended by 12th Amendment Rules incorporating passing of Teachers Eligibility Test as one of the minimum qualifications in the 1981 Rules. Rule 14(3) as amended further provides that selection shall be made on the basis of marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test. On 13.11.2011 Board of Highschool and Intermediate Education U.P. conducted the Teachers Eligibility Test examination in which several lacs of candidates participated. On 25.11.2011 result of Teachers Eligibility Test was declared. All the appellants were declared 'pass' in the examination. Inspite of various appointments made in the junior basic schools on the basis of the candidates passing B.T.C. Certificate and Special BTC certificate, still posts of more than a lac teachers are laying vacant in primary schools. By virtue of notification dated 23.8.2010, the candidates who possessed B.Ed. qualification were invited to apply for appointment as Trainee Teacher against 72,825 posts of Teachers for various schools in the State of U.P. The appellants/ writ petitioners submitted their applications in response to advertisement dated 3011.2011. On 31.12.2011 in district Ramabai Nagar, police personnel intercepted a vehicle and seized huge amount of several lacs of rupees and three lists of candidates from persons travelling in the vehicle, allegedly the money was collected to get the candidates passed in Teachers Eligibility Test and to get them appointed as Teachers. A first information report was lodged being case crime No. 675 of 2011 against seven persons. The residence of Director of Education Secondary was also searched on 7.2.2012 where three lists of candidates bearing their roll numbers totalling 260, were found along with an amount of Rs. 400,000 and odd. The Director of Secondary Education was also arrested. A writ petition No. 76039 of 2011 was filed challenging the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 in which this Court on 4.1.2012 stayed the process of selection. The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed as infructuous. On 10.4.2012, the State Government constituted a High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of State to look into the allegations relating to Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 and to submit a report. On 1.5.2012, the High Power Committee submitted a report with several recommendations. High Power Committee recommended that Teachers Eligibility Test should be made only a qualifying examination. It was further recommended that those candidates of Teachers Eligibility Test examination 2011 who are found involved in any irregularity/criminal activity be prohibited from selection and their selection be cancelled. The report of High Power Committee was considered by the Cabinet and a decision was taken by the Cabinet, which has been notified by the Government Order dated 26.7.2012. The recommendations made by the High Power Committee were accepted by the Cabinet. The Cabinet decided to treat the Teachers Eligibility Test only as a minimum qualification and not the basis of selection and further the candidates who were found involved in any irregularity and criminal offences were to be prohibited in the selection.
On 31.8.2012, 15th Amendment Rules were published by which the earlier criteria of selection which was on the basis of marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test as introduced by the 12th Amendments Rules have been substituted by the criteria of 'quality point marks' which was prevalent since before the 12th Amendment Rules. A Government Order dated 31.8.2012 was also issued by the State stating that in view of the 15th Amendment rules, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 have become ineffective hence, the same may be cancelled and the fee be returned to the candidates. U.P. Basic Education Board also issued the order dated 31.8.2012 accordingly. Writ petition No. 39674 of 2012 Akhilesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others was filed in August, 2012 challenging the Government Order dated 26.7.2012 with further prayer of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the process of selection as per the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. After the publication of the 15th Amendment Rules, an amendment application has also been filed challenging the 15th Amendment Rules as well as the Government Order dated 31.8.2012 cancelling the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. Large number of writ petitions were filed by the other candidates, who have applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. In December, 2012, the State Government issued 16th Amendment Rules by which definition of Trainee Teacher has been added as Rule 2(u) in 1981 Rules.

During the pendency of the writ petition, a Government Order dated 5.12.2012 was issued by the State Government initiating process of appointment for B.Ed candidates, who have passed Teachers Eligibility Test on the post of trainee teacher. On 7.12.2012, Basic Shiksha Adhikari of various districts issued advertisement inviting applications. On 16.1.2013 all the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed by learned Single Judge. On 29.1.2013 Special Appeal No. 150 of 2013 has been filed challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.1.2013. A Division Bench of this Court on 4.2.2013 suspended the ongoing selection process till 11.2.2013, which interim order was extended from time to time. Other appeals were filed challenging the same judgment dated 16.1.2013. By order dated 23.10.2013 of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, Special Appeal 237 (D) of 2013 has been nominated to this Bench. The special appeal No. 237 (D) of 2013 and other connected appeals have been listed for hearing.



Continued.....
Read more...