Tuesday, May 17, 2016

CTET News - - HIGH COURT OF DELHI CLEARED THAT TGT RECRUITMENT PROCESS IS GOVERNED BY NCTE NOTIFICATION DATED 29 JULY 2011 i.e TET is mandatory for TGT teachers also, But teachers appointed prior this notification not affected i.e TET not required for TGT Post

CTET News - TET Mandatory for TGT as per NCTE Notificationdated 29 July 2011




HIGH COURT OF DELHI CLEARED THAT TGT RECRUITMENT PROCESS IS GOVERNED BY NCTE NOTIFICATION DATED 29 JULY 2011 i.e TET is mandatory for TGT teachers also, But teachers appointed prior this notification not affected i.e TET not required for TGT Post







LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015,
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015



* IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI %
Judgment Reserved on: October 14, 2015
Judgment Delivered on: October
29, 2015
+
LPA 223/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION  SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
Represented by:
Mr. R. Bala Subramani
an, Advocate
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
MANJU NAUTIYAL & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for
R - 1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional  Standing Counsel (Civil) for
R  2 LPA  225/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
SHAYAM DUTT & ANR
..... Respondent

Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1 Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2 LPA 227/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellants
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015,
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus
ANITA SOHARU GULERIA & ANR
..... Respondent
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
- 1 Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2 LPA 314/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
RENU BARROT & ORS
..... Respondent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan,
Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 347/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
RAVI KUMAR & ANR
..... Respon
dent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015,
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
Page
3
of
22
LPA 348/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Su
bramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
VIKRAM SINGH & ANR
..... Respondent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 353/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
SHATRUGHAN THAKUR & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2LPA 355/2015ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR..... Appellants
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus
SHEEJA BENOY & ANR
..... Respondents
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2LPA 356/2015ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
BIR SINGH & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R-
1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
, J.
1.
LPA  No.223/2015,  LPA  No.225/2015  and  LPA  No.227/2015,  lay  a
challenge  to  a  common  judgment  and  order  da
ted  February  25,  2015,
allowing   W.P.(C)   No.1944/2014,   W.P.(C)   No.2112/2014   and   W.P.(C)  No.1845/2014  filed  by  Manju  Nautiyal,  Shayam  Dutt  and  Anita  Soharu  Guleria  respectively  :  the  contesting  respondent  No.1  in  the  three  appeals. 
LPA No.314/2015 lays a challenge to a judgment and order dated April 27,  2015 allowing W.P.(C) No.6180/2013 filed by Renu Barrot : the contesting respondent No.1 in the said appeal.  LPA No.347/2015, LPA No.348/2015, LPA   No.353/2015,   LPA   No.355/2015   and   LPA   No.356/2015   lay   a challenge  to  a  common  judgment  and  order  dated  April  29,  2015  allowing LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 exploited.    In  spite  of  vacant  posts  being  available  contract  appointment  is
being resorted to and this results in deterioration in the quality of education being imparted in Delhi. 
15. It  ill lies  in  the  mouth  of  the  appellant  to  argue  that  if  all  the
respondents   are   regularized   by   being   made   permanent   the   quality   of
education   in   the   two   schools   established   by   appellant   No.1   would
deteriorate.  If such respondents who are teachers are found good teachers to
teach as
contract employees we see no deterioration taking place if they are
made   permanent.      Of   course,   the   issue   of   the   necessary   educational
qualifications  is  a  different  matter  and  we  would  deal  with  the  same  while
deciding individual appeals.
16.To  put  the  law  in  its  correct  perspective  we  hold  that  recognized
private  schools  in  Delhi  cannot  resort  to  temporary,  tenure  or  contractual
appointments  save  and  except  where  a  vacancy  is  available  for  a  limited
duration.    To  give  some  examples.    A  teacher  has  proceeded
on  child  care leave  for  a  period  of  one  year.    The  lien  being  retained  to  the  post,  a  short term  vacancy  for  one  year  ensues  and  can  be  filled  up for  said  period.    A
teacher,  on  being  unwell,  applies  for  and  is  sanctioned  medical  leave  for
three months.  The lien being retained to the post, a short term vacancy for
three  months  ensues  and  can  be  filled  up  for  said  period.    A  teacher  may
suddenly resign.  The process to fill up the vacancy is likely to consume say
6 months.  Teaching would suffer if no teacher is available immediately.  It
would be a situation of a short term vacancy pending regular selection and it
would  be  permissible  to  recruit  a  teacher  without  following  the  process  of
selection  and  limiting  the  tenure  till  when  a  regular  teacher  is  appointed. 
But  where  a  vacancy  exists  it  would  be  a  fraud  on  the  statute  to  resort  to
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 short term tenure appointment and that too endlessly.
17.We  now  turn  to  individual  cases.    We  transpose  ourselves  back  to paragraph  2  of  our  opinion,  where  we  have  noted  the  different  tenures  of appointment of the nine respondents in the nine captioned appeals. 
18.Manju  Nautiyal  has  a  post  graduate  degree  in  Botany  as  well  as  a
Bachelor’s  Degree  in  Education.    Appointed  as  a  Primary  Teacher  on
September  01,  2009  she  worked  as  a Primary  Teacher  till  March  31,  2010
and after a break of one year, three months and seven days was appointed as
a  Trained  Graduate  Teacher  on  July  08,  2011  and  with  short  breaks  in
service  of  less  than  30  days  she  continued  to  be  employed  till  March  26,
2014.  Her  appointment at every stage was preceded by a selection process
being  resorted  to.    Qua  her  it  is  not  the  case  that  there  was  no  regular
vacancy.  The defence is that she does not possess a two years’ diploma in
Elementary  Education,  a  mandatory  requirement  as  per  the  Rules.    When
questioned as to why was she appointed on a tenure if she was not qualified,
learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  had  no  answer.  
We  find  that  the requirement of two year diploma in Elementary Education was prescribed as per a notification dated July 29, 2011.  Her appointment as a TGT preceded
said  notification
.    We  therefore  concur  with  the  reasoning  of  the  learned
Single Judge that in the peculiar facts and circumstances concerning Manju
Nautiyal she would be entitled to be made permanent.   
19.Right  to  Shayam  Dutt  is  questioned  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no
permanent  post  of  either  Assistant  Estate  Supervisor  or  Estate  Supervisor. 
We find that his appointment was preceded by a selection undisputedly one
Mr.Nayyar had worked as an Estate Supervisor from 1995 to the year 2000
and  thereafter  one  Mr.Shekhawat  till  the  year  2003.    Shayam  Dutt  was
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 appointed as an Assistant Estate Supervisor on December 01, 2009 and with
short  breaks  tenure  was  extended  till  May  23,  2011,  but  in  between,  on
November 01, 2010 the post was designated as Estate Supervisor and he was re
-appointed  with  breaks  of  between  7  and  10  days  till  March  31,  2014.
Facts  belie  the  defence  of  the  appellant  that  they  do  not  require  on
permanent basis an Estate Supervisor and thus we hold against the appellant
and in favour of Shayam Dutt. 
20.Anita  Soharu  Guleria’s  claim  was opposed on  she  not  clearing  a
Teacher’s Eligibility Test notified as per NCTE notification dated July 02,
2011.    That  she  possesses  the  requisite  educational  qualifications  was
conceded  to.    We  find  that  Anita  Soharu  Guleria  was  appointed  as  a  TGT

way  back  on  July  14,  2007  and  with  a  short tenure  as  a  primary  teacher  in
the  year  2009  she  was  once  again  taken  back  as  a  TGT  and  continues  to
work  as  a  TGT.    The  NCTE  notification  does  not  have  any  retrospective
operation and
thus we hold in favour of Anita Soharu Guleria. 
21.Concerning Renu Barrot the plea was that she was overage.  The plea
overlooks  that  when  she  was  appointed  as  a  TGT  on  August  02,
2010  she was  39  years  of  age.    The  maximum  age  for  female  teachers  is  40  years. 
The defence qua her is also rejected. 
22.Vikram  Singh  and  Shatrughan  Thakur  were  appointed  as  Drivers. 
The former in the year 2005 and the latter in the year 2006.  The two a
re ExServicemen and had a past experience of driving.  It may be true that they do
not  possess  the  matriculation  degree,  but  keeping  in  view  the  fact  that  the
educational  degree  is  otherwise  having  no  concern  with  the  duties  to  be
performed  by  the  two,  we hold  that  the  learned  Single  Judge  has  correctly
decided in their favour by directing their services to be regularized. 
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 23.Ravi     Kumar     was     appointed     as     a     Computer     Laboratory
Helper/Attendant  on  May  14,  2013  and  his  services  were  continued  till
September  30,2015.    As  per  the  appellant  there  is  no  sanctioned  post  of  a
Computer  Laboratory  Helper/Attendant.    Ravi  Kumar  has  not  given  any
proof  of  a sanctioned  post of  a  Computer  Laboratory  Helper/Attendant and
keeping this in mind as also the fact that he worked on contract for only two
years and when he was appointed the process of selection was not followed. 
We hold against him and in favour of the appellants. 
24.As regards Sheeja Benoy we find that she has continued to work as a
Nursing Assistant since August 08, 2008.  The defence qua her is that there
is no sanctioned post of a Nursing Assistant, but since the school where she
was  employed  and  continues  to  be  employed  has  a  sick  room  we  hold  that
the  nature  of  job  performed  by  her  requires  permanency  and  thus
repel  the challenge to the relief granted to her by the learned Single Judge. 
25.Bir  Singh  was  appointed  as  a  LDC  Account  Clerk  in  October,  2005
and was reengaged with artificial breaks till November, 2015.  He had a past
experience of working as a Clerk in the Indian Army of 17 years.  He may
not  be  qualified  as  per  the  Recruitment  Rules  but  since  the  appellant
themselves  waived  said  requirement  when  they  gave  him  appointment  on
contract in October, 2005 and continued with the same for 10 years we are
of the opinion that it has to be held that the appellant has deemed waived the
requirement of educational qualification qua Bir Singh.  It is not the case of
the appellants that a permanent post of an Account Clerk does not exist. 
26.Thus,  LPAs  No.223/2015,  225/2015,  227/2015,  314/2015,  348/2015,
353/2015,  355/2015  and  356/2015  are  dismissed.    LPA  No.347/2015  is
allowed.    Writ  petition  filed  by  Ravi  Kumar  is  dismissed  and  impugned
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
order dated April 29, 2015 in so far it has allowed the writ petition filed by
Ravi Kumar is set aside. 
27.Concerning  directions  issued  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  that  the
Director  of  Education  should  look  into  the  working  of  the  two  schools
established by the first appellant, we agree with the same for the reason we
find that large number of employees of the two Army Public Schools are in
litigation with their Managing Committee and we find that the appellants are
indiscriminately    resorting    to    contract    appointments    notwithstanding
existence  of  permanent  posts.    In  some  cases  like  that  of Sheeja  Benoy,
notwithstanding the nature of the work being perennial the appellants are not
sanctioning  a  permanent  post.    The  Director  of  Education  would  look  into
the   strength   of   students   and   keeping   in   view   the   applicable   norms
determined  the  number  of posts  of  teachers  in  various  categories  to  be
sanctioned.  The Director of Education would also look into repeated tenure
appointments  made  and  extended  for  periods  between  5  to  10  years.    We
would  expect  the  visit  by  the  Director  of  Education  to  be  frien
dly  and intended to guide the appellants through the allays of the law and not to find
false  to  take  action  against  the  management.    We  would  also  hope  and
expect that the appellants would work with transparency and as per law. 
28.Parties shall bear their own costs all throughout. 
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER
29,
2015
mamta


















































 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 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,

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET