UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement for writ 39674 / 2012 and others

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement for writ 39674 / 2012 and others

Judgements is lengthy , therefore I take its important details in parts ( for authenticity contact concerned authority, and for verification etc., visit court's website, source link can be found at the end of details)

PART 1

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. 

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, Sri P.N. Saxena learned Senior Advocate, Sri Shailendra Advocate, Sri Abhishek Srivastava Advocate and Sri Simant Singh Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Neeraj Upadhyaya Advocate on behalf of the State-respondents in this Bunch of writ petitions. 

The facts and the grounds enumerated in this Bunch of writ petitions are almost common and are therefore being decided together. The writ petition no.39674 of 2012 is being treated as leading case. 

The petitioners after passing their Graduation and B.Ed. Examination appeared in U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test (here-in-after referred to as 'TET Examination') conducted by the State of U.P. in the year 2011. According to the petitioners, they have all passed the TET Examination. The State of U.P. published an advertisement dated 30.11.2011 inviting applications from the candidates, who were possessed of the prescribed minimum qualifications as per the provisions made by the National Council for Teachers Education which included passing of the TET Examination, for appointment as Apprentice Teacher against the post of teachers in Parishadiya Vidyalayas. Under the advertisement, a candidate could apply in five districts only. However, this condition was interfered with by the High Court on writ petition being filed and an order was passed permitting the prospective candidates to submit their applications in respect to as many districts as they like. 

The petitioners before this Court filed their applications in respect of various districts. It is their case that they fulfil and satisfy all the necessary qualifications as prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education (here-in-after referred to as 'NCTE') and now they have passed the TET Examination also. It is their case that on the relevant date, they were within the cut-off age prescribed for consideration. 

The advertisement provided : (i) that the selection for appointment as Apprentice Teachers shall be made on the basis of the marks secured in the TET Examination, (ii) after selection, the concerned Apprentice Teacher shall be appointed in Parishadiya Vidalaya of the district concerned in accordance with his merit on a fix pay of Rs.7,300/= per month, (iii) he would be required to go training for six months. Three months of which shall be at the District Institution of Education and Training of the district concerned and second three months shall be practical training in the institution in which they are appointed, (iv) after successful completion of the training by the candidate concerned, his claim for appointment on the substantive post of teacher in Parishadiya Vidyalayas in accordance with the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 (here-in-after shall be referred as '1981 Rules') shall be considered. 

It would be appropriate, in the facts of the case, for this Court to reproduce the relevant part of the advertisement for deciding the present controversy. The same reads as under :- 

fofKIr 

mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds izkFkfed fo+|ky;ksa ds fy, izf'k{kq& f'k{kdksa dk p;u 

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 gsrq fuEukafdr vgZrkvksa ,oa fooj.k ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij vkosnu irz vkeafrzr fd;s tkrs gSa ! ,d vH;kFkhZ izns'k ds fdUgh 5 tuinksa esa vkosnu dj ldrk gSa! vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk 'kSf{kd@izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rkvksa ds lkFk foKkiu esa vafdr 'krksZ dk iw.kZ fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] ftudk fooj.k fuEuor gS%& 

(1) 'kSf{kd ,oa izf'k{k.k vgZrk%& 

jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekudks ds vuqlkj 'kSf{kd@izf'k{k.k vgZrk fuEuor gS%& 

(i) U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir egkfo+|ky;@fo'ofo+|ky;; tks fo'ofo+|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx ls ekU;rk izkIr gks ls Lukrd dh mikf/k rFkk jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls ch0,M0 vgZrk vFkok bl lEca/k esa le;≤ ij tkjh fd;s x;s jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn (ekU;rk] ekun.M vkSj fdz;kfof/k) fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj U;wure 45 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkF mijksDrkuqlkj Lukrd ,oa ch0,M0 mRrh.kZ! 

vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tkfr @vU; fiNMk oxZ@ fodykaxks@ Lorarzrk laxzke lsukfu;ksa ds vkfJrks@HkwriwoZ lSfudksa (Lo;a) vkfn ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks vgZd vadks esa 05 izfr'kr dh NwV nh tk;sxh! 

(ii) m0iz0 ljdkj }kjk d{k&1 ls 5 ds f'k{kdksa gsrq vk;ksftr v/;kid ikrzrk ijh{kk (Vh0bZ0Vh) mRrh.kZ! 

8- p;u izfdz;k 

(d) leLr p;u izfdz;k lEcfU/kr tuin ds izkpk;Z] ftyk f'k{kk vkSj izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk ftykf/kdkjh ds Ik;Zos{k.k@funsZ'ku esa lEikfnr dh tk;sxh rFkk p;u esfjV ds vk/kkj ij fuEuor fd;k tk;sxk%^ 

mRrj izns'k v/;kid ikrzrk ijh{kk (Vh0bZ0Vh0) (d{kk 1 ls 5 ds fy,) mRrh.kZ vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds uke v/;kid ikrzrk ijh{kk esa izkIr vadksa ds vojksgh dze esa j[ks tk;sxsa ijUrq ;fn nks vH;kfFkZ;ksa us leku vad izkIr fd;s gks rks vk;q esa T;s"B vH;FkhZ dks mPprj LFkku fn;k tk;sxk! 

([k) tuin dka'kh jke uxj] izcq} uxj] iap'khy uxj] Hkheuxj ,oa Nrzifr 'kkgwth egkjktuxj esa ftyk f'k{kk izf'k{k.k laLFkku dh LFkkiuk u gksus ds dkj.k] bu tuinksa gsrq p;u dh dk;Zokgh ewy tuin dze'k% tuin ,Vk] eqtQQjuxj] xkft;kckn ]eqjknkckn ,oa lqYrkuiqj esa fLFkr ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkuksa }kjk dh tk;sxh! 

(N) Pk;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds ewy vfHkys[kksa dkd lR;kiu izkpk;Z] ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku lEcfU/kr tuin }kjk vfHkys[kksa dk fuxZeu djus okyh laLFkkvksa ls djk;k tk;sxk! lR;kiu esa fHkUurk ik;s tkus dh n'kk esa p;u@tkap@fu;qfDr@izf'k{k.k fdlh Hkh Lrj ij vH;FkhZ dk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxk rFkk lEcfU/kr vH;FkhZ ds fo:} izkFkfedh ntZ djkrs gq, fof/kd dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxh! Pk;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu/kkZfjr osru :0 7300@& izfrkg ns; gksxk rFkk bUgssa rSukrh fu;ekoyh 2008 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr 2010 ds vuqlkj izkFkfed fo+|ky;ksa eS rSukr fd;k tk;sxk! 

9& N%ekg dk fo'ks"k izf'k{k.k 

tuinokj fo|ky;ksa esa rSukrh ds mijkUr fu/kkZfjr la[;k esa pj.kc} :i ls Js"Brk ds vk/kkj ij (vkj{k.k dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,) cSpokj vH;fFkZ;ksa dks N% ekg ds izf'k{k.k ij lEcfU/kr tuin ds ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku esa Hkstk tk;sxk] ftlesa ls rhu ekg dk fdz;kRed izf'k{k.k vH;FkhZ }kjk vius rSukrh okys fo|ky; esa gh izkIr djuk gksxk! 

10& ekSfyd fu;qfDr 

jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk vuqeksfnr izf'k{k.k lQyrkiwZod iw.kZ djus ds mijkUr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ekSfyd fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh m0iz0 v/;kid lsok fu;ekoyh] 1981 ,oa ckjgosa la'kks/ku 2011 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr dh tk;sxh! 

In order to keep the record straight, it may be noticed that the advertisement itself was challenged before this Court by means of civil misc. writ petition no.76039 of 2011. The High Court granted an interim order dated 14.01.2012, whereby all further proceedings in terms of the advertisement were kept in abeyance. 

Certain positive information was received by the State Government in respect of large scale mal practices having been adopted in the TET Examination of 2011. The Court has been informed that the Director of Secondary Education U.P. at the relevant time was arrested and is confined to prison even as on date. A charge-sheet has already been filed against him. 

The matter in aforesaid circumstances was considered by the cabinet of Ministers of the State of U.P. in its meeting held on 26th July, 2012. It was resolved that the TET Examination may at best be treated to be a qualifying examination only and that the necessary amendments in '1981 Rules' be made for giving effect to the said decision of the Cabinet. 

The Cabinet decision itself has been challenged in the present writ petition as well as in civil misc. writ petition no.39664 of 2012. 

In terms of the Cabinet decision, a Government Order was issued by the Principal Secretary, State of U.P. on 26.07.2012, wherein it was provided that TET Examination shall be treated to be a qualifying examination only. The Director of Basic Education was asked to take all appropriate action in terms of the said decision of the State Government. 

A decision was also taken to obtain further relaxation in respect of B.Ed. candidates by NCTE/Central Government. This order of the State Government is also under challenge in the present writ petition. It has been prayed that the respondents may be directed to make selections on the basis of marks obtained in the TET Examination and further to complete the process of selection in terms of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011. 

While the writ petition was pending, the State Government came out with 15th amendment in '1981 Rules' vide notification dated 31.08.2012 and on the said date a Government Order was also issued, wherein it was mentioned that in view of the amendments made in '1981 Rules', the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 has become redundant and the same is being cancelled. The petitioners by means of amendment application have challenged this Government Order dated 31.08.2012 as well as the 15th amendment to '1981 Rules'. 

The State Government has made further amendments in the '1981 Rules' called the 16th amendment vide notification dated 05.12.2012. By means of the said 16th amendment, the State Government has for the first time introduced appointment of Trainee Teachers in Parishadiya Vidyalayas. 

The State Government has also published an advertisement dated 07.12.2012 inviting applications from the candidates, who are graduate, B.Ed. and have passed TET Examination, for appointment as Trainee Teachers against the duly created post of teachers in Parishadiya Vidyalayas. As per the advertisement, the criteria for selection shall be the quality points marks to be calculated, as per the percentage achieved in various examinations by the candidate concerned. TET Examination has only been treated to be an eligibility examination. 

It is not necessary for this Court to examine the illegality or otherwise of the advertisement dated 07.12.2012 in the present writ petition, inasmuch as the said advertisement is under challenge in the subsequent writ petitions filed by most of the petitioners, which shall be dealt with at the appropriate time. 

Conitnued in Part -2