UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt - TET as Mandatory Qualification and No Relaxation from it to become Teacher, Order dated 18th April 2013

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt - TET as Mandatory Qualification and No Relaxation from it to become Teacher, Order dated 18th April 2013

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 5 

Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 2321 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Gopi Nath Tiwari & Others 

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. & Others 

Petitioner Counsel :- Ashish Kumar Singh 

Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Vindhyawashini Kumar 

Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. 

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Vindhyawashini Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3. 

The writ petition has been filed seeking suitable order or direction to opposite party no. 3 to consider the candidature of petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher without there being any requirement of passing Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as the TET). 

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners being ex-army personnel were admitted in B.T.C. Training Course, 2004. The petitioners have passed the B.T.C. Examination in 2012, however, at the time of admission in B.T.C. Course, there was no such requirement for passing TET, as such, petitioners cannot be required to have the qualification of TET for consideration for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in primary schools. 

It is also submitted that the post of Assistant Teacher primary is to be filled up as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha (Adhypak) Sewa Niyamawali, 1981, particularly, Rule 18 which itself provide that essential qualification would be as per the qualification prescribed at the time of admission in the training course. 

Submission is that since at the time of admission to B.T.C. Training in 2004 there was no requirement of passing TET as such the same cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. 

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that similarly situated 20 persons have been given appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher primary schools without insisting for the requirement of passing TET, as such, it amounts to hostile discrimination. 

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher primary school is to be considered at the time of issuance of the advertisement and merely because the petitioners were admitted in B.T.C. training in 2004 do not entitle them to be considered for appointment on the post in question without having the qualification of passing TET. 

It is further submitted that NCTE vide notification dated 23.8.2010 had introduced the requirement of passing TET for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The said requirement has been made applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh from the year 2011 and in all the appointments on the post of Assistant Teacher made thereafter the candidate was required to possess the qualification of passing TET. 

It is also submitted that the petitioners have not passed the B.T.C.Course prior to 2010 as such in any case they can be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher only after passing B.T.C. training. Since petitioners have passed B.T.C. training in the year 2012 as such they are required to pass TET. 

I have considered the submissions made by parties counsel. 

The petitioners were admitted in B.T.C. Training Course in the year 2004, however, they have passed the said course in the year 2012. The NCTE vide notification dated 23.8.2010 had introduced the requirement of passing TET for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The post of Assistant Teacher primary schools on which the petitioners claim appointments were advertised in the year 2012. The petitioners had obtained the qualification of B.T.C. in the year 2012. They had become eligible to the post of Assistant Teacher primary only in the year 2012, as such, since at the time of becoming eligible for the post in question there was also requirement of passing TET, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be exempted from having the required qualification of passing TET for being eligible for consideration on the post of Assistant Teacher primary. 

So far as appointment of 20 persons vide order dated 26.6.2011 is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel has informed on the basis of instructions that the said appointments were made prior to enforcement of the requirement of passing TET, as such, petitioners cannot claim parity or similarity with such persons, who have been given appointments vide letter dated 26.6.2011. 

It is also to be noted that Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha (Adhypak) Sewa Niyamawali, 1981 is to be read along with notification dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE for the purpose of essential qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher Junior Basic Schools, as such, I am of the view that the essential qualification required for the post in question shall be of possessing B.T.C. certificate and having passed TET. 

In this view of the matter, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 

Order Date :- 18.4.2013 

Prajapati 

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2516936