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

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / 

Teacher Recruitment News

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.....