SARKARI NAUKRI - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -

SARKARI NAUKRI   -  TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -


WPC 5249/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.
5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
:  Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT  (Hindi)  in  the  reserved  category with  the  Nehru  Adarsh  Senior  Secondary School.   Petitioner   claims   that   he   had   the   necessary   qualifications   of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and  having  been  selected  in  the  interview he ought  to  have  been  given
appointment.
2.
Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education
.
T
he school in question
namely  Nehru  Adarsh  Senior  Secondary  School
is  represented  through
WPC 5249/2012
Page
2
of
8
respondent nos. 2 and 3
.  Counter
-
affidavits filed by these resp
ondents show
that  petitioner  was  not  given  appointment  because  as  per  the  relevant
provisions
Sections  2(a)&(n)  &  23(1)
of  the  Right  of  Children  to  Free  and
Compulsory  Education  Act, 2009  there  cannot be appointment of  a  teacher
in the school unless the te
acher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET)
qualification,  and  since  the  petitioner  did
not  have  the  CTET  qualification
,
petitioner was not appointed.  Along with the counter
-
affidavit of respondent
no.1,  the  circular  of  the  Govt.  of  NCT  of  Delhi  da
ted  29.2.2012  has  been
annexed  as  Annexure  R
-
1  to  show  that  schools  are  illegally  appointing
persons  as  teachers  in  spite  of
not  having
the  r
equirement  of  CTET
qualification
as  per  the  RTE  Act,  2009  and  schools  have  been  directed  to
ensure  compliance  of  CT
ET  requirement  for  appointing  of  a  person  as  a
teacher in the school.  This circular
dated 29.2.2012
reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification   Regarding   Recruiting   Only   CTET   Qualified
Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012
Page
3
of
8
In pursuance of
sub
-
section (1) or Section 23 o
f
the Right
of  Children  to  Free  and  Compulsory  Education  Act  2009,  the
National Council for Teacher Education,
vide their
Notification
No.215   F.N.61
-
03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S)   dated   23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of
the  minimum  essential  qualification  for  a person  to  be  eligible
for appointment as teacher to teach in the school
s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  RTE  Act  and  the
aforementioned Notification issued by the National council for
Teacher    Education,    the    Directorate    of    Education,    vide
Notification     No.     F4(6
)(350)/E
-
IV/2011/621     issued     on
07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor
of  the  GNCT  Delhi,  recognized  only  the  Central  Teacher
Eligibility  Test  conducted  by  the  Central  Board  of  Secondary
Education  in  lieu  of  State  Eligibility  Test  for  a
ppointment  of
teachers  to  teach  classes  I  to  VIII  in  the  schools  referred  in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi
Gazette   Extra   Ordinary   Part   IV   on   07.10.2011,   and   also
circulated     widely     vide     Cir
cular     No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
-
IV/2011/18875
-
18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite  the  aforesaid  provision  having  come  into  force
with
its  modification  with  effect  from  07.10.2011,  it  has  been
observed that some schools are still considering application
-
for
recruitme
nt  to  various  teaching  posts
-
submitted  by  candidates
who  have  not  qualified  the  CTET,  which  act  on  their  part  is
unlawful  and  warrants  action  as  per  the  as  per  appropriate
provisions of law.
It   is,   therefore,   reiterated   that   with   effect   from   the
aforesaid
notification,  only  CTET  qualified  teachers  shall  be
employed  by  the  government  aided  schools  as  referred  to  in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.”
WPC 5249/2012
Page
4
of
8
3.
It is therefore clear that no one can be appointed as a teacher in
a school after the passing o
f the Right to Education Act, 2009
(in short „RTE
Act,  2009)
,
read  with
the  notification  of  National  Council  for  Teacher
Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.
4.
In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner c
laims
to  the  post  of  TGT(Hindi)  is  after  the  National  Council  for  Teacher
Education  notification  dated  23.8.2010,  and  therefore,  unless  the  petitioner
has  CTET  qualification,  and  admittedly  which
qualification
the  petitioner
did not have at the time of his
being selected,
he
cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent
-
school.
5.
Counsel  for  the  petitioner  made  three  submissions  before  this
Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition.  The first is that the
advertisement
in   question   did   not   mention   the   requirement   of   CTET
qualification  and  therefore  rules  of  the  game  cannot  be  changed  once  the
selection  process  is  set  into  motion.    The  second
submission
is  that
Government  of  NCT  of  Delhi  itself  is  employing  teachers  withou
t  CTET
qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against,
and  reliance  for  this  purpose  is  placed  upon  the  advertisement  dated
13.9.2011   issued   for   recruitment   of   2012   which   does   not   have   the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
5
of
8
requirement of a CTET qualification
for a teacher.
The     third
submission
made
is  by  placing  reliance  o
n
the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the
case  of
Y.V.Rangaiah  and  Others  Vs.  J.Sreenivasa  Rao  and  Others  1983
SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284
that vacancies have to be filled in as per
the
recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not
when the vacancies are filled in.
6
.
So  far  as  the
first
argument,  which  is  urged  on  behalf  the
petitioner is concerned that rules of the games cannot be changed mid way
because  the  a
dvertisement  did  not  prescribe  the  requirement  of  CTET
qualification, in my opinion, th
is
argument if accepted
,
the same
will amount
to Court becoming a party
to
gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act
, 2009.  Once the law requires a
specific  qualification  for  appointment,
assuming  that  the
auth
orities  may
choose  to  wink  and
not  comply  with  the  requirement,  cannot  mean  that
C
ourt should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute.  It
cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act,
2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after
2009,  there  was  a  requirement  of  CTET  qualification  for  a  teacher.    Once
there  is  a  statutory  requiremen
t
,
C
ourt  can  give  its  imprimatur  to  an  action
WPC 5249/2012
Page
6
of
8
which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications. 
I  therefore,  r
efuse  to  accede  to  the  argument
that  merely  because  the
advertisement  does  not  provide  requirement  of  CTET  qualifica
tion,  simply
for  that  reason  appointment  should  be  made  ignoring  the  requirement  of
CTET  qualification,  and
effectively  ignoring  the  statutory  provisions  and
statutory notifications.
7
.
So  far  as  the  second  argument  is  concerned,  the  same  also
stands  reje
cted  in  view  of  the
above
discussion
of
the  first  argument
,
because
,
there cannot be estoppel against law.  I must also observe that I am
doubtful  if  merely  by  the  petitioner  filing  the  recruitment  notification  of
2012  for  appointment  of  teachers,  teachers
would  have  been  appointed  by
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8
.
Therefore,   the   argument   that   CTET   qualification   can   be
overlooked
and
can  be
so
accepted  by  the  Courts
is  not  correct,
and  also
I
cannot
accept  the  argument  tha
t  merely  because  advertisement  of  2012
which
is   filed
does   not   mention   requirement   of
CTET   qualification
,
therefore,
actual  recruitment  must  have  been  done  by  the  Govt.  of  NCT  of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers
,
w
ho did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012
Page
7
of
8
9.
The  third  and  the  final  argument  urged  on  behalf  of  the
petitioner  did  carry  some  substance  because  it  is  the  law  that  recruitment
should  be  as  per  the  recruitment  rules  when  the  vacancies  arise,  however,
this
argum
ent
will not
hold good
if there is statutory provision covering the
field.  As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take  place  recruitments  only  as  per  the  extant  recruitment  rules  when  the
vacancies
occurred
, however, this is
not a universal rule and it has so been
held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State
of  Uttar  Pradesh  &  Ors.  (2011)  6  SCC  725
wherein  the  Supreme  Court
referred  to  the  earlier  judgment  in  the  case  of
Y.V.Rangaiah  (supra)
and
ob
served that once there are statutory rules, such statutory
rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be
filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises.  Once there are
statutory rules and
statutory provisions which hold the field
,
the judgment in
the case of
Y.V.Rangaiah (supra)
will not apply and which will really apply
to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even
with respect to administrative circulars
,
rules and notifications
,
there
may be
in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically
ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when
the  vacancy
had  arisen
inasmuch  as  it  is  not
un
known  to  law  t
hat  if  the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
8
of
8
legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application
of  a  particular  requirement  as  per  the  facts  of  each  case
,
because,
what  is
really to be examined
is
that
actually is
there a
violation of Article 14 of the
Constituti
on of  India  i.e  whether  or  not  action of the  employer  is  arbitrary. 
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer
in  requiring  the  retrospective  application  of  a  qualification  may  not  be
arbitrary,  however  I  need  not  obs
erve  in  this  regard  one
way
or  the  other
,
inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions,
statutory  rules  and  statutory  notifications  which  bar  the  appointment  of  a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET q
ualification.
1
0
.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and
the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25
, 201
3
/
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.



 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 2011, 72825 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
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 / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET