Thursday, April 16, 2015

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - TGT Yachee ne Ko Ant Mein Pata Chala Ki TET Mandatory hone Kee Vajhe Se Nokri Nahin Milee -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - TGT Yachee ne  Ko Ant Mein Pata Chala Ki TET Mandatory hone Kee Vajhe Se Nokri Nahin Milee  -

Ek Anya Yachee Ke Pass TET Certificate to Mojood Thee, Lekin Advt Mein TET Mahin Maangne se Usne Submit Nahin Kiyaa Thaa, Usko Court Ne Raahat Pradaan Kar Dee, Aur Nokri Dene Ke Leeye Nirdeshit Kar Deeyaa




IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER
W.P.(C) 5675/2013
Decided on: 12.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
UMA KUMARI                                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with
                                        Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate  
                                        versus
THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL &
ORS.                                                                                ..... Respondents
                              Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with 
                                        Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal, 
                                        Advocates for R-1/School.
                                        Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.
                                        Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM 
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 
1.       The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia  that the  appointment  of  the respondent  No.4  be declared as bad  in law  and her appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be quashed. 
 2.      Briefly  stated,  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that the  IAF  Educational  and Cultural   Society   had   issued   an   advertisement   dated 31.01.2012   for recruitment  of  teaching  and  administrative  staff,  including  the  appointment of  teachers  to  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi),  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  the present petition. The required qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi) was graduation  in  Hindi  (Hons.)  with  50%  marks  and  Bachelors  Degree  in Education.  The  applicants  were  expected  to  submit  their  forms  to  the respondents by 09.02.2012. The eligible candidates had to undergo a written test on 09.02.2012 and those, who would qualify in
the written test, were to participate in a personal interview.  
3.       It  is  the  petitioner’s  case  that  she  had  appeared  in  the  written examination  on  the  date  and  time  mentioned  in  the  advertisement  and  she had  successfully  cleared  the  said  examination.    Vide  intimation  dated 24.02.2012,   the   petitioner   was   called   to   appear   for
   an   interview   on 02.03.2012.  The petitioner had appeared before the  Selection Board on the
assigned day for an interview, whereafter she kept waiting for the results to be  declared  by  the  respondent  No.1/School.  However,   when  the  petitioner accessed the website of the respondent No.1/School,  she discovered that her name was not included as one of the successful candidates.  
4.       Aggrieved by the results declared by the respond ent No.1/School for  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi),  the  petitioner  had  a  legal   notice  dated  9.4.2012  issued to the respondent No.1/School stating interalia that she possessed the desired   educational   qualifications   and   had   also   cle
ared   the   written examination  and  participated  in  the  interview  but  was  not  selected,  in
violation  of  the  rules  and  regulations.    It  was  also    stated  that  as  per  the Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  National  Council  for  Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a candidate to qualify in the Teacher   Eligibility   Test   (in   short   ‘TET’)   which   is
conducted   by   the appropriate  Government  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines  framed  in  that
regard  and  if  the  School  had  appointed  a  teacher,  who  did  not  qualify  the TET, then such an appointment was invalid. 
5.       When   the   petitioner   failed   to   receive   any   response   from   the respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C)  3025/2012  praying  inter  alia  that  the  respondent  No.1/School  be directed to appoint her to the post of TGT (Hindi).
6.       The  aforesaid  petition  was  disposed  of  vide  order  dated  18.05.2012, with  directions  to  the  respondent  No.1/School  that it  should  respond  to  the legal  notice  dated  09.04.2012,  by  passing  a  speaking  order  and  the  same should be communicated to the petitioner.  The afor
esaid order was passed at the  stage  of  admission  and  at  that  time,  the  School  was  not  represented before  the  court.    In  the  meantime,  the  respondent No.1/School  on  its  own
sent  a  reply  dated  19.5.2012  to  the  legal  notice  issued  by  the  petitioner, denying  the  allegations  leveled  against  it  and  stating  inter  alia  that  the petitioner was not found fit for selection to the post of TGT (Hindi) and was therefore,  not  selected.  It  was  also  stated that  th
e  Selection  Committee  had considered  the  candidature  of  all  the  candidates  objectively  and  thereafter, selected  the  eligible  candidates.  Aggrieved  by  the aforesaid  stand  taken  by
the respondent No.1/School, the petitioner has filed the present petition.  
7.       The  leitmotif  of  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  counsel  for  the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the subject  post is that the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010  prescribes that a school  cannot  appoint  teachers  to  the  post  of  Primary  Regu
lar  Teacher  (PRT)  or  TGT  (Class  I  to  VIII)  when  they  do  not  possess  the  TET  certificate.    He  submits that the petitioner herein possesses the TET certificate issued by the Haryana  Education  Board,  but the  respondent  No.4,  who  has  been selected to the subject post, does not possess the said qualification and therefore her appointment ought to be quashed. 
8.       Ms. Palli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/School disputes the  submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of  the   Court   to   the   Circular   dated   06.03.2012   issued   by   the   respondent  No.2/CBSE,  wherein  it  is  stated  that  the  TET  conduc
ted  by  the  Central Government  would  apply  to  schools  under  the  Central   Government  and
Union  Territories  without  Legislature,  and  that  the   Managements  of  the schools  affiliated  to  the  Boards  such  as  CBSE,  ICSE   etc.  may  also  opt  for  the TET conducted by the Central Government. Learned counsel states that the  Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  NCT
E  was  directed  to  be implemented   by   the   CBSE   only   on   06.03.2012,   whereas
   the   subject  advertisement  was  issued  prior  thereto,  on  31.01.2012  and  the  selection
process  was  completed  by  02.03.2012,  which  was  also   prior  in  time  and
therefore,  possession  of  a  TET  certificate  was  not mandatory  for  the candidates at that point in time.  
9.       Supporting   the   aforesaid   submission,   learned   counsel   for   the respondent  No.4  adds  that  though  possession  of  a  TET  certificate  was  not mandatory  prior  to  issuance  of  the  Circular  dated  6.3.2012,  his  client  had passed  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  held  in  November,  2011, as  stipulated  in  the  Notification  dated  23.8.2010  issued  by  the  NCTE.    In
support  of  the  said  submission,  learned  counsel  refers  to  page  215  of  the paper  book,  where he  has  filed    a  copy  of  the  Certificate dated  25.11.2011 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate  Education, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of the respondent No.4, certifying inter alia that she had  passed  Uttar  Pradesh  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  held  in  November,  2011
(Upper Primary Level).  He further states that subsequently in the year 2013, the  respondent  No.4  had  passed  Central  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  (in  short ‘CTET’)  and  was  issued  a  Certificate  dated  02.09.2013,  that  is  placed  at page 216 of the paper book. 
10.     In  view  of  the  documents  placed  on  record  by  the  respondent  No.4 that  include  a  TET  certificate of  Upper  Primary  Level  issued  in  her  favour by the State of U.P. and a CTET certificate issued in her favour by the CBSE, it  is  manifestly  clear  that  she  satisfies  the  requi
rements  of  the  Notification dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  NCTE.    Moreover  as  is  apparent  from  a perusal of the advertisement enclosed with the writ  petition, at the time when
the   subject   advertisement   was   issued   by   the   respondent   No.1/School, inviting   applications   to   fill-up   the   posts   of   TGT   (Hindi),   it   was   not mandatory  for  the  candidates  to  possess  the  TET  certificate.    The  only qualifications  that  a  candidates  was  required  to  possess  was  graduation  in Hindi  (Hons.)  with  50%  marks  and  a  Bachelor’s  degree    in  Education  and the respondent no.4 fulfilled both the qualifications.  
11.     The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the copies of the certificates  filed  by  the  respondent  No.4  ought  to be  verified  by  the respondent No.1/School, is found to be rather incon
gruent in the light of the fact that on her part, the petitioner has chosen not to file any such certificate
to  substantiate  her  claim  that  she  possesses  a  TET certificate  purportedly issued  by  the  State  of  Haryana.    This  demand  is  all   the  more  discordant when  the  sole  argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  to  assail  the appointment of the respondent No.4 is non-possessio
n of the TET certificate by  her.    Had  the  petitioner  wanted  to  file  the  said   certificate,  she  had  an opportunity to do so alongwith the writ petition and having  failed to do so at that  stage,  she  could  have  done  so  while  filing  the   rejoinder  to  the  counter affidavits   filed   by   the   respondent   no.1/School   and respondent   No.4.  However, for reasons best known to her, the petitio
ner elected not to do so. 
Therefore,  counsel  for  the  petitioner  cannot  insist  that  the  respondent  No.4 be directed to produce her original certificates for purposes of verification. 
12.     In view of the  aforesaid  facts and  circumstances, this  Court is of the opinion  that  the  appointment  of  the  respondent  No.4   to  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi) does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness for interference in the  present  proceedings.  The  writ  petition  is  dismi
ssed  as  being  devoid  of merits while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 12, 2014                                                           JUDGE   







 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
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

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
 

No comments:

Post a Comment

To All,
Please do not use abusive languages in Anger.
Write your comment Wisely, So that other Visitors/Readers can take it Seriously.
Thanks.