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 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
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 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
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.