UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Science / Arts Stream Issue in BTC Category -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 74086 of 2011
Petitioner :- Narendra Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rashmi Tripathi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. Heard Shri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Ms. Rashmi Tripathi appears for respondent no.4.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner's selection for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 under General Male Science Group. He has further prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit him and permit for completion of Special B.T.C. 2004 with all consequential benefits within stipulated period.
3. It appears from the record that the petitioner obtained B.Sc degree from Delhi University in the year 1993 and B.P. Ed (one year Degree Course) from the Nagpur University in the year 1996 (Session-1995-96). An advertisement dated 22/23.1.2004 was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagaran" for selection of Special B.T.C. Course 2004 to the candidates, who have B.Ed/L.T. qualifications. Subsequently, the State Government vide Government Order dated 20.2.2004 had amended the earlier Government Order dated 14.1.2004 and given liberty to the candidates, who have B.P.Ed/D.P.Ed and C.P.Ed qualifications as eligibility for selection of Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Pursuant to the amendment, again an advertisement was issued on 22.2.2004 in conformity with the said amendment. The petitioner having requisite qualifications had applied along with necessary papers. The documents were scrutinized and examined by the respondents. Thereafter the quality point mark/merit was prepared on 20.4.2004 and as such the petitioner had secured 308.61 quality point marks under General Male Science Group whereas the last selected candidate had secured 305.84 quality point marks in the same category. It has also been averred in the writ petition that despite the better quality point marks under the said category, the petitioner was not called for training by the respondents. He had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.35518 of 2004 and this Court passed an interim order on 31.8.2004 in favour of the petitioner, which is extracted below:-
"Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. He is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the second week of November, 2004.
Until further orders, it is provided that the petitioner's candidature for the Special B.T.C. 2004 shall not be rejected provided the B.P.Ed Degree Course passed by the petitioner in the year 1996 is approved by the National Council of Teachers Education."
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid interim order, the respondent no.2 directed the petitioner to appear on 12.10.2004 for counselling in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 along with necessary relevant documents. Despite the aforesaid proceeding the petitioner had not been admitted for the aforesaid course on the ground that he had B.P.Ed degree from other State i.e. outside the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1995-96 and further his claim has been rejected on the ground that the said degree was not recognised by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE).
5. In this background the present writ petition is being filed assailing the impugned order specially on the ground that since the aforesaid two questions, regarding the recognition of degrees issued by the University till 1996, and another question whether the degree obtained from the other States, were subjudiced before this Court in Special Appeal No.989 of 2008 (Bhupendra Nath Tripathi vs. State of UP and ors) decided on 6.1.2009 and the Writ Petition No.3733 of 2009 (Jitendra Kumar Soni vs. State of UP & ors) decided on 13.8.2010 and while deciding the issues this Court had specifically held that the candidature for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 shall not be rejected only on the ground that the degree obtained from the other States and further the candidature shall not be rejected on the ground that the aforesaid degree/course is not recognised by the NCTE, which was issued till the year 1996 before the said Act has come into an existence. In this background the aforesaid writ petition, which has been filed by the petitioner, was listed before this Court and by a detailed judgment and order dated 3.5.2011 corrected on 5.5.2011 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 holding that the candidature of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that his B.P.Ed degree was not recognised by the NCTE and he has obtained the degree from the other State. The respondent no.3 vide the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 rejected the selection of the petitioner on the ground that his duplicate marksheet of B.Sc issued on 14.1.2001 mentioned the passing year 2000, whereas his graduation degree/certificate indicated the passing year 1993 and further the aforesaid degree i.e. B.Sc Physical Education passed in the year 1993 from the Delhi University and the same would be applicable to the Art category in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 and since his quality point marks is less than the quality point marks of the last selected candidate in Art category, therefore, he was not entitled for the selection in the Special B.T.C. Course 2004 under General Male Science Group. While passing the impugned order it had also been observed that the institution, from which he obtained B.P.Ed degree, was not mentioned in the list of institutions affiliated to Nagpur University and as such, he was not entitled for the aforesaid course.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in most cursory manner on the ground that the original mark sheet of graduation i.e. B.Sc issued by Delhi University to the petitioner in the year 1993 was misplaced. Then again he had approached the University concerned in the month of January, 2001 and obtained the duplicate marksheet on 14.1.2011 on the available proforma of the University in which 200 marks was printed and due to human error/mistake the same was not corrected by the University, whereas the certificate/degree dated 15.5.1994 was rightly issued showing the passing year of B.Sc. i.e. 1993 and the mark sheets issued in B.Sc Part-I, Part-II and Part-III have also been brought on record as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the institution, from where he had obtained B.P.Ed certificate, was very much recognised from the Nagpur University, whereas the said institution was shown at serial no.72 and available on the website of the University. The same has also been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground that the respondents had treated the graduation degree i.e. B.Sc Physical Education in the Art stream whereas this controversy had already been settled down by this Court in Writ Petition No.22141 of 2004 (Niranjan Singh and ors vs. State of UP and ors) in which this Hon'ble Court held that the B.Sc Physical Education would be treated as graduation degree in Science.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further makes submission that Section Officer, Examination Branch, University of Delhi vide his letter dated 19.9.2011 had also clarified the anomaly, which was cropped up while issuing the duplicate certificate whereas it has been observed that the petitioner was awarded B.Sc certificate in the year 1993 under roll no.9823 in which he obtained 892 marks out of 1600 marks and passed in 2nd division. The clarification has also been brought on record as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ground taken by the respondents for denial of petitioner's right cannot be sustained specially on the ground that whatever the objection taken by the respondents in not conferring the benefits had already been settled by this Court. He has placed his reliance on the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22141 of 2004 (Niranjan Singh & others vs. State of UP & others) alongwith connected 72 matters. Hon'ble Division Bench had decided the controversy with following observations:-
"In all these writ petitions the question which falls for determination is as to whether candidates who had passed Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) or Bachelor of Science (Home Science) and applied for admission to the Special Basic Teaching Certificate (in short Special BTC) Course 2004 shall be treated as candidates of Science stream or Arts stream.
In view of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 13.4.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32309 of 2003 (Kripa Shankar Dubey VS. State of U.P and others) as affirmed in Special Appeal No. 975 of 2004, there is no escape from the conclusion that B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Sc. (Home Science) candidates have to be treated in science stream.
The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment observed as under:-
"............. court is of the opinion that there is no material for clubbing B.Sc. (Ag) in Arts category and as such this condition, which has been sought to be imposed, appears to be unreasonable on the face of it.
...................
In this view of the fact, as the petitioner had filled up form for consideration of his candidature as Science category candidate and has undertaken the aforementioned examination in the aforementioned category as such it is hereby directed that petitioner shall be treated as Science category candidate and admission be accorded to him on merit by treating him as Science category candidate."
It is further relevant here to state that the State Government by its order dated 10.7.2007 had decided that B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Sc. (Home Science) candidates shall be considered to be candidates belonging to science stream.
The relevant extract of the aforesaid Government order is reproduced herein below:-
^^,sls vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus ch0,l0lh0] ch0,l0lh0 ¼d`f"k½ vFkok ch0,l0lh0 ¼x`g foKku½ ls Lukrd ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gks] os foKku oxZ ds vH;FkhZ ekus tk;saxsA buds vfrfjDr vU; oxksZa ds mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ dyk oxZ esa ekus tk;saxs**A
In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the candidates who had obtained their decree for B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. (Home Science) be treated to be candidates belonging to the science stream for the purposes of admission to the Special BTC course 2004.
Counsel for the petitioners state that a large number of seats are still available in the Special BTC course 2004 on which the candidates who have passed Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) and Bachelor of (Home Science) can be accommodated.
We do not find any material to record a finding in this regard. In case seats/vacancies are available for admission, the respondents shall consider the cases of all those candidates who had passed B.Sc. Science (Agriculture) or B.Sc. Science (Home Science) treating them to be belonging to the science stream. Benefit of this order shall not only be confined to the writ petitioners but would be available to all the candidates who had applied and belong to aforesaid categories.
All the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.35518 of 2004 filed by the petitioner decided on 3.5.2011. The order is reproduced herein below:-
"The petitioner passed out B.Ed course from Kanpur University in the year 1995-96. The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.C.T.E.') came into force on 17.8.1995. The candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C course was not accepted on the ground that he has obtained B.Ed. degree in the year 1995-96 from an institution, which was not approved by N.C.T.E. It is admitted that under Section 14(5) the B.Ed course which were already run by the respective institutions on the date when the Act came into force shall be allowed to be completed without their being any requirement of N.C.T.E.
Km. Rashmi Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents could not make any substantive submission even otherwise to pursue the court to take a different view.
The matter is also covered by a Full Bench decision of this court in Bhoopendra Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others in S.A. No.858 of 2008 decided on 6.1.2009 and Jitendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P. in W.P. NO. 3733 of 2009 decided on 13-08-2010.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondents shall consider the candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C. course. It is made clear that her candidature shall not be rejected only on the ground that the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner is not recognized by the N.C.T.E and has been obtained from the other State.
The exercise in this regard shall be completed within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him and in case the petitioner is found eligible and within merit, he shall be admitted for the said course. Appropriate consequential action shall be taken immediately thereafter."
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed his reliance on the judgment and order dated 7.4.2014 passed in Writ A No.54586 of 2011 (Fouj Dar Yadav vs. State of UP and others). For ready reference the same is also reproduced herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner has been selected for Special BTC Course-2004. The question arose as to whether in the B.P.Ed. Examination cleared by the petitioner, the marks of only theory examination were to be taken into consideration for calculating quality point marks or practical marks would also be taken into consideration. The authority only considered theory marks and did not add the practical marks while calculating quality point marks. This question was raised before this Court in large number of decisions. Ultimately in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others this Court held that the marks obtained in the practical examination would also be added for calculating quality point marks. The judgment in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla was upheld by the Division Bench and Special Leave Petition filed by the State was also dismissed. Based on the aforesaid decision in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla the petitioner's Writ Petition No.7299 of 2010 was also disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 with direction to the competent authority to take an appropriate decision in the light of the judgment in the cases of Shashi Kant Shukla, Pradyumn Dutt Singh and Mahesh Prasad Tiwari within three weeks. The petitioner submitted his representation alongwith the judgment of this Court whereupon the Director, SCERT vide order dated 11.07.2011, rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that the B.P.Ed. degree of the applicant was not genuine. The said order dated 11.07.2011 has been challenged by means of the present petition.
B.P.Ed. degree of the petitioner was issued by the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur which has been impleaded as respondent no.4 in the writ petition. Sri Anil Tiwari and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocates appear for the University and they have filed three affidavits in response to the notice and further direction issued by the Court. In the first affidavit dated 28.11.2011 which has been sworn by Sri Ram Siromani Yadav, Examination Controller, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur it has been stated in paragraph 3 that the petitioner has passed Bachelor of Physical Education Course from Kisan P.G. College Baghaon, Ghazipur in the year 2001. Further the affidavit mentions that as there was some inadvertent mistake in issuance of the degree of the petitioner the same was subsequently corrected. The original degree issued was taken back by the University and a fresh degree was issued. In the affidavit the process of issuance of degree has been mentioned. However the same is not relevant for deciding the present controversy.
The crux of the affidavit is that the petitioner was validly declared successful in B.P.Ed. Course in the year 2000-01. The discrepancy mentioned by the Director, SCERT in the impugned order was purely technical for which the petitioner was not responsible but the University Authorities were responsible. In that regard the Court had already issued directions and appropriate inquiry has been got conducted in the matter by the Vice Chancellor and also the Secretary Higher Education.
Since the only reason for rejecting the claim of the applicant and his admission to Special BTC Course-2004 was discrepancy in the B.P.Ed Degree and that having been found to be genuine and valid in view of the affidavit filed by the Authorities of the University, the impugned order dated 11.07.2011, passed by the Director, SCERT cannot be sustained.
Accordingly writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugend order dated 11.07.2011 is hereby quashed. The Director, SCERT is directed to pass fresh orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that still the vacancy is in existence for Special BTC Course 2004 and has placed his reliance on the orders passed in Writ A No.10018 of 2015 (Rajeev Verma and 102 ors vs. State of UP & 3 ors) decided on 19.2.2015 and the order passed in Writ A No.12365 of 2015 (Alka Gupta and 36 ors vs. State of UP and 3 ors) decided on 26.2.2015. The order dated 19.2.2015 passed in Writ A No.10018 of 2015 is reproduced herein below:-
"The petitioners claim to have completed Special BTC-2004. The contention of the petitioner is that the Special BTC Training Course was conducted for 46,189 vacancy. As per the information under RTI given by the Director, SCERT, only 35,738 vacancies have been filled up till 31.10.2011. The contention of the petitioners is that the vacancy for Special BTC Course-2004 was conducted, still exist.
The contention is that earlier similarly situated candidate namely Smt. Deep Mala Sengar has approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4246 of 2013 (Smt. Deep Mala Sengar Vs. State of U.P. and others) and pursuant to the directions of this Court to decide her claim, she was given appointment on 21th November, 2013.
The contention of the petitioner is that TET qualification cannot be made compulsory in respect of the petitioner for the reason that they are claiming appointment against the vacancies for which the selection was held in the year 2004. The petitioners have approached the Director, SCERT on 10.10.2014. Till date, no decision has been taken and hence this writ petition.
Sri Virendra Chaubey, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate that the matter be first examined by respondent no. 2 who is the competent authority.
In view thereof, the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the vacancy for which the selection for Special BTC Course-2004 was held i.e. for 46,189 vacancy.
An expeditious decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him."
14. It is apparent that the petitioner passed his B.Sc degree from Delhi University in the year 1993 and B.P.Ed (One Year Degree Course) from Nagpur University in the year 1996 (Session 1995-96) and the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 came into force on 17.8.1995. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied in the light of the observations made as above.
15. In view of above, the order impugned dated 23.8.2011 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.
16. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 i.e. Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment against the vacancies for which the selection for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 was held.
Order Date :- 9.3.2015
RKP
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 / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
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
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 74086 of 2011
Petitioner :- Narendra Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rashmi Tripathi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. Heard Shri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Ms. Rashmi Tripathi appears for respondent no.4.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner's selection for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 under General Male Science Group. He has further prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit him and permit for completion of Special B.T.C. 2004 with all consequential benefits within stipulated period.
3. It appears from the record that the petitioner obtained B.Sc degree from Delhi University in the year 1993 and B.P. Ed (one year Degree Course) from the Nagpur University in the year 1996 (Session-1995-96). An advertisement dated 22/23.1.2004 was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagaran" for selection of Special B.T.C. Course 2004 to the candidates, who have B.Ed/L.T. qualifications. Subsequently, the State Government vide Government Order dated 20.2.2004 had amended the earlier Government Order dated 14.1.2004 and given liberty to the candidates, who have B.P.Ed/D.P.Ed and C.P.Ed qualifications as eligibility for selection of Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Pursuant to the amendment, again an advertisement was issued on 22.2.2004 in conformity with the said amendment. The petitioner having requisite qualifications had applied along with necessary papers. The documents were scrutinized and examined by the respondents. Thereafter the quality point mark/merit was prepared on 20.4.2004 and as such the petitioner had secured 308.61 quality point marks under General Male Science Group whereas the last selected candidate had secured 305.84 quality point marks in the same category. It has also been averred in the writ petition that despite the better quality point marks under the said category, the petitioner was not called for training by the respondents. He had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.35518 of 2004 and this Court passed an interim order on 31.8.2004 in favour of the petitioner, which is extracted below:-
"Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. He is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the second week of November, 2004.
Until further orders, it is provided that the petitioner's candidature for the Special B.T.C. 2004 shall not be rejected provided the B.P.Ed Degree Course passed by the petitioner in the year 1996 is approved by the National Council of Teachers Education."
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid interim order, the respondent no.2 directed the petitioner to appear on 12.10.2004 for counselling in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 along with necessary relevant documents. Despite the aforesaid proceeding the petitioner had not been admitted for the aforesaid course on the ground that he had B.P.Ed degree from other State i.e. outside the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1995-96 and further his claim has been rejected on the ground that the said degree was not recognised by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE).
5. In this background the present writ petition is being filed assailing the impugned order specially on the ground that since the aforesaid two questions, regarding the recognition of degrees issued by the University till 1996, and another question whether the degree obtained from the other States, were subjudiced before this Court in Special Appeal No.989 of 2008 (Bhupendra Nath Tripathi vs. State of UP and ors) decided on 6.1.2009 and the Writ Petition No.3733 of 2009 (Jitendra Kumar Soni vs. State of UP & ors) decided on 13.8.2010 and while deciding the issues this Court had specifically held that the candidature for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 shall not be rejected only on the ground that the degree obtained from the other States and further the candidature shall not be rejected on the ground that the aforesaid degree/course is not recognised by the NCTE, which was issued till the year 1996 before the said Act has come into an existence. In this background the aforesaid writ petition, which has been filed by the petitioner, was listed before this Court and by a detailed judgment and order dated 3.5.2011 corrected on 5.5.2011 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 holding that the candidature of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that his B.P.Ed degree was not recognised by the NCTE and he has obtained the degree from the other State. The respondent no.3 vide the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 rejected the selection of the petitioner on the ground that his duplicate marksheet of B.Sc issued on 14.1.2001 mentioned the passing year 2000, whereas his graduation degree/certificate indicated the passing year 1993 and further the aforesaid degree i.e. B.Sc Physical Education passed in the year 1993 from the Delhi University and the same would be applicable to the Art category in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 and since his quality point marks is less than the quality point marks of the last selected candidate in Art category, therefore, he was not entitled for the selection in the Special B.T.C. Course 2004 under General Male Science Group. While passing the impugned order it had also been observed that the institution, from which he obtained B.P.Ed degree, was not mentioned in the list of institutions affiliated to Nagpur University and as such, he was not entitled for the aforesaid course.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in most cursory manner on the ground that the original mark sheet of graduation i.e. B.Sc issued by Delhi University to the petitioner in the year 1993 was misplaced. Then again he had approached the University concerned in the month of January, 2001 and obtained the duplicate marksheet on 14.1.2011 on the available proforma of the University in which 200 marks was printed and due to human error/mistake the same was not corrected by the University, whereas the certificate/degree dated 15.5.1994 was rightly issued showing the passing year of B.Sc. i.e. 1993 and the mark sheets issued in B.Sc Part-I, Part-II and Part-III have also been brought on record as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the institution, from where he had obtained B.P.Ed certificate, was very much recognised from the Nagpur University, whereas the said institution was shown at serial no.72 and available on the website of the University. The same has also been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground that the respondents had treated the graduation degree i.e. B.Sc Physical Education in the Art stream whereas this controversy had already been settled down by this Court in Writ Petition No.22141 of 2004 (Niranjan Singh and ors vs. State of UP and ors) in which this Hon'ble Court held that the B.Sc Physical Education would be treated as graduation degree in Science.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further makes submission that Section Officer, Examination Branch, University of Delhi vide his letter dated 19.9.2011 had also clarified the anomaly, which was cropped up while issuing the duplicate certificate whereas it has been observed that the petitioner was awarded B.Sc certificate in the year 1993 under roll no.9823 in which he obtained 892 marks out of 1600 marks and passed in 2nd division. The clarification has also been brought on record as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ground taken by the respondents for denial of petitioner's right cannot be sustained specially on the ground that whatever the objection taken by the respondents in not conferring the benefits had already been settled by this Court. He has placed his reliance on the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22141 of 2004 (Niranjan Singh & others vs. State of UP & others) alongwith connected 72 matters. Hon'ble Division Bench had decided the controversy with following observations:-
"In all these writ petitions the question which falls for determination is as to whether candidates who had passed Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) or Bachelor of Science (Home Science) and applied for admission to the Special Basic Teaching Certificate (in short Special BTC) Course 2004 shall be treated as candidates of Science stream or Arts stream.
In view of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 13.4.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32309 of 2003 (Kripa Shankar Dubey VS. State of U.P and others) as affirmed in Special Appeal No. 975 of 2004, there is no escape from the conclusion that B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Sc. (Home Science) candidates have to be treated in science stream.
The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment observed as under:-
"............. court is of the opinion that there is no material for clubbing B.Sc. (Ag) in Arts category and as such this condition, which has been sought to be imposed, appears to be unreasonable on the face of it.
...................
In this view of the fact, as the petitioner had filled up form for consideration of his candidature as Science category candidate and has undertaken the aforementioned examination in the aforementioned category as such it is hereby directed that petitioner shall be treated as Science category candidate and admission be accorded to him on merit by treating him as Science category candidate."
It is further relevant here to state that the State Government by its order dated 10.7.2007 had decided that B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Sc. (Home Science) candidates shall be considered to be candidates belonging to science stream.
The relevant extract of the aforesaid Government order is reproduced herein below:-
^^,sls vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus ch0,l0lh0] ch0,l0lh0 ¼d`f"k½ vFkok ch0,l0lh0 ¼x`g foKku½ ls Lukrd ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gks] os foKku oxZ ds vH;FkhZ ekus tk;saxsA buds vfrfjDr vU; oxksZa ds mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ dyk oxZ esa ekus tk;saxs**A
In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the candidates who had obtained their decree for B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. (Home Science) be treated to be candidates belonging to the science stream for the purposes of admission to the Special BTC course 2004.
Counsel for the petitioners state that a large number of seats are still available in the Special BTC course 2004 on which the candidates who have passed Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) and Bachelor of (Home Science) can be accommodated.
We do not find any material to record a finding in this regard. In case seats/vacancies are available for admission, the respondents shall consider the cases of all those candidates who had passed B.Sc. Science (Agriculture) or B.Sc. Science (Home Science) treating them to be belonging to the science stream. Benefit of this order shall not only be confined to the writ petitioners but would be available to all the candidates who had applied and belong to aforesaid categories.
All the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.35518 of 2004 filed by the petitioner decided on 3.5.2011. The order is reproduced herein below:-
"The petitioner passed out B.Ed course from Kanpur University in the year 1995-96. The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.C.T.E.') came into force on 17.8.1995. The candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C course was not accepted on the ground that he has obtained B.Ed. degree in the year 1995-96 from an institution, which was not approved by N.C.T.E. It is admitted that under Section 14(5) the B.Ed course which were already run by the respective institutions on the date when the Act came into force shall be allowed to be completed without their being any requirement of N.C.T.E.
Km. Rashmi Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents could not make any substantive submission even otherwise to pursue the court to take a different view.
The matter is also covered by a Full Bench decision of this court in Bhoopendra Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others in S.A. No.858 of 2008 decided on 6.1.2009 and Jitendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P. in W.P. NO. 3733 of 2009 decided on 13-08-2010.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondents shall consider the candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C. course. It is made clear that her candidature shall not be rejected only on the ground that the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner is not recognized by the N.C.T.E and has been obtained from the other State.
The exercise in this regard shall be completed within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him and in case the petitioner is found eligible and within merit, he shall be admitted for the said course. Appropriate consequential action shall be taken immediately thereafter."
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed his reliance on the judgment and order dated 7.4.2014 passed in Writ A No.54586 of 2011 (Fouj Dar Yadav vs. State of UP and others). For ready reference the same is also reproduced herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner has been selected for Special BTC Course-2004. The question arose as to whether in the B.P.Ed. Examination cleared by the petitioner, the marks of only theory examination were to be taken into consideration for calculating quality point marks or practical marks would also be taken into consideration. The authority only considered theory marks and did not add the practical marks while calculating quality point marks. This question was raised before this Court in large number of decisions. Ultimately in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others this Court held that the marks obtained in the practical examination would also be added for calculating quality point marks. The judgment in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla was upheld by the Division Bench and Special Leave Petition filed by the State was also dismissed. Based on the aforesaid decision in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla the petitioner's Writ Petition No.7299 of 2010 was also disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 with direction to the competent authority to take an appropriate decision in the light of the judgment in the cases of Shashi Kant Shukla, Pradyumn Dutt Singh and Mahesh Prasad Tiwari within three weeks. The petitioner submitted his representation alongwith the judgment of this Court whereupon the Director, SCERT vide order dated 11.07.2011, rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that the B.P.Ed. degree of the applicant was not genuine. The said order dated 11.07.2011 has been challenged by means of the present petition.
B.P.Ed. degree of the petitioner was issued by the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur which has been impleaded as respondent no.4 in the writ petition. Sri Anil Tiwari and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocates appear for the University and they have filed three affidavits in response to the notice and further direction issued by the Court. In the first affidavit dated 28.11.2011 which has been sworn by Sri Ram Siromani Yadav, Examination Controller, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur it has been stated in paragraph 3 that the petitioner has passed Bachelor of Physical Education Course from Kisan P.G. College Baghaon, Ghazipur in the year 2001. Further the affidavit mentions that as there was some inadvertent mistake in issuance of the degree of the petitioner the same was subsequently corrected. The original degree issued was taken back by the University and a fresh degree was issued. In the affidavit the process of issuance of degree has been mentioned. However the same is not relevant for deciding the present controversy.
The crux of the affidavit is that the petitioner was validly declared successful in B.P.Ed. Course in the year 2000-01. The discrepancy mentioned by the Director, SCERT in the impugned order was purely technical for which the petitioner was not responsible but the University Authorities were responsible. In that regard the Court had already issued directions and appropriate inquiry has been got conducted in the matter by the Vice Chancellor and also the Secretary Higher Education.
Since the only reason for rejecting the claim of the applicant and his admission to Special BTC Course-2004 was discrepancy in the B.P.Ed Degree and that having been found to be genuine and valid in view of the affidavit filed by the Authorities of the University, the impugned order dated 11.07.2011, passed by the Director, SCERT cannot be sustained.
Accordingly writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugend order dated 11.07.2011 is hereby quashed. The Director, SCERT is directed to pass fresh orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that still the vacancy is in existence for Special BTC Course 2004 and has placed his reliance on the orders passed in Writ A No.10018 of 2015 (Rajeev Verma and 102 ors vs. State of UP & 3 ors) decided on 19.2.2015 and the order passed in Writ A No.12365 of 2015 (Alka Gupta and 36 ors vs. State of UP and 3 ors) decided on 26.2.2015. The order dated 19.2.2015 passed in Writ A No.10018 of 2015 is reproduced herein below:-
"The petitioners claim to have completed Special BTC-2004. The contention of the petitioner is that the Special BTC Training Course was conducted for 46,189 vacancy. As per the information under RTI given by the Director, SCERT, only 35,738 vacancies have been filled up till 31.10.2011. The contention of the petitioners is that the vacancy for Special BTC Course-2004 was conducted, still exist.
The contention is that earlier similarly situated candidate namely Smt. Deep Mala Sengar has approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4246 of 2013 (Smt. Deep Mala Sengar Vs. State of U.P. and others) and pursuant to the directions of this Court to decide her claim, she was given appointment on 21th November, 2013.
The contention of the petitioner is that TET qualification cannot be made compulsory in respect of the petitioner for the reason that they are claiming appointment against the vacancies for which the selection was held in the year 2004. The petitioners have approached the Director, SCERT on 10.10.2014. Till date, no decision has been taken and hence this writ petition.
Sri Virendra Chaubey, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate that the matter be first examined by respondent no. 2 who is the competent authority.
In view thereof, the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the vacancy for which the selection for Special BTC Course-2004 was held i.e. for 46,189 vacancy.
An expeditious decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him."
14. It is apparent that the petitioner passed his B.Sc degree from Delhi University in the year 1993 and B.P.Ed (One Year Degree Course) from Nagpur University in the year 1996 (Session 1995-96) and the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 came into force on 17.8.1995. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied in the light of the observations made as above.
15. In view of above, the order impugned dated 23.8.2011 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.
16. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 i.e. Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment against the vacancies for which the selection for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 was held.
Order Date :- 9.3.2015
RKP
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 / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
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.