UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - -
Private / Aided Schools mein Bager TET Ke Bhrtee Avedh, High Court ne Kaha kee NCTE Notification / Central Act Prbhavee Hai State Govt Act 1981 Ke Oopar,
Aur Isleeye Kendra (NCTE/ RTE Act) ko Paalan Kiya Jana Jaruree
Rajya Sarkar ke Oopar Kendra Sarkar Ka Niyam Havee Aur Isleeye NCTE / RTE Act ke taht Hongee Bhrtiyan,
Rajya sarkar Apnee Seema Ke Bheetar Hee Kanoon Bana Saktee hai
The legislative competence and the intent therefore lead to the conclusion that the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education to make provisions and which have been carefully en-grafted in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The State Government has followed suit. However, the State Government delayed the incorporation as the Rules were framed by it later on in 2011 and the 1981 Rules were amended much later. The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th amendment in the 1981 Rules were brought at a later period. In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated these provisions in its rules later on would not take away the impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education that stood enforced w.e.f. 23.8.2010. The delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions framed by the Central Government. The notification dated 23.8.2010 therefore has an overriding effect and it could not have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to make appointments after 23.8.2010 without complying with the provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would be deficient in such qualification."
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16049 of 2016
Petitioner :- Jagbeer Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Ashok Khare,Dhirendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Two rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.7 to 13 and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 5.
The petitioners are seeking quashing of the orders dated 14.03.2016 and 16.03.2016 whereby the required eligibility qualification of TET in the case of concerned private respondents has been waived on the ground that the selection process had commenced prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 08.04.2013 and the requirement of possession of the eligibility TET Examination can only be effected after the Government Order dated 08.04.2013.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner no.1 is stated to be the outgoing Treasurer/Life Member of the Committee of Management of the General Body of the Gurukul Sarvoday Inter College, Panchli Khurd, Meerut and the petitioner no.2 is stated to be the Life Member of the General Body of the Gurukul Sarvoday Inter College, Panchli Khurd, Meerut, therefore, the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners is not maintainable.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015, Salauddin Vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein the Division Bench has held as under:
"The appellant has filed an application for leave to appeal, which has been allowed.
A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the sixth respondent to the maintainability of the appeal, on the ground that the appellant, who is his own brother, has no locus to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, particularly having regard to the observations which were contained in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 July 2013. The issue before the Court is as to whether the special appeal would be maintainable at the behest of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the complainant at whose behest the enquiry was initiated against the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent has obtained employment as an Assistant Teacher in an aided institution and is in receipt of salary from the public exchequer. The private dispute between the appellant and the sixth respondent may be a reason for the Court to tread in a matter, such as the present, with a great deal of circumspection and caution. However, the issue still remains as to whether the Court should shut its eyes to the facts which have been placed on the record. In our view, there is an element of public interest involved where a person, who has obtained public employment and is in receipt of salary from an institution which is aided by the State, seeks to do so on the basis of documentary record indicating a particular date of birth.
We are of the view that the learned Single Judge having found merit in the substance of the grievance of the sixth respondent that the order against him was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, should have set aside that order and remanded the proceedings back to the authority for a fresh decision after complying with the principles of natural justice. Having come to the conclusion that there was a breach of those principles, the learned Single Judge manifestly exceeded the jurisdiction under Article 226 by launching upon an enquiry of the Court in regard to what is the correct date of birth of the sixth respondent. The law on the subject is indeed well settled. Where a breach of natural justice has occurred during the course of an enquiry, the appropriate course for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to set aside the ultimate decision which is complained of and to remit the proceedings back to the authority concerned to conclude the enquiry from the stage at which the breach of those principles have occurred.
For the purpose of these proceedings, we are desisting from making any observation on the merits of the rival contentions so as to not preclude a fair and proper enquiry being conducted by the competent authority. However, it would suffice to note that having duly considered the material which has been placed on the record of these proceedings, we are emphatically of the view that a proper enquiry by the competent authority should not be stultified or obstructed and the law must be allowed to take its own course. Insofar as the aspect of locus is concerned, it is not now in dispute that though the earlier writ petition of the appellant was dismissed, an enquiry was initiated by the State. Once the process of conducting an enquiry has been initiated, it is necessary to ensure that enquiry is taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. If a breach of the principles of natural justice had occurred, that could be remedied by setting aside the order and restoring the proceedings back to the competent authority.
For these reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in entering upon the merits and rendering a finding of fact once the contention of the sixth respondent that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice was accepted. The Court must not also be oblivious of the fact that in such matters, the process of enquiry is set in motion often by a complainant. The fact that the complainant may have some interest of his own, is a ground for the Court to act with care but that cannot shut out a proper enquiry altogether, particularly in a case, such as the present, where the sixth respondent is in the employment of an aided educational institution and is drawing his salary from the public exchequer. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal in part. "
For the reasons aforesaid it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents No.7 to 13 have been appointed as Assistant Teacher. The impugned order dated 14.03.2016 of the Regional Level Committee proposes to grant approval to such appointment and the consequential order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.03.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this controversy has already been settled by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [2013 (6) 310 (FB)]. Paragraphs 86 & 87 of the judgment reads as under:
"86. We fully approve the view of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case confirming the authority of the Central Government and the NCTE to prescribe the qualifications as detailed in Para 52 and 53 of the reported judgment. We are also in complete agreement with the division bench that after the coming into force of the 2009 Act and the prescription of qualifications thereunder through the Academic Authority the State is not a free agent as held in Para 51 thereof. The failure of the State Government to timely implement the qualifications prescribed before making any appointment after 23.8.2010 will not dilute or take away the impact of the notification which is mandatory. Every rule of the State Government for qualification has to be abide by the same by virtue of the force of Section 23 (1) of the 2009 Act.
87. The legislative competence and the intent therefore lead to the conclusion that the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education to make provisions and which have been carefully en-grafted in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The State Government has followed suit. However, the State Government delayed the incorporation as the Rules were framed by it later on in 2011 and the 1981 Rules were amended much later. The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th amendment in the 1981 Rules were brought at a later period. In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated these provisions in its rules later on would not take away the impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education that stood enforced w.e.f. 23.8.2010. The delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions framed by the Central Government. The notification dated 23.8.2010 therefore has an overriding effect and it could not have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to make appointments after 23.8.2010 without complying with the provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would be deficient in such qualification."
It is submitted that the Full Bench has held that a notification was issued by the National Council for Teacher Education on 23.08.2010 holding that the Teachers Eligibility Test is compulsory for teachers to qualify and the Full Bench has held that all appointments made after 23.08.2010 will not dilute or take away the impact of the notification which is mandatory.� It was further held that merely because the State Government delayed the incorporation of the rules it cannot take away the impact of the requirement of the notification dated 23.08.2010.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the respondents no.7 to 13 have not qualified the TET Examination.
This factual position has been disputed by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitting that the respondent no.9 has passed his TET. However, this fact has not been disclosed in his counter affidavit but the photocopy of the certificate issued on 25.11.2011 by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad of the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 (Primary Level) has been passed on to the Court during the course of the arguments.
For reasons aforesaid the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Regional Level Committee and the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot survive and are accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
The matter shall now be reconsidered by the Regional Level Committee in the light of the observations made above and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra) and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
Order Date :- 10.5.2016
N Tiwari
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
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | 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
Private / Aided Schools mein Bager TET Ke Bhrtee Avedh, High Court ne Kaha kee NCTE Notification / Central Act Prbhavee Hai State Govt Act 1981 Ke Oopar,
Aur Isleeye Kendra (NCTE/ RTE Act) ko Paalan Kiya Jana Jaruree
Rajya Sarkar ke Oopar Kendra Sarkar Ka Niyam Havee Aur Isleeye NCTE / RTE Act ke taht Hongee Bhrtiyan,
Rajya sarkar Apnee Seema Ke Bheetar Hee Kanoon Bana Saktee hai
The legislative competence and the intent therefore lead to the conclusion that the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education to make provisions and which have been carefully en-grafted in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The State Government has followed suit. However, the State Government delayed the incorporation as the Rules were framed by it later on in 2011 and the 1981 Rules were amended much later. The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th amendment in the 1981 Rules were brought at a later period. In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated these provisions in its rules later on would not take away the impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education that stood enforced w.e.f. 23.8.2010. The delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions framed by the Central Government. The notification dated 23.8.2010 therefore has an overriding effect and it could not have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to make appointments after 23.8.2010 without complying with the provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would be deficient in such qualification."
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16049 of 2016
Petitioner :- Jagbeer Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Ashok Khare,Dhirendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Two rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.7 to 13 and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 5.
The petitioners are seeking quashing of the orders dated 14.03.2016 and 16.03.2016 whereby the required eligibility qualification of TET in the case of concerned private respondents has been waived on the ground that the selection process had commenced prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 08.04.2013 and the requirement of possession of the eligibility TET Examination can only be effected after the Government Order dated 08.04.2013.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner no.1 is stated to be the outgoing Treasurer/Life Member of the Committee of Management of the General Body of the Gurukul Sarvoday Inter College, Panchli Khurd, Meerut and the petitioner no.2 is stated to be the Life Member of the General Body of the Gurukul Sarvoday Inter College, Panchli Khurd, Meerut, therefore, the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners is not maintainable.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015, Salauddin Vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein the Division Bench has held as under:
"The appellant has filed an application for leave to appeal, which has been allowed.
A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the sixth respondent to the maintainability of the appeal, on the ground that the appellant, who is his own brother, has no locus to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, particularly having regard to the observations which were contained in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 July 2013. The issue before the Court is as to whether the special appeal would be maintainable at the behest of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the complainant at whose behest the enquiry was initiated against the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent has obtained employment as an Assistant Teacher in an aided institution and is in receipt of salary from the public exchequer. The private dispute between the appellant and the sixth respondent may be a reason for the Court to tread in a matter, such as the present, with a great deal of circumspection and caution. However, the issue still remains as to whether the Court should shut its eyes to the facts which have been placed on the record. In our view, there is an element of public interest involved where a person, who has obtained public employment and is in receipt of salary from an institution which is aided by the State, seeks to do so on the basis of documentary record indicating a particular date of birth.
We are of the view that the learned Single Judge having found merit in the substance of the grievance of the sixth respondent that the order against him was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, should have set aside that order and remanded the proceedings back to the authority for a fresh decision after complying with the principles of natural justice. Having come to the conclusion that there was a breach of those principles, the learned Single Judge manifestly exceeded the jurisdiction under Article 226 by launching upon an enquiry of the Court in regard to what is the correct date of birth of the sixth respondent. The law on the subject is indeed well settled. Where a breach of natural justice has occurred during the course of an enquiry, the appropriate course for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to set aside the ultimate decision which is complained of and to remit the proceedings back to the authority concerned to conclude the enquiry from the stage at which the breach of those principles have occurred.
For the purpose of these proceedings, we are desisting from making any observation on the merits of the rival contentions so as to not preclude a fair and proper enquiry being conducted by the competent authority. However, it would suffice to note that having duly considered the material which has been placed on the record of these proceedings, we are emphatically of the view that a proper enquiry by the competent authority should not be stultified or obstructed and the law must be allowed to take its own course. Insofar as the aspect of locus is concerned, it is not now in dispute that though the earlier writ petition of the appellant was dismissed, an enquiry was initiated by the State. Once the process of conducting an enquiry has been initiated, it is necessary to ensure that enquiry is taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. If a breach of the principles of natural justice had occurred, that could be remedied by setting aside the order and restoring the proceedings back to the competent authority.
For these reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in entering upon the merits and rendering a finding of fact once the contention of the sixth respondent that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice was accepted. The Court must not also be oblivious of the fact that in such matters, the process of enquiry is set in motion often by a complainant. The fact that the complainant may have some interest of his own, is a ground for the Court to act with care but that cannot shut out a proper enquiry altogether, particularly in a case, such as the present, where the sixth respondent is in the employment of an aided educational institution and is drawing his salary from the public exchequer. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal in part. "
For the reasons aforesaid it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents No.7 to 13 have been appointed as Assistant Teacher. The impugned order dated 14.03.2016 of the Regional Level Committee proposes to grant approval to such appointment and the consequential order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.03.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this controversy has already been settled by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [2013 (6) 310 (FB)]. Paragraphs 86 & 87 of the judgment reads as under:
"86. We fully approve the view of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case confirming the authority of the Central Government and the NCTE to prescribe the qualifications as detailed in Para 52 and 53 of the reported judgment. We are also in complete agreement with the division bench that after the coming into force of the 2009 Act and the prescription of qualifications thereunder through the Academic Authority the State is not a free agent as held in Para 51 thereof. The failure of the State Government to timely implement the qualifications prescribed before making any appointment after 23.8.2010 will not dilute or take away the impact of the notification which is mandatory. Every rule of the State Government for qualification has to be abide by the same by virtue of the force of Section 23 (1) of the 2009 Act.
87. The legislative competence and the intent therefore lead to the conclusion that the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education to make provisions and which have been carefully en-grafted in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The State Government has followed suit. However, the State Government delayed the incorporation as the Rules were framed by it later on in 2011 and the 1981 Rules were amended much later. The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th amendment in the 1981 Rules were brought at a later period. In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated these provisions in its rules later on would not take away the impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education that stood enforced w.e.f. 23.8.2010. The delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions framed by the Central Government. The notification dated 23.8.2010 therefore has an overriding effect and it could not have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to make appointments after 23.8.2010 without complying with the provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would be deficient in such qualification."
It is submitted that the Full Bench has held that a notification was issued by the National Council for Teacher Education on 23.08.2010 holding that the Teachers Eligibility Test is compulsory for teachers to qualify and the Full Bench has held that all appointments made after 23.08.2010 will not dilute or take away the impact of the notification which is mandatory.� It was further held that merely because the State Government delayed the incorporation of the rules it cannot take away the impact of the requirement of the notification dated 23.08.2010.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the respondents no.7 to 13 have not qualified the TET Examination.
This factual position has been disputed by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitting that the respondent no.9 has passed his TET. However, this fact has not been disclosed in his counter affidavit but the photocopy of the certificate issued on 25.11.2011 by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad of the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 (Primary Level) has been passed on to the Court during the course of the arguments.
For reasons aforesaid the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Regional Level Committee and the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot survive and are accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
The matter shall now be reconsidered by the Regional Level Committee in the light of the observations made above and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra) and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
Order Date :- 10.5.2016
N Tiwari
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
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | 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
