Saturday, January 19, 2013

UPTET / Allahabad Highcourt : बीएड धारकों के लिए टीईटी अनिवार्य करने के प्रावधान को खारिज कर दिया


UPTET / Allahabad Highcourt : बीएड धारकों के लिए टीईटी अनिवार्य करने के प्रावधान को खारिज कर दिया

*******************
To Join My Group on Facebook, Click Here ->>>> 


******************

इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने बीएड डिग्री धारकों को प्राथमिक शिक्षक बनने का अंतिम मौका दिया है। न्यायालय की खंडपीठ ने राज्य सरकार द्वारा बीएड धारकों के लिए टीईटी अनिवार्य करने के प्रावधान को खारिज कर दिया है। इसके साथ ही वर्तमान में चल रही 72 हजार शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में बीएड धारकों द्वारा आवेदन करने के रास्ते खुल गए हैं। न्यायालय ने इसके लिए राज्य सरकार को तत्काल अधिसूचना जारी करने, इसका प्रदेश के अंदर व बाहर व्यापक प्रचार प्रसार कराने तथा ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों को आवेदन के लिए कम से कम 15 दिन का समय देने का निर्देश दिया है। ज्ञातव्य है कि प्रदेश सरकार ने शिक्षा का अधिकार कानून 2009 के तहत अपने यहां निर्धारित शैक्षिक योग्यता वाले अभ्यर्थियों की भारी कमी बताते हुए न्यूनतम योग्यता में छूट देने का अनुरोध किया था। केन्द्र सरकार ने इस क्रम में उन्हें एक जनवरी 2012 तक बीएड धारकों को भी प्राथमिक शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिए योग्य मानने की अनुमति दे दी थी। एक जनवरी 2012 तक चयन न हो पाने के बाद प्रदेश सरकार ने एक बार फिर उक्त समय सीमा बढ़ाने का अनुरोध किया था। इस अनुरोध के क्रम में केन्द्र सरकार ने समय सीमा को 31 मार्च 2014 तक के लिए बढ़ा दिया था। इसमें कई शर्ते रखीं गईं थीं। इसके अनुसार यह छूट सिर्फ एक ही बार दी जा रही है। मार्च 2014 तक राज्य सरकार को न्यूनतम योग्यता देने वाले संस्थानों की संख्या व क्षमता में इस कदर इजाफा कर लेना है जिससे कि पर्याप्त संख्या में शिक्षक मिल सकें। साथ ही इस छूट के तहत चयनित बीएड डिग्री धारकों को चयन के बाद एनसीटीई द्वारा निर्धारित छह माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण देना भी अनिवार्य होगा। केन्द्र सरकार के इस निर्देश के क्रम में राज्य सरकार ने पिछले दिनों घोषित 72 हजार रिक्तियों में सिर्फ टीईटी उत्तीर्ण को ही आवेदन करने की अनुमति दी थी। इसके खिलाफ अभ्यर्थियों ने उच्च न्यायालय में अपील की थी। इस अपील पर न्यायालय ने प्राथमिक शिक्षकों के लिए टीईटी की अनिवार्यता को समाप्त करने से इंकार कर दिया है। साथ ही इस बार केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा दी गई छूट के क्रम में बीएड डिग्री धारकों को बिना टीईटी के ही आवेदन करने की छूट दे दी है। इस आदेश से बीएड धारक लाखों छात्रों को प्राथमिक शिक्षक बनने का अंतिम मौका मिल गया है। शिक्षा के अधिकार अधिनियम 2009 के तहत प्राथमिक शिक्षकों के लिए न्यूनतम शैक्षिक योग्यता में परिवर्तन हो जाने के चलते अब नए बीएड डिग्री धारक

News Source : Jagran (19.1.12)
*********************************
Yesterday I have given interpretation of DB (Double Bench - Allahabad Highcourt) hearing details and some candidates objected and saying - Aap dhyan se paden

I felt they are thinking about - Single Bench decision  and may be misconceived. 

See above news which is similar with my interpretation.

Friday, January 18, 2013

UPTET : Teacher Recruitment , B. Ed 2012 is also Eligible


UPTET : Teacher Recruitment , B. Ed 2012 is also Eligible
*******************
To Join My Group on Facebook, Click Here ->>>> 

*******************



B. Ed 2012 ke against case kharij.
matlab B. Ed 2012 vale bhee eligible hain


See case details (Aaap apnaa interpretation / vyakhya bhee de sakte hain )
**************************
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 30 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2876 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Ran Vijay Singh 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors. 
Petitioner Counsel :- Seemant Singh 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav 

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. 
Petitioner before this Court is contending that the candidates who are not entitled to appear in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test Examination 2011, they have been allowed to appear and they have also been issued certificates of U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test Examination 2011 by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and further zone of consideration in question has been extended.� 
Petitioner submits that had the advertisement dated 30th October, 2011 has not been set-aside by this Court, then the said incumbents could not have applied for consideration of their candidature but on account of the issuing of the fresh advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 the State Government has treated them eligible and considered their application forms illegally without any legal basis. 
Once the State Government has taken a policy decision and has permitted all these candidates to undertake and apply for consideration of their candidature, then petitioner legitimately can have no grievance on the said score once it is in the realm of policy decision. 
Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. 
Order Date :- 18.1.2013 
Shekhar 



UPTET Allahabad Highcourt 2366/2011 Case Interpretation

UPTET Allahabad Highcourt 2366/2011 Case  Interpretation 


*******************
To Join My Group on Facebook, Click Here ->>>> 

*******************


आज मैंने इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट में डबल बेंच द्वारा केस 2366/2011 को  पड़ा व समझा कि क्यों टीईटी उतीर्ण करना जरुरी नहीं है शिक्षकों की भर्ती के लिये 

हालाँकि इसकी व्याख्या में अपनी समझ (मुझसे भी इस  विषय को समझने में गलती हो सकती है )
से दे रही  हूँ और में इस क्षेत्र की विशेषज्ञ नहीं हूँ 
 आप लोग स्वयं भी केस को पड़ कर अपनी व्याख्या दे सकते हैं और कमेन्ट के माध्यम से अपनी से सही व्याख्या अगर कोई हो तो दे सकते हैं ।

मैने इस केस में जो महत्वपूर्ण बात समझी वह यह थी की यहाँ इस बात की दलील दी गयी कि एन सी टी  ई नियमावली में  टी ई टी पात्रता से सम्बन्धित पेरा - 1 का
अभ्यर्थीयों की नियुक्ति जो की  पैरा - 3 में है उससे सम्बन्ध नहीं है ।

PARA - 3
**********
PARA -1



बी . एड अभ्यर्थी प्राथमिक शिक्षक नियुक्ति हेतु 1 जनवरी 2012 तक पात्र थे लेकिन केंद्र सरकार ने राज्य सरकार को 2014 तक छूट दे दी है
"The relaxation granted under this notification shall be valid for a period upto the 31st March, 2014"

 तो इस प्रकार -
बी ए / बी . एस सी 50 और बी एड वाले भी नियुक्ति हेतु आवेदन कर सकते हैं बशर्ते वह नियुक्ति के बाद  एन सी टी ई रेकोग्नआइज़ 6 महीने का विशेष प्रशिक्षण एलीमेट्री एजुकेशन में प्राप्त कर लें 



आप इस विषय की उचित व्याख्या / सही जानकारी सम्बंधित विभाग / अधिकारीयों  से प्राप्त कर सकते हैं 
कोर्ट में हुई कार्यवाही को इस लिंक पर क्लिक कर देख सकते हैं -

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2366 of 2011 PART 9


UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2366 of 2011 


इस केस ने लाखों टी ई टी अभ्यार्थीयों  को संशय में डाल दिया है 
केस की प्रोसीडिंग कई पेजों की है इसलिये में टुकड़ों में इसके मुख्या अंशों' को पब्लिश करने की कोशिश कर रही हूँ ।
क्योंकि इतने सारे पेजों का इस केस को ब्लॉग पर डालने में परेशानी आ रही है 

*****************
PART 9
*****************



"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.-(1) ........................ 
(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if its deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: 
Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years." 

As noted above, possessing qualifications of teachers in paragraph 3 was permissible only up to 1.1.2012. The State Government have submitted a proposal to the Central Government by letter dated 26.7.2012 for relaxation of minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers under section (1) of Section 23 by allowing persons referred to in clause (1) (a) of paragraph 3 of the said notification. The Central Government after considering the request of the State Government issued a notification dated 10.9.2012 in exercise of power under section 23(2). It is useful to extract the aforesaid notification dated 10.9.2012 which is as follows: 

"MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
(Department of School Education and Literacy) 
NOTIFICATION 
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2012 
S.O.2165(E).- WHEREAS the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the Council) for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the Council), in pursuance of sub-section (i) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has, vide its notification number F.No.61/03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S), dated the 23rd August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated the 25th August, 2010, (hereinafter referred to as the said notification), as amended vide notification number 61-1/2011-NCTE(N&S), published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated the 2nd August, 2011, laid down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher for classes I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of the said Act. 

AND WHEREAS sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of paragraph 3 of the said notification as amended from time to time, provides that a person with graduation with atleast fifty per cent marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) qualification or with at least forty-five per cent marks and one year Bachelor in Education in accordance with the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, referred to in the said Notification as amended from time to time, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012 provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, a National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) recognised six month Special Programme in Elementary Education. 

AND WHEREAS sub-section (2) of section 23 of the said Act provides that where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications laid down under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification; 

AND WHEREAS the State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated the 26th of July, 2012 submitted a proposal to the Central Government for relaxation of the requirement of minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers laid down by the Council under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the said Act, by allowing persons referred to in sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of paragraph 3 of the said notification, as amended from time to time, eligible for appointment as a teacher for classes I to V beyond the date of 1st January, 2012, subject to the fulfilment of conditions laid down in the said sub-clause

AND WHEREAS the Central Government on being satisfied with the proposal of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh that the teachers possessing minimum qualification as laid down under sub-section (i) of Section 23 of the said Act are not available in that State in sufficient numbers, and it deems necessary that the requirement of minimum qualifications for appointment as teachers in respect of State of Uttar Pradesh be relaxed under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the said Act

NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), the Central Government hereby relaxes in respect of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the minimum qualifications laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the said Act in so far as they relate to classes I to V, and allows persons referred to in sub clause (a) of clause (1) of paragraph 3 of the said notification as amended from time to time, eligible for appointment as a teacher for classes I to V beyond the 1st January, 2012, subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified under the said sub clause. 

2. The relaxation granted under this notification shall be valid for a period upto the 31st March, 2014, subject to fulfilment of following conditions, namely:- 

(i)the State Government shall conduct the Teacher Eligibility Test as specified in the said notification as amended from time to time, in accordance with the Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test, under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, issued by the Council vide its letter dated the 11th February, 2011 and those persons who pass the Teacher Eligibility Test be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII; 

(ii)the State Government and other school managements shall amend the recruitment rules relating to appointment of teachers so as to provide for the minimum qualifications required for appointment of teachers laid down under the said notification as amended from time to time; 

(iii)the State Government shall in the matter of appointment of teacher give priority to those eligible candidates who possess the minimum qualifications specified in the said notification as amended from time to time and thereafter consider other candidates eligible with the qualifications referred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of paragraph 3 thereof; 

(iv)advertisement for appointment of teachers shall be given wide publicity, including outside the State; 

(v) The State Government and other school managements shall ensure that teachers employed or engaged by them who possess the minimum qualifications referred to in sub clause (a) of clause (i) of paragraph 3 of the said notification as amended from time to time, under go, after appointment, a National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) recognised six month Special Programme in Elementary Education; 

(vi)the relaxation specified in this notification shall be one time and no further relaxation under sub-section (2) of section 23 shall be granted to the State of Uttar Pradesh; and 

(vii)the State Government shall take steps to increase the institutional capacity for preparing persons with specified qualifications so s to ensure that only persons possessing qualifications laid down under the said notification are appointed as teachers for classes I to V after the 31st March, 2012. 

3. The persons referred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of paragraph 3 of the said notification as amended from time to time, shall also be eligible for appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the State Government in respect of teacher appointments made in the State up to 31st March, 2014, in accordance with sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 5 of the Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 issued by the Council vide its letter dated the 11th February, 2011. 

[E No.1-17/2010-EE.4] 
VRINDA SARUP, Addl. Secy." 


The 4th paragraph of the aforesaid notifications clearly contemplates that State Government has submitted proposal for relaxation of the requirement of minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers laid down by the Council under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the said Act, by allowing persons referred to in sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of paragraph 3 of the said notification, as amended from time to time, eligible for appointment as a teacher to teach classes I to V beyond the date of 1st January, 2012. The aforesaid notification thus, clearly contemplates relaxation for permitting the appointment of teachers referred to in paragraph 3 beyond 1.1.2012. The Central Government has granted the relaxation subject to conditions as mentioned in paragraph 2. The notification dated 10.9.2012 thus, also clearly re-enforces the view that the candidates possessing qualifications as referred to in paragraph 3 i.e. candidates having passed B.A. B.Sc. with 50% and B.Ed. are eligible for appointment as teacher for teaching class I to V beyond 1.1.2012 i.e. upto 31.3.2014. Thus, the eligibility of candidates in paragraph 3 has been continued by Central Government by allowing relaxation under sub-section (2) of Section 23. Thus, the submissions of the State that for appointment of teachers in basic schools a candidate should necessarily pass TET is misconceived. The relaxation having been granted by the Central Government under section 23(2) beyond the period 1.1.2012, still the candidates possessing qualifications as required in paragraph 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 can be appointed. 

The State having misconstrued the scope of clause 3 of notification dated 23.8.2010, by 12th Amendment Rules incorporated qualifications which require passing of TET by the candidates whereas the qualifications as mentioned in paragraph 3 have not been reflected in the Rules. When under 2009 Act and by virtue of notifications dated 23.8.2010 the relaxation granted by the Central Government vide notification dated 10.10.2012, the persons referred to in clause 3 of the notifications are still eligible for appointment, denying them right of consideration for appointment citing rule 8 of 1981 Rules as amended from time to time is misconceived and is contrary to the statutory schemes of 2009 Act. 1981 Rules cannot contain any rule contrary to qualifications as prescribed under section 23(1) and any such contrary prescription is unenforceable. We are thus of the view that persons having B.A. B.Sc. with 50% marks and B.Ed. are still eligible to be considered for appointment as teacher in class I to V in basic school. 

In the above context, it is relevant to refer to clause 2(iii) of the notifications dated 10.9.2012. The clarification which is quoted for ready reference is as follows: 

(viii)the State Government shall in the matter of appointment of teacher give priority in the said notification as amended from time to time and thereafter consider other candidates eligible with the qualifications referred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of paragraph 3 thereof; 

The notification dated 10.9.2012 requires that State Government shall in the matter of appointment of teacher give priority to those eligible candidates who possess minimum qualifications specified in the said notification and thereafter consider every candidate eligible as per qualifications referred to under sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of paragraph 3. This requirement itself makes it clear that persons referred to in paragraph 3 are also eligible. However, a priority has to be given to person possessing minimum qualifications specified in the notification. The notification referred to is obviously notification dated 23.8.2010. Thus, priority has to be given to those candidates, who fulfil qualifications prescribed under paragraph 1 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 and there is no concept of priority amongst the candidates who possess qualifications under paragraph 3. 

Learned Counsel appearing for the State has also referred to a guidelines dated 8.11.2010 issued under section 35(1) issued by the Government of India. In paragraph 4 of the guidelines emphasis has been made i.e. "conditions of possessing TET will not be relaxed by the Central Government". The said guidelines have been issued for implementation of the provisions of section 23(2) which is clear from the subject of guidelines which as follows: 

"Subject: Guidelines under section 351 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 for implementation of the provisions of Section 23(2)-reg." 

Guidelines only mentions that conditions of possessing TET will not be relaxed by the Central Government thus, it require that the State Government should not submit any proposal for relaxation of TET which obviously referred to qualifications prescribed in paragraph 1 because it is only in paragraph 1 that requirement of passing TET is mentioned. The said guidelines cannot be read to mean that in paragraph 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 also requirement of passing TET is to be read in. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the State has already initiated process for appointment of more than 72,000 trainee teachers and process has been initiated which according to corrigendum/amendment dated 31.12.2012 is to be completed by 31.3.2012. He submits that more than seven lacs applications have been received in response to the advertisement and the process is under way.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the persons who are qualified under clause 3 of notification dated 23.8.2010 should also be eligible for consideration for appointment as assistant teacher in basic schools in the State of U.P. Whether the appointment is made as a trainee teacher or assistant teacher is of not much significance. The appointment on the post of teacher in whatever name or nomenclature it is referred to has to be made after considering all eligible persons as per notification dated 23.8.2010. We are of the view that State having not permitted applications from such candidates who are qualified under clause 3 without they having passed TET to participate in selection, it is required to issue corrigendum. Such candidate who possess qualifications prescribed in clause 3 under the notification dated 23.8.2010 be also permitted to participate in the selection. 

In the result all the Special appeals are disposed of with the following directions: 

(i)The appellants/other eligible candidates who have passed BA/BSc with 50% and are B.Ed being fully eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher to teach Classes I to V as per Clause 3 of the notification dated 23rd August, 2010, as amended from time to time, are entitled for consideration for their appointment on vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in Classes I to V. The State authorities including the concerned District Basic Education Officers are directed to consider the claim of such persons while considering the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in institutions to teach Classes I to V. 

(ii)The State is directed to issue a corrigendum so that all eligible candidates as per clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 as amended i.e. candidates having 50% marks in B.A./B.Sc. with B.Ed. should also be permitted to participate in the ongoing process of appointment of trainee teachers. At least 15 days time be allowed to submit applications by abovementioned candidates. 

(iii)The prayer of the appellants possessing BTC/Special BTC qualifications obtained after 23.8.2010 to issue direction to appoint them giving benefit of paragraph 5 of the notification dated 23rd August, 2010 cannot be accepted. 

Parties shall bear their own costs. 

Date: 16.1.2013. 
LA/Rakesh 

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2366 of 2011 PART 8


UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgement Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2366 of 2011 


इस केस ने लाखों टी ई टी अभ्यार्थीयों  को संशय में डाल दिया है 
केस की प्रोसीडिंग कई पेजों की है इसलिये में टुकड़ों में इसके मुख्या अंशों' को पब्लिश करने की कोशिश कर रही हूँ ।
क्योंकि इतने सारे पेजों का इस केस को ब्लॉग पर डालने में परेशानी आ रही है 

*****************
PART 8
*****************




Section 23 of the 2009 Act provides qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. For ready reference Section 23 of the 2009 Act is quoted below:- 

"23. Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.--

(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher." 

Sub-section (1) of Section 23 requires that any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government shall be eligible for appointment as teacher. The NCTE has been authorised by the Central Government to act as an academic authority. 
Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides that where a State does not have training institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing teachers possessing minimum qualification are not eligible in sufficient number, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher. The Legislature was well aware of the shortage of teachers throughout the country and non availability of sufficient number of qualified teachers to teach in primary classes. Thus sub-section (2) of Section 23 specially reserved a right in the Central Government for relaxation in the minimum qualification required for appointment for a period not exceeding five years. The provisions of 2009 Act thus clearly indicate that Legislature was well aware of non availability of qualified teachers to teach in primary schools

Now we come to the scheme of the notification dated 23rd August, 2010, which has already been quoted above. Clause 1(i) of the notification provides for minimum qualification for teachers for Classes I to V. 
The qualification for teachers for Class I to V are Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education in accordance with NCTE Regulations 2002 or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 years Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)

For Class VI to VIII the qualifications are BA/BSc and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education or BA/BSc with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education or BA/BSc with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education in accordance with the NCTE Regulations issued from time to time or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El. Ed) or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/BSc. Ed or B.A. Ed./BSc. Ed or BA/BSc with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. AND pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

 Clause 3 of the notification only contains a provision that a person with BA/BSc with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. shall also be eligible for appointment to teach Class 1 to V up to 1st January, 2012 provided he undergoes after appointment an NCTE recognised 6 months special program in elementary education. Thus the provisions of Clause 3 are a substantive provisions which are in addition to the minimum qualification prescribed for teachers to teach Class I to VIII. 
In Clause 3 the qualification BA/BSc and BEd for appointment as teacher to teach Class I to V is provided for and the use of word "also" in Clause 3(a) clearly indicates that the said qualifications are in addition to qualifications as laid down in Clause 1. Thus it cannot be held that person having BA/BSc with 50% marks and B.Ed. is not eligible for appointment as teacher in Class 1 to 5 unless he passes TET. 

It is well established rule of statutory interpretation that two provisions of a Statute have to be interpreted in a manner so as to give meaning and purpose to both the provisions and they have to be harmoniously construed. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 1991(4) SCC 258 in paragraph 11 which is as under:- 

"11. It is well settled principle of interpretation that where there appears to be inconsistency in two sections of the same Act, the principle of harmonious construction should be followed in avoiding a head on clash. It should not be lightly assumed that what the Parliament has given with one hand, it took away with the other. The provisions of one section of statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to reconcile the same. In Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, this Court observed: 

"The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with teach other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction." 

........" 

Again the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Singh vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and others reported in 1997(4) SCC 435 has laid down following in paragraph 7 which is as under:- 

"7. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it clear that Rule 24 provides the conditions to be complied with by a person for being admitted as a member of a co-operative society. Rule 25 enumerates the disqualifications of a person for becoming a member of a co-operative society. Sub-clause (c) of Rule 25(1) deals with the disqualifications of a person in case of a housing society, clause (iii) of Rule 25(l)(c) provides that the said person or his spouse or any of his dependent children if is a member of any other housing society then he can't become a member of another housing society unless permitted by the Registrar, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 provides for a deemed cessation of a member in the event that member incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 with effect from the date of such disqualification. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 25 confers power to decide a dispute as to whether a member has incurred any of the disqualifications referred to in sub-rule (1). Rule 28 of the Rules confers power on the Registrar directing removal of an individual from membership either or both of the co-operative societies when such individual has become a member of two co-operative societies of the same class. The short question that arises for consideration is whether a person who is a member of a housing co-operative society having incurred the disqualification under Rule 25(l)(c)(iii) on being a member of a subsequent housing society would cease to be a member of both the societies with effect from the date of the disqualification incurred by him. It is a cardinal principal of construction of a statute or the statutory rule that efforts should be made in construing the different provisions, so that, each provision will have its play and in the event of any conflict a harmonious construction should be given, Further a statute or a rule made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision so as to make the rule consistent and any construction which would bring any inconsistency or repugnancy between one provision and the other should be avoided. One rule cannot be used to defeat another rule in the same rules unless it is impossible to effect harmonisation between them. The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect should be given to all the provisions, and therefore, this Court had held in several cases that a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a 'dead letter' is not a harmonious construction as one part is being destroyed and consequently court should avoid such a construction. Bearing in mind the aforesaid rules of construction if sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 and Rule 28 are examined the obvious answer would be that under sub-rule (2) the deemed cessation from membership of the person concerned is in relation to the society pertaining to which disqualifications are incurred A plain reading of Rule 28 makes it crystal clear that the Registrar when becomes aware of the fact that an individual has become a member of two co-operative societies of the same class which obviously is a disqualification under Rule 25 then he has the discretion to direct removal of the said individual from the membership of either or both the co-operative societies. If sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 is interpreted to mean that deemed cessation of the person concerned from membership of both the societies then the question of discretion of the Registrar under Rule 28 will not arise. If the interpretation given by the Registrar to sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 as well as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is sustained then the said sub-rule will be at loggerhead with Rule 28. On the other hand, if sub-rule (2) is interpreted to mean that the deemed cessation is in relation to the society in respect of which the person concerned incurs the disqualification then both sub-rule (2) as well as Rule 28 would have its play. Rule 28 in our considered opinion cannot be held to be otiose and must be allowed to have its full play. In this view of the matter the only way by which sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 and Rule 28 can be harmoniously construed is to construe sub-rule (2) to Rule 25 to mean that the deemed cessation of the person concerned from the membership of the society is the society in respect of which the disqualification was incurred. In the casein hand the disqualification which the appellant incurred was in respect of his membership of the Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as he could not have become a member of the said society as he was already a member of Dronacharaya Co-operative Group Housing Society, and therefore, by operation of sub-rule (2) he would deem to have ceased to be a member from the Tribal Co-operative Housing Society right from the inception in November, 1983 and not from the Dronacharaya Co- operative Group Housing Society." 

The fact that in the notification the said appointment to BA/BSc with 50% marks and B.Ed. for Class I to V was limited till 1st January, 2012 clearly indicated that the 
said Clause 3 was inserted as exception to an additional qualification to one which was provided in Clause 1. Further requirement that such teachers appointed to Classes I to V which were BA/BSc with 50% marks and B.Ed. shall be provided six months elementary program is clearly for achieving the purpose for which notification was issued

The notification dated 23rd August, 2010 has been amended by notification dated 29th July, 2011 wherein paragraph 3 was substituted as follows:- 

"3(i) Training to be undergone,- A person - 

(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education

(b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education. 
..........." 

The scheme of Clause 3 as an additional qualification for appointment as teacher to teach Class I to V was thus clearly retained and continued even after amendment

Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that notification dated 23.8.2010 both in paragraph 1 as well as in paragraph 3 require a candidate to have passed TET. 
As noted above, qualifications as prescribed in paragraph 1 of the notification specifically includes the qualification by words "And pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)". In paragraph 3, there is no such clause present requiring passing of teacher eligibility test. 
When the statutory authority in paragraph 1 has specifically included qualification "pass in the teacher eligibility test", there was no reason for not mentioning the same in clause 3 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 if, it was intended that candidates who are covered by clause 3 should also have passed TET. A plain meaning of the words have to be taken and accepting the argument of learned Additional Advocate General shall be nothing but to add words in the notifications which are not present in clause 3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State in its rules namely U.P. Basic (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 has provided by amendment qualifications of passing TET and in the advertisement which has been issued for appointing trainee teachers also, the qualifications of passing TET has been mentioned. 

He further submits that the State has also framed Rules under section 38 of 2009 Act namely; U.P. Right of Children to Fee 
and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 which also require passing of TET. The guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 8.11.2010 in exercise of powers under section 35(1) has also been referred to. 

The basic education in the State of U.P. is regulated by an Act namely; U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Statutory rules have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 namely; U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. 1981 Rules contains provisions for cadre of strength, recruitment, qualifications, procedure for recruitment and certain other provisions regulating the service conditions of teachers of basic schools. As noted above, Parliament has enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 of which Section 23 provides for qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. Section 23(1) provides that any person possessing such minimum qualifications as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a Teacher. Central Government has notified National Council for Teacher Education as academic authority which has issued notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down minimum qualifications for appointment of teacher in a basic school. Prior to laying down the qualifications under section 23 by the academic authority, the qualification for appointment of teacher in the basic schools were prescribed in 1981 Rules. It is relevant to note that the State has amended the 1981 Rules by U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (12th Amendment) Rules, 2011 dated 9.11.2011 by which rule 8 which provided for essential qualifications for appointment of teacher has been amended. The amendment in Rule as brought by 12th Amendment Rules are as follows: 

Academic Qualifications 8.-(1) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause (a) of rule 5 shall be as shown below against each:- 
Academic Qualifications 8.- (1)The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause 
(a) of rule 5 shall be as shown below against each:- 

Post 
Academic Qualifications 
Post 
Academic Qualifications 
(i) Mistress of Nursery School 
Certificate of Teaching (Nursery) from a recognized Training Institution in Uttar Pradesh or any other training qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. 
(i) Mistress of Nursery School 
Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with Certificate of teaching (Nursery) from recognized training institution of Uttar Pradesh or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto and have passed teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools 

A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Vishisht Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) two years B.T.C. Urdu Special Training Course, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other Training Course recognised by the Government and equivalent thereto: 

Provided that the essential qualification for a candidate who has passed the required training course shall be the same which was prescribed for admission to the said training course. 
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistresses of Junior Basic Schools 
Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC), two years BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC and have passed teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 


After the issuance of the notifications dated 23.8.2010 under section 23(1), the qualifications for appointment of teachers of basic schools have to be regulated by qualifications prescribed by the academic authority. As noted above, the State has also framed Rules under section 28 of 2009 Act namely; U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. Rule 15 of the said Rules contains heading "TEACHERS", which specifically provides that minimum educational qualifications for teacher laid down by an authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be applicable for every school referred to in clause (n) section 2. Rules 15 and 16 which are relevant are quoted below: 

"15. Minimum qualification of teachers: 
Section 23 (1).- The minimum educational qualifications for teachers, laid down by an authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be applicable for every school referred to in clause (n) section 2. 

16. Relaxation of minimum qualification: 
Section 23(2).-(1) The State Government shall estimate the teacher requirement as per the norms in the Schedule for all schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2 within the State. 
(2) If teachers possessing prescribed minimum qualifications are not available as estimated under sub-rule (1), then the State Government shall request the Central Government by 31st March, for relaxation of the prescribed minimum qualification. 
(3) The State Government shall take necessary action after the notification issued by the Central Government, for relaxation in the minimum qualification on the request under sub-rule (2). 
(4) The relaxation from minimum qualifications shall be for maximum period of five years from the commencement of the Act i.e. till 31st March, 2015, within such period the teachers appointed under the relaxed condition shall acquire the minimum educations qualifications prescribed under rule 15. 
(5) No appointment of teacher for any school can be made in respect of any person not possessing the minimum educational qualifications prescribed under rule 15 without the notification referred to in sub-rule (3)." 

Rule 15 which has been framed by the State under 2009 Act thus, clearly contemplates that educational qualifications for teachers as laid down by authority authorised by the Central Government shall be applicable. Thus, after issuance of notification under section 23(1), the qualifications of teachers are to be regulated by authority. The purpose of providing qualifications of teachers by notification under section 23(1) is for enforcing uniform qualifications throughout the country for appointment of teachers in basic schools. The 2009 Act enacted by Parliament is referable to Entry 25 List 3 of the Constitution of India. When an enactment is made by the Parliament on the same subject, any enactment of the State earlier existing which is also referable to Entry 25 List 3 has to give way to the Parliamentary enactment. Rule 15 of 2011 Rules as quoted above framed by the State clearly contains the aforesaid concept. Thus, what is enforceable is the notification dated 23.8.2010 regarding the qualification of teachers and any rule framed by the State under the 1981 Act under the State enactment has to give way. Further the State under 1981 Rules cannot provide for any qualification contrary to the qualification as laid down by the notification dated 23.8.2010. As noted above, Section 23(2) of the 2009 Act empowers the Central Government by notification to relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher where a State doesn't have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education. Section 23(2) is quoted below: