SARKARI NAUKRI - TGT TEACHRS KE LIYE TET MANDATORY, HIGH COURT -
WPC 5249/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.
5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the reserved category with the Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School. Petitioner claims that he had the necessary qualifications of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and having been selected in the interview he ought to have been given
appointment.
2.
Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education
.
T
he school in question
namely Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School
is represented through
WPC 5249/2012
Page
2
of
8
respondent nos. 2 and 3
. Counter
-
affidavits filed by these resp
ondents show
that petitioner was not given appointment because as per the relevant
provisions
Sections 2(a)&(n) & 23(1)
of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 there cannot be appointment of a teacher
in the school unless the te
acher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET)
qualification, and since the petitioner did
not have the CTET qualification
,
petitioner was not appointed. Along with the counter
-
affidavit of respondent
no.1, the circular of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi da
ted 29.2.2012 has been
annexed as Annexure R
-
1 to show that schools are illegally appointing
persons as teachers in spite of
not having
the r
equirement of CTET
qualification
as per the RTE Act, 2009 and schools have been directed to
ensure compliance of CT
ET requirement for appointing of a person as a
teacher in the school. This circular
dated 29.2.2012
reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification Regarding Recruiting Only CTET Qualified
Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012
Page
3
of
8
In pursuance of
sub
-
section (1) or Section 23 o
f
the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, the
National Council for Teacher Education,
vide their
Notification
No.215 F.N.61
-
03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S) dated 23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of
the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible
for appointment as teacher to teach in the school
s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In accordance with the spirit of the RTE Act and the
aforementioned Notification issued by the National council for
Teacher Education, the Directorate of Education, vide
Notification No. F4(6
)(350)/E
-
IV/2011/621 issued on
07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor
of the GNCT Delhi, recognized only the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary
Education in lieu of State Eligibility Test for a
ppointment of
teachers to teach classes I to VIII in the schools referred in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi
Gazette Extra Ordinary Part IV on 07.10.2011, and also
circulated widely vide Cir
cular No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
-
IV/2011/18875
-
18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite the aforesaid provision having come into force
with
its modification with effect from 07.10.2011, it has been
observed that some schools are still considering application
-
for
recruitme
nt to various teaching posts
-
submitted by candidates
who have not qualified the CTET, which act on their part is
unlawful and warrants action as per the as per appropriate
provisions of law.
It is, therefore, reiterated that with effect from the
aforesaid
notification, only CTET qualified teachers shall be
employed by the government aided schools as referred to in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.”
WPC 5249/2012
Page
4
of
8
3.
It is therefore clear that no one can be appointed as a teacher in
a school after the passing o
f the Right to Education Act, 2009
(in short „RTE
Act, 2009)
,
read with
the notification of National Council for Teacher
Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.
4.
In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner c
laims
to the post of TGT(Hindi) is after the National Council for Teacher
Education notification dated 23.8.2010, and therefore, unless the petitioner
has CTET qualification, and admittedly which
qualification
the petitioner
did not have at the time of his
being selected,
he
cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent
-
school.
5.
Counsel for the petitioner made three submissions before this
Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The first is that the
advertisement
in question did not mention the requirement of CTET
qualification and therefore rules of the game cannot be changed once the
selection process is set into motion. The second
submission
is that
Government of NCT of Delhi itself is employing teachers withou
t CTET
qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against,
and reliance for this purpose is placed upon the advertisement dated
13.9.2011 issued for recruitment of 2012 which does not have the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
5
of
8
requirement of a CTET qualification
for a teacher.
The third
submission
made
is by placing reliance o
n
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of
Y.V.Rangaiah and Others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Others 1983
SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284
that vacancies have to be filled in as per
the
recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not
when the vacancies are filled in.
6
.
So far as the
first
argument, which is urged on behalf the
petitioner is concerned that rules of the games cannot be changed mid way
because the a
dvertisement did not prescribe the requirement of CTET
qualification, in my opinion, th
is
argument if accepted
,
the same
will amount
to Court becoming a party
to
gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act
, 2009. Once the law requires a
specific qualification for appointment,
assuming that the
auth
orities may
choose to wink and
not comply with the requirement, cannot mean that
C
ourt should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute. It
cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act,
2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after
2009, there was a requirement of CTET qualification for a teacher. Once
there is a statutory requiremen
t
,
C
ourt can give its imprimatur to an action
WPC 5249/2012
Page
6
of
8
which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications.
I therefore, r
efuse to accede to the argument
that merely because the
advertisement does not provide requirement of CTET qualifica
tion, simply
for that reason appointment should be made ignoring the requirement of
CTET qualification, and
effectively ignoring the statutory provisions and
statutory notifications.
7
.
So far as the second argument is concerned, the same also
stands reje
cted in view of the
above
discussion
of
the first argument
,
because
,
there cannot be estoppel against law. I must also observe that I am
doubtful if merely by the petitioner filing the recruitment notification of
2012 for appointment of teachers, teachers
would have been appointed by
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8
.
Therefore, the argument that CTET qualification can be
overlooked
and
can be
so
accepted by the Courts
is not correct,
and also
I
cannot
accept the argument tha
t merely because advertisement of 2012
which
is filed
does not mention requirement of
CTET qualification
,
therefore,
actual recruitment must have been done by the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers
,
w
ho did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012
Page
7
of
8
9.
The third and the final argument urged on behalf of the
petitioner did carry some substance because it is the law that recruitment
should be as per the recruitment rules when the vacancies arise, however,
this
argum
ent
will not
hold good
if there is statutory provision covering the
field. As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take place recruitments only as per the extant recruitment rules when the
vacancies
occurred
, however, this is
not a universal rule and it has so been
held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725
wherein the Supreme Court
referred to the earlier judgment in the case of
Y.V.Rangaiah (supra)
and
ob
served that once there are statutory rules, such statutory
rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be
filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises. Once there are
statutory rules and
statutory provisions which hold the field
,
the judgment in
the case of
Y.V.Rangaiah (supra)
will not apply and which will really apply
to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even
with respect to administrative circulars
,
rules and notifications
,
there
may be
in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically
ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when
the vacancy
had arisen
inasmuch as it is not
un
known to law t
hat if the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
8
of
8
legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application
of a particular requirement as per the facts of each case
,
because,
what is
really to be examined
is
that
actually is
there a
violation of Article 14 of the
Constituti
on of India i.e whether or not action of the employer is arbitrary.
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer
in requiring the retrospective application of a qualification may not be
arbitrary, however I need not obs
erve in this regard one
way
or the other
,
inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions,
statutory rules and statutory notifications which bar the appointment of a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET q
ualification.
1
0
.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and
the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25
, 201
3
/
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
WPC 5249/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) No.
5249/2012
%
25th November, 2013
SHIV RAM MEENA
......
Petitioner
Through:
Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
...... Respondents
Through
: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For R
-
1. Mr. Pawan K.Khanna, Adv. for R
-
2.CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
By this writ petition, petitioner seeks appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the reserved category with the Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School. Petitioner claims that he had the necessary qualifications of graduation and B.Ed degree and accordingly he was called for the interview, and having been selected in the interview he ought to have been given
appointment.
2.
Respondent no.1 is the Director of Education
.
T
he school in question
namely Nehru Adarsh Senior Secondary School
is represented through
WPC 5249/2012
Page
2
of
8
respondent nos. 2 and 3
. Counter
-
affidavits filed by these resp
ondents show
that petitioner was not given appointment because as per the relevant
provisions
Sections 2(a)&(n) & 23(1)
of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 there cannot be appointment of a teacher
in the school unless the te
acher has Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET)
qualification, and since the petitioner did
not have the CTET qualification
,
petitioner was not appointed. Along with the counter
-
affidavit of respondent
no.1, the circular of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi da
ted 29.2.2012 has been
annexed as Annexure R
-
1 to show that schools are illegally appointing
persons as teachers in spite of
not having
the r
equirement of CTET
qualification
as per the RTE Act, 2009 and schools have been directed to
ensure compliance of CT
ET requirement for appointing of a person as a
teacher in the school. This circular
dated 29.2.2012
reads as under:
-
“GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI
-
110054
No.DE/15/Act/2010/7863
Date: 2
9/02/2012
Sub:
Clarification Regarding Recruiting Only CTET Qualified
Teachers in Aided Schools
WPC 5249/2012
Page
3
of
8
In pursuance of
sub
-
section (1) or Section 23 o
f
the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, the
National Council for Teacher Education,
vide their
Notification
No.215 F.N.61
-
03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S) dated 23.08.2010,
prescribed the clearance of Teacher Eligibility Test as a part of
the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible
for appointment as teacher to teach in the school
s referred to in
clause (n) of Section (2) of the aforesaid Act.
In accordance with the spirit of the RTE Act and the
aforementioned Notification issued by the National council for
Teacher Education, the Directorate of Education, vide
Notification No. F4(6
)(350)/E
-
IV/2011/621 issued on
07.10.2011 with the approval of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor
of the GNCT Delhi, recognized only the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary
Education in lieu of State Eligibility Test for a
ppointment of
teachers to teach classes I to VIII in the schools referred in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
This Notification has already been published in the Delhi
Gazette Extra Ordinary Part IV on 07.10.2011, and also
circulated widely vide Cir
cular No.F.N.DE4(6)(350)E
-
IV/2011/18875
-
18924 dated 26.12.2011.
Despite the aforesaid provision having come into force
with
its modification with effect from 07.10.2011, it has been
observed that some schools are still considering application
-
for
recruitme
nt to various teaching posts
-
submitted by candidates
who have not qualified the CTET, which act on their part is
unlawful and warrants action as per the as per appropriate
provisions of law.
It is, therefore, reiterated that with effect from the
aforesaid
notification, only CTET qualified teachers shall be
employed by the government aided schools as referred to in
clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act 2009.”
WPC 5249/2012
Page
4
of
8
3.
It is therefore clear that no one can be appointed as a teacher in
a school after the passing o
f the Right to Education Act, 2009
(in short „RTE
Act, 2009)
,
read with
the notification of National Council for Teacher
Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.
4.
In the present case, the appointment which the petitioner c
laims
to the post of TGT(Hindi) is after the National Council for Teacher
Education notification dated 23.8.2010, and therefore, unless the petitioner
has CTET qualification, and admittedly which
qualification
the petitioner
did not have at the time of his
being selected,
he
cannot be appointed to the
post of TGT (Hindi) in the respondent
-
school.
5.
Counsel for the petitioner made three submissions before this
Court for grant of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The first is that the
advertisement
in question did not mention the requirement of CTET
qualification and therefore rules of the game cannot be changed once the
selection process is set into motion. The second
submission
is that
Government of NCT of Delhi itself is employing teachers withou
t CTET
qualifications, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against,
and reliance for this purpose is placed upon the advertisement dated
13.9.2011 issued for recruitment of 2012 which does not have the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
5
of
8
requirement of a CTET qualification
for a teacher.
The third
submission
made
is by placing reliance o
n
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of
Y.V.Rangaiah and Others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Others 1983
SCC (L&S) 382 (1983) 3 SCC 284
that vacancies have to be filled in as per
the
recruitment rules as prevalent at the time when vacancies occur and not
when the vacancies are filled in.
6
.
So far as the
first
argument, which is urged on behalf the
petitioner is concerned that rules of the games cannot be changed mid way
because the a
dvertisement did not prescribe the requirement of CTET
qualification, in my opinion, th
is
argument if accepted
,
the same
will amount
to Court becoming a party
to
gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act
, 2009. Once the law requires a
specific qualification for appointment,
assuming that the
auth
orities may
choose to wink and
not comply with the requirement, cannot mean that
C
ourt should direct appointments in violation of provisions of the statute. It
cannot be and could not be disputed before me that in terms of the RTE Act,
2009 and the notification reproduced above, for all appointments made after
2009, there was a requirement of CTET qualification for a teacher. Once
there is a statutory requiremen
t
,
C
ourt can give its imprimatur to an action
WPC 5249/2012
Page
6
of
8
which will amount to violation of the statute and the statutory notifications.
I therefore, r
efuse to accede to the argument
that merely because the
advertisement does not provide requirement of CTET qualifica
tion, simply
for that reason appointment should be made ignoring the requirement of
CTET qualification, and
effectively ignoring the statutory provisions and
statutory notifications.
7
.
So far as the second argument is concerned, the same also
stands reje
cted in view of the
above
discussion
of
the first argument
,
because
,
there cannot be estoppel against law. I must also observe that I am
doubtful if merely by the petitioner filing the recruitment notification of
2012 for appointment of teachers, teachers
would have been appointed by
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who do not have CTET qualification.
8
.
Therefore, the argument that CTET qualification can be
overlooked
and
can be
so
accepted by the Courts
is not correct,
and also
I
cannot
accept the argument tha
t merely because advertisement of 2012
which
is filed
does not mention requirement of
CTET qualification
,
therefore,
actual recruitment must have been done by the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi or by the schools governed by the Director of Education, of teachers
,
w
ho did not have CTET qualifications.
WPC 5249/2012
Page
7
of
8
9.
The third and the final argument urged on behalf of the
petitioner did carry some substance because it is the law that recruitment
should be as per the recruitment rules when the vacancies arise, however,
this
argum
ent
will not
hold good
if there is statutory provision covering the
field. As per ordinary law and administrative rules of an employer there can
take place recruitments only as per the extant recruitment rules when the
vacancies
occurred
, however, this is
not a universal rule and it has so been
held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725
wherein the Supreme Court
referred to the earlier judgment in the case of
Y.V.Rangaiah (supra)
and
ob
served that once there are statutory rules, such statutory
rules will prevail
and there is no universal rule of absolute application that vacancies are to be
filled invariably by the law existing when the vacancy arises. Once there are
statutory rules and
statutory provisions which hold the field
,
the judgment in
the case of
Y.V.Rangaiah (supra)
will not apply and which will really apply
to administrative circulars and notifications. Of course, I may state that even
with respect to administrative circulars
,
rules and notifications
,
there
may be
in the facts of the particular case entitlement of an employer to specifically
ask for a specific requirement although such requirement did not exist when
the vacancy
had arisen
inasmuch as it is not
un
known to law t
hat if the
WPC 5249/2012
Page
8
of
8
legislature or an employer so wants, there can be a retrospective application
of a particular requirement as per the facts of each case
,
because,
what is
really to be examined
is
that
actually is
there a
violation of Article 14 of the
Constituti
on of India i.e whether or not action of the employer is arbitrary.
In the facts of a particular case, it may be possible that action of an employer
in requiring the retrospective application of a qualification may not be
arbitrary, however I need not obs
erve in this regard one
way
or the other
,
inasmuch as, in the present case we are concerned with statutory provisions,
statutory rules and statutory notifications which bar the appointment of a
person as a teacher in a school, unless such person has CTET q
ualification.
1
0
.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and
the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 25
, 201
3
/
ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
