UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - TGT Yachee ne Ko Ant Mein Pata Chala Ki TET Mandatory hone Kee Vajhe Se Nokri Nahin Milee -
Ek
Anya Yachee Ke Pass TET Certificate to Mojood Thee, Lekin Advt Mein TET
Mahin Maangne se Usne Submit Nahin Kiyaa Thaa, Usko Court Ne Raahat
Pradaan Kar Dee, Aur Nokri Dene Ke Leeye Nirdeshit Kar Deeyaa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER
W.P.(C) 5675/2013
Decided on: 12.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
UMA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
versus
THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL &
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with
Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal,
Advocates for R-1/School.
Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.
Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter
alia that the appointment of the respondent No.4 be declared as
bad in law and her appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be quashed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that
the IAF Educational and Cultural Society had issued an
advertisement dated 31.01.2012 for recruitment of teaching and
administrative staff, including the appointment of teachers to
the post of TGT (Hindi), which is the subject matter of the
present petition. The required qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi)
was graduation in Hindi (Hons.) with 50% marks and Bachelors
Degree in Education. The applicants were expected to submit
their forms to the respondents by 09.02.2012. The eligible candidates
had to undergo a written test on 09.02.2012 and those, who would
qualify in
the written test, were to participate in a personal interview.
3.
It is the petitioner’s case that she had appeared in the
written examination on the date and time mentioned in the
advertisement and she had successfully cleared the said
examination. Vide intimation dated 24.02.2012, the petitioner
was called to appear for
an interview on 02.03.2012. The petitioner had appeared before the Selection Board on the
assigned
day for an interview, whereafter she kept waiting for the results to
be declared by the respondent No.1/School. However, when the
petitioner accessed the website of the respondent No.1/School, she
discovered that her name was not included as one of the successful
candidates.
4. Aggrieved by the results declared by the
respond ent No.1/School for the post of TGT (Hindi), the
petitioner had a legal notice dated 9.4.2012 issued to the
respondent No.1/School stating interalia that she possessed the
desired educational qualifications and had also cle
ared the written examination and participated in the interview but was not selected, in
violation
of the rules and regulations. It was also stated that as
per the Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the National
Council for Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a
candidate to qualify in the Teacher Eligibility Test (in
short ‘TET’) which is
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed in that
regard
and if the School had appointed a teacher, who did not
qualify the TET, then such an appointment was invalid.
5.
When the petitioner failed to receive any response
from the respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this
Court, registered as W.P.(C) 3025/2012 praying inter alia that
the respondent No.1/School be directed to appoint her to the post of
TGT (Hindi).
6. The aforesaid petition was disposed of
vide order dated 18.05.2012, with directions to the respondent
No.1/School that it should respond to the legal notice dated
09.04.2012, by passing a speaking order and the same should be
communicated to the petitioner. The afor
esaid order was passed at
the stage of admission and at that time, the School was not
represented before the court. In the meantime, the respondent
No.1/School on its own
sent a reply dated 19.5.2012 to the
legal notice issued by the petitioner, denying the allegations
leveled against it and stating inter alia that the petitioner
was not found fit for selection to the post of TGT (Hindi) and was
therefore, not selected. It was also stated that th
e
Selection Committee had considered the candidature of all the
candidates objectively and thereafter, selected the eligible
candidates. Aggrieved by the aforesaid stand taken by
the respondent No.1/School, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
7.
The leitmotif of the arguments advanced by the counsel for
the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 to
the subject post is that the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010
prescribes that a school cannot appoint teachers to the post of
Primary Regu
lar Teacher (PRT) or TGT (Class I to VIII)
when they do not possess the TET certificate. He submits that
the petitioner herein possesses the TET certificate issued by the
Haryana Education Board, but the respondent No.4, who has been
selected to the subject post, does not possess the said qualification
and therefore her appointment ought to be quashed.
8. Ms.
Palli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/School disputes the
submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and draws the
attention of the Court to the Circular dated 06.03.2012
issued by the respondent No.2/CBSE, wherein it is stated
that the TET conduc
ted by the Central Government would apply to schools under the Central Government and
Union
Territories without Legislature, and that the Managements of
the schools affiliated to the Boards such as CBSE, ICSE etc.
may also opt for the TET conducted by the Central Government.
Learned counsel states that the Notification dated 23.08.2010
issued by the NCT
E was directed to be implemented by the CBSE only on 06.03.2012, whereas
the subject advertisement was issued prior thereto, on 31.01.2012 and the selection
process was completed by 02.03.2012, which was also prior in time and
therefore, possession of a TET certificate was not mandatory for the candidates at that point in time.
9.
Supporting the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for
the respondent No.4 adds that though possession of a TET
certificate was not mandatory prior to issuance of the Circular
dated 6.3.2012, his client had passed the Uttar Pradesh
Teacher Eligibility Test held in November, 2011, as stipulated
in the Notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by the NCTE. In
support
of the said submission, learned counsel refers to page 215
of the paper book, where he has filed a copy of the
Certificate dated 25.11.2011 issued by the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of the
respondent No.4, certifying inter alia that she had passed Uttar
Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test held in November, 2011
(Upper
Primary Level). He further states that subsequently in the year 2013,
the respondent No.4 had passed Central Teacher Eligibility Test
(in short ‘CTET’) and was issued a Certificate dated
02.09.2013, that is placed at page 216 of the paper book.
10.
In view of the documents placed on record by the respondent
No.4 that include a TET certificate of Upper Primary Level
issued in her favour by the State of U.P. and a CTET certificate
issued in her favour by the CBSE, it is manifestly clear that she
satisfies the requi
rements of the Notification dated
23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE. Moreover as is apparent from a
perusal of the advertisement enclosed with the writ petition, at the
time when
the subject advertisement was issued by the
respondent No.1/School, inviting applications to fill-up the
posts of TGT (Hindi), it was not mandatory for the
candidates to possess the TET certificate. The only
qualifications that a candidates was required to possess was
graduation in Hindi (Hons.) with 50% marks and a Bachelor’s
degree in Education and the respondent no.4 fulfilled both the qualifications.
11.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the copies of the
certificates filed by the respondent No.4 ought to be verified
by the respondent No.1/School, is found to be rather incon
gruent in the light of the fact that on her part, the petitioner has chosen not to file any such certificate
to
substantiate her claim that she possesses a TET certificate
purportedly issued by the State of Haryana. This demand is
all the more discordant when the sole argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioner to assail the appointment of the respondent No.4 is non-possessio
n
of the TET certificate by her. Had the petitioner wanted to
file the said certificate, she had an opportunity to do so
alongwith the writ petition and having failed to do so at that stage,
she could have done so while filing the rejoinder to the
counter affidavits filed by the respondent no.1/School and
respondent No.4. However, for reasons best known to her, the petitio
ner elected not to do so.
Therefore,
counsel for the petitioner cannot insist that the respondent
No.4 be directed to produce her original certificates for purposes of
verification.
12.
In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the
post of TGT (Hindi) does not suffer from any illegality or
arbitrariness for interference in the present proceedings. The writ petition is dismi
ssed as being devoid of merits while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 12, 2014 JUDGE
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet |
Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News |
72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher
Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825
Teacher Recruitment Uptet News
Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank
District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher
Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
