UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - Science / Arts Stream Issue in BTC Category -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 74086 of 2011
Petitioner :- Narendra Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rashmi Tripathi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1.
Heard Shri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Ms. Rashmi Tripathi
appears for respondent no.4.
2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated
23.8.2011 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner's selection
for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 under General Male Science Group. He has
further prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to admit him and permit for completion of Special B.T.C.
2004 with all consequential benefits within stipulated period.
3. It
appears from the record that the petitioner obtained B.Sc degree from
Delhi University in the year 1993 and B.P. Ed (one year Degree Course)
from the Nagpur University in the year 1996 (Session-1995-96). An
advertisement dated 22/23.1.2004 was published in daily newspaper
"Dainik Jagaran" for selection of Special B.T.C. Course 2004 to the
candidates, who have B.Ed/L.T. qualifications. Subsequently, the State
Government vide Government Order dated 20.2.2004 had amended the earlier
Government Order dated 14.1.2004 and given liberty to the candidates,
who have B.P.Ed/D.P.Ed and C.P.Ed qualifications as eligibility for
selection of Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Pursuant to the amendment,
again an advertisement was issued on 22.2.2004 in conformity with the
said amendment. The petitioner having requisite qualifications had
applied along with necessary papers. The documents were scrutinized and
examined by the respondents. Thereafter the quality point mark/merit was
prepared on 20.4.2004 and as such the petitioner had secured 308.61
quality point marks under General Male Science Group whereas the last
selected candidate had secured 305.84 quality point marks in the same
category. It has also been averred in the writ petition that despite the
better quality point marks under the said category, the petitioner was
not called for training by the respondents. He had approached this Court
by means of Writ Petition No.35518 of 2004 and this Court passed an
interim order on 31.8.2004 in favour of the petitioner, which is
extracted below:-
"Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on
behalf of all the respondents. He is granted four weeks time to file
counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file
rejoinder affidavit. List in the second week of November, 2004.
Until
further orders, it is provided that the petitioner's candidature for
the Special B.T.C. 2004 shall not be rejected provided the B.P.Ed Degree
Course passed by the petitioner in the year 1996 is approved by the
National Council of Teachers Education."
4. In pursuance to the
aforesaid interim order, the respondent no.2 directed the petitioner to
appear on 12.10.2004 for counselling in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 along
with necessary relevant documents. Despite the aforesaid proceeding the
petitioner had not been admitted for the aforesaid course on the ground
that he had B.P.Ed degree from other State i.e. outside the State of
Uttar Pradesh in the year 1995-96 and further his claim has been
rejected on the ground that the said degree was not recognised by the
National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE).
5. In this background
the present writ petition is being filed assailing the impugned order
specially on the ground that since the aforesaid two questions,
regarding the recognition of degrees issued by the University till 1996,
and another question whether the degree obtained from the other States,
were subjudiced before this Court in Special Appeal No.989 of 2008
(Bhupendra Nath Tripathi vs. State of UP and ors) decided on 6.1.2009
and the Writ Petition No.3733 of 2009 (Jitendra Kumar Soni vs. State of
UP & ors) decided on 13.8.2010 and while deciding the issues this
Court had specifically held that the candidature for Special B.T.C.
Course 2004 shall not be rejected only on the ground that the degree
obtained from the other States and further the candidature shall not be
rejected on the ground that the aforesaid degree/course is not
recognised by the NCTE, which was issued till the year 1996 before the
said Act has come into an existence. In this background the aforesaid
writ petition, which has been filed by the petitioner, was listed before
this Court and by a detailed judgment and order dated 3.5.2011
corrected on 5.5.2011 allowed the writ petition directing the
respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Special
B.T.C. Course 2004 holding that the candidature of the petitioner shall
not be rejected on the ground that his B.P.Ed degree was not recognised
by the NCTE and he has obtained the degree from the other State. The
respondent no.3 vide the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 rejected the
selection of the petitioner on the ground that his duplicate marksheet
of B.Sc issued on 14.1.2001 mentioned the passing year 2000, whereas his
graduation degree/certificate indicated the passing year 1993 and
further the aforesaid degree i.e. B.Sc Physical Education passed in the
year 1993 from the Delhi University and the same would be applicable to
the Art category in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 and since his quality
point marks is less than the quality point marks of the last selected
candidate in Art category, therefore, he was not entitled for the
selection in the Special B.T.C. Course 2004 under General Male Science
Group. While passing the impugned order it had also been observed that
the institution, from which he obtained B.P.Ed degree, was not mentioned
in the list of institutions affiliated to Nagpur University and as
such, he was not entitled for the aforesaid course.
6. Learned
counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the claim of the
petitioner has been rejected in most cursory manner on the ground that
the original mark sheet of graduation i.e. B.Sc issued by Delhi
University to the petitioner in the year 1993 was misplaced. Then again
he had approached the University concerned in the month of January, 2001
and obtained the duplicate marksheet on 14.1.2011 on the available
proforma of the University in which 200 marks was printed and due to
human error/mistake the same was not corrected by the University,
whereas the certificate/degree dated 15.5.1994 was rightly issued
showing the passing year of B.Sc. i.e. 1993 and the mark sheets issued
in B.Sc Part-I, Part-II and Part-III have also been brought on record as
Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the institution, from where he had
obtained B.P.Ed certificate, was very much recognised from the Nagpur
University, whereas the said institution was shown at serial no.72 and
available on the website of the University. The same has also been
brought on record as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
8. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order
cannot be sustained on the ground that the respondents had treated the
graduation degree i.e. B.Sc Physical Education in the Art stream whereas
this controversy had already been settled down by this Court in Writ
Petition No.22141 of 2004 (Niranjan Singh and ors vs. State of UP and
ors) in which this Hon'ble Court held that the B.Sc Physical Education
would be treated as graduation degree in Science.
9. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further makes submission that Section Officer,
Examination Branch, University of Delhi vide his letter dated 19.9.2011
had also clarified the anomaly, which was cropped up while issuing the
duplicate certificate whereas it has been observed that the petitioner
was awarded B.Sc certificate in the year 1993 under roll no.9823 in
which he obtained 892 marks out of 1600 marks and passed in 2nd
division. The clarification has also been brought on record as
Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the ground taken by the respondents for denial of
petitioner's right cannot be sustained specially on the ground that
whatever the objection taken by the respondents in not conferring the
benefits had already been settled by this Court. He has placed his
reliance on the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.22141 of 2004 (Niranjan Singh & others vs. State of UP
& others) alongwith connected 72 matters. Hon'ble Division Bench had
decided the controversy with following observations:-
"In all these
writ petitions the question which falls for determination is as to
whether candidates who had passed Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) or
Bachelor of Science (Home Science) and applied for admission to the
Special Basic Teaching Certificate (in short Special BTC) Course 2004
shall be treated as candidates of Science stream or Arts stream.
In
view of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 13.4.2004 passed
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32309 of 2003 (Kripa Shankar Dubey VS.
State of U.P and others) as affirmed in Special Appeal No. 975 of 2004,
there is no escape from the conclusion that B.Sc. (Agriculture) and
B.Sc. (Home Science) candidates have to be treated in science stream.
The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment observed as under:-
".............
court is of the opinion that there is no material for clubbing B.Sc.
(Ag) in Arts category and as such this condition, which has been sought
to be imposed, appears to be unreasonable on the face of it.
...................
In
this view of the fact, as the petitioner had filled up form for
consideration of his candidature as Science category candidate and has
undertaken the aforementioned examination in the aforementioned category
as such it is hereby directed that petitioner shall be treated as
Science category candidate and admission be accorded to him on merit by
treating him as Science category candidate."
It is further relevant
here to state that the State Government by its order dated 10.7.2007 had
decided that B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Sc. (Home Science) candidates
shall be considered to be candidates belonging to science stream.
The relevant extract of the aforesaid Government order is reproduced herein below:-
^^,sls
vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus ch0,l0lh0] ch0,l0lh0 ¼d`f"k½ vFkok ch0,l0lh0 ¼x`g
foKku½ ls Lukrd ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gks] os foKku oxZ ds vH;FkhZ ekus
tk;saxsA buds vfrfjDr vU; oxksZa ds mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ dyk oxZ esa ekus
tk;saxs**A
In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the candidates
who had obtained their decree for B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. (Home
Science) be treated to be candidates belonging to the science stream for
the purposes of admission to the Special BTC course 2004.
Counsel
for the petitioners state that a large number of seats are still
available in the Special BTC course 2004 on which the candidates who
have passed Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) and Bachelor of (Home
Science) can be accommodated.
We do not find any material to record a
finding in this regard. In case seats/vacancies are available for
admission, the respondents shall consider the cases of all those
candidates who had passed B.Sc. Science (Agriculture) or B.Sc. Science
(Home Science) treating them to be belonging to the science stream.
Benefit of this order shall not only be confined to the writ petitioners
but would be available to all the candidates who had applied and belong
to aforesaid categories.
All the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly."
11.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment
of this Court in Writ Petition No.35518 of 2004 filed by the petitioner
decided on 3.5.2011. The order is reproduced herein below:-
"The
petitioner passed out B.Ed course from Kanpur University in the year
1995-96. The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993
(hereinafter referred to as the 'N.C.T.E.') came into force on
17.8.1995. The candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C course
was not accepted on the ground that he has obtained B.Ed. degree in the
year 1995-96 from an institution, which was not approved by N.C.T.E. It
is admitted that under Section 14(5) the B.Ed course which were already
run by the respective institutions on the date when the Act came into
force shall be allowed to be completed without their being any
requirement of N.C.T.E.
Km. Rashmi Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents could not make any substantive submission even
otherwise to pursue the court to take a different view.
The matter is
also covered by a Full Bench decision of this court in Bhoopendra Nath
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others in S.A. No.858 of 2008 decided on
6.1.2009 and Jitendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P. in W.P. NO. 3733 of
2009 decided on 13-08-2010.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed.
The
respondents shall consider the candidature of the petitioner for
Special B.T.C. course. It is made clear that her candidature shall not
be rejected only on the ground that the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner
is not recognized by the N.C.T.E and has been obtained from the other
State.
The exercise in this regard shall be completed within two
months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before
him and in case the petitioner is found eligible and within merit, he
shall be admitted for the said course. Appropriate consequential action
shall be taken immediately thereafter."
12. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has also placed his reliance on the judgment and order
dated 7.4.2014 passed in Writ A No.54586 of 2011 (Fouj Dar Yadav vs.
State of UP and others). For ready reference the same is also reproduced
herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The
petitioner has been selected for Special BTC Course-2004. The question
arose as to whether in the B.P.Ed. Examination cleared by the
petitioner, the marks of only theory examination were to be taken into
consideration for calculating quality point marks or practical marks
would also be taken into consideration. The authority only considered
theory marks and did not add the practical marks while calculating
quality point marks. This question was raised before this Court in large
number of decisions. Ultimately in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla vs.
State of U.P. and others this Court held that the marks obtained in the
practical examination would also be added for calculating quality point
marks. The judgment in the case of Shashi Kant Shukla was upheld by the
Division Bench and Special Leave Petition filed by the State was also
dismissed. Based on the aforesaid decision in the case of Shashi Kant
Shukla the petitioner's Writ Petition No.7299 of 2010 was also disposed
of vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 with direction to the
competent authority to take an appropriate decision in the light of the
judgment in the cases of Shashi Kant Shukla, Pradyumn Dutt Singh and
Mahesh Prasad Tiwari within three weeks. The petitioner submitted his
representation alongwith the judgment of this Court whereupon the
Director, SCERT vide order dated 11.07.2011, rejected the claim of the
applicant on the ground that the B.P.Ed. degree of the applicant was not
genuine. The said order dated 11.07.2011 has been challenged by means
of the present petition.
B.P.Ed. degree of the petitioner was issued
by the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur which has been
impleaded as respondent no.4 in the writ petition. Sri Anil Tiwari and
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocates appear for the University and they have
filed three affidavits in response to the notice and further direction
issued by the Court. In the first affidavit dated 28.11.2011 which has
been sworn by Sri Ram Siromani Yadav, Examination Controller, Veer
Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur it has been stated in
paragraph 3 that the petitioner has passed Bachelor of Physical
Education Course from Kisan P.G. College Baghaon, Ghazipur in the year
2001. Further the affidavit mentions that as there was some inadvertent
mistake in issuance of the degree of the petitioner the same was
subsequently corrected. The original degree issued was taken back by the
University and a fresh degree was issued. In the affidavit the process
of issuance of degree has been mentioned. However the same is not
relevant for deciding the present controversy.
The crux of the
affidavit is that the petitioner was validly declared successful in
B.P.Ed. Course in the year 2000-01. The discrepancy mentioned by the
Director, SCERT in the impugned order was purely technical for which the
petitioner was not responsible but the University Authorities were
responsible. In that regard the Court had already issued directions and
appropriate inquiry has been got conducted in the matter by the Vice
Chancellor and also the Secretary Higher Education.
Since the only
reason for rejecting the claim of the applicant and his admission to
Special BTC Course-2004 was discrepancy in the B.P.Ed Degree and that
having been found to be genuine and valid in view of the affidavit filed
by the Authorities of the University, the impugned order dated
11.07.2011, passed by the Director, SCERT cannot be sustained.
Accordingly
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugend order dated
11.07.2011 is hereby quashed. The Director, SCERT is directed to pass
fresh orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner within a period
of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this
order."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that still the vacancy is in existence for Special BTC Course 2004 and
has placed his reliance on the orders passed in Writ A No.10018 of 2015
(Rajeev Verma and 102 ors vs. State of UP & 3 ors) decided on
19.2.2015 and the order passed in Writ A No.12365 of 2015 (Alka Gupta
and 36 ors vs. State of UP and 3 ors) decided on 26.2.2015. The order
dated 19.2.2015 passed in Writ A No.10018 of 2015 is reproduced herein
below:-
"The petitioners claim to have completed Special BTC-2004.
The contention of the petitioner is that the Special BTC Training Course
was conducted for 46,189 vacancy. As per the information under RTI
given by the Director, SCERT, only 35,738 vacancies have been filled up
till 31.10.2011. The contention of the petitioners is that the vacancy
for Special BTC Course-2004 was conducted, still exist.
The
contention is that earlier similarly situated candidate namely Smt. Deep
Mala Sengar has approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4246 of 2013
(Smt. Deep Mala Sengar Vs. State of U.P. and others) and pursuant to
the directions of this Court to decide her claim, she was given
appointment on 21th November, 2013.
The contention of the petitioner
is that TET qualification cannot be made compulsory in respect of the
petitioner for the reason that they are claiming appointment against the
vacancies for which the selection was held in the year 2004. The
petitioners have approached the Director, SCERT on 10.10.2014. Till
date, no decision has been taken and hence this writ petition.
Sri
Virendra Chaubey, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent no. 3, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and
4.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, it would be appropriate that the matter be first examined by
respondent no. 2 who is the competent authority.
In view thereof,
the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction respondent no. 2
to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the
vacancy for which the selection for Special BTC Course-2004 was held
i.e. for 46,189 vacancy.
An expeditious decision shall be taken
within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him."
14. It is apparent that the
petitioner passed his B.Sc degree from Delhi University in the year 1993
and B.P.Ed (One Year Degree Course) from Nagpur University in the year
1996 (Session 1995-96) and the National Council for Teachers Education
Act, 1993 came into force on 17.8.1995. Therefore, the claim of the
petitioner cannot be denied in the light of the observations made as
above.
15. In view of above, the order impugned dated 23.8.2011 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.
16.
The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the
respondent no.2 i.e. Director, State Council for Educational Research
and Training, U.P. Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioner for
appointment against the vacancies for which the selection for Special
B.T.C. Course 2004 was held.
Order Date :- 9.3.2015
RKP
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011,
72825 Teacher Recruitment,
Teacher Eligibility Test (
TET),
72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog ,
UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS,
SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more:
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet |
Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News |
72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher
Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825
Teacher Recruitment Uptet News
Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank
District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher
Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
