Wednesday, February 5, 2014

BTC : बीटीसी में मनचाहे जिले में पाएं दाखिला

BTC : बीटीसी में मनचाहे जिले में पाएं दाखिला

 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News



लखनऊ। बीटीसी में इस बार इफराद सीटें होंगी। इसलिए आवेदकों को मनचाहे जिले में दाखिला पाने में किसी तरह की दिक्कत नहीं होगी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश पर 75 और बीटीसी कॉलेजों को संबद्धता देने की तैयारी है। शासन स्तर पर इस संबंध में मंथन चल रहा है। शीघ्र ही शासनादेश जारी कर इन कॉलेजों से संबद्धता के लिए आवेदन मांगे जाएंगे।
उत्तर प्रदेश में जिला शिक्षा एवं प्रशिक्षण संस्थान (डायट) में 10,450 सीटें हैं। इसके अलावा 620 निजी कॉलेजों में 31,000 सीटें हैं। बीटीसी के लिए करीब 75 और कॉलेजों को संबद्धता देने के बाद 3750 सीटें और बढ़ जाएंगी। इस तरह कुल 45,200 सीटें हो जाएंगी। बीटीसी के लिए आए ऑनलाइन आवेदन में 54,451 सही पाए गए हैं। आवेदकों और सीटें का मिलान किया जाए तो सीटों के मुकाबले 9,251 अधिक आवेदन आए हैं।
बीटीसी के लिए ऑनलाइन आवेदन लिए गए थे और किसी भी जिले में आवेदन की छूट दी गई थी। ऐसे में कुछ आवेदकों ने एक से अधिक जिलों में भी आवेदन किए होंगे। स्वाभाविक है कि ऐसे आवेदक केवल एक ही जिले में प्रवेश लेंगे और दूसरे जिलों की सीटों को छोड़ेंगे। ऐसे में कम मेरिट वालों को भी बीटीसी में प्रवेश का मौका मिल जाएगा

News Source / Sabhaar : अमर उजाला(05.02.2014)

29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment, Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : जूनियर शिक्षकों कि भर्ती के लिए होने वाली सशर्त काउंसलिंग को लेकर संशय बकरार

 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment, Upper Primary Teacher Recruitment UP : जूनियर शिक्षकों कि भर्ती के लिए होने वाली सशर्त  काउंसलिंग को लेकर संशय बकरार

 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News


अभ्यर्थीयों में जूनियर शिक्षकों कि भर्ती के लिए होने वाली सशर्त  काउंसलिंग को लेकर संशय बकरार ,
क्यूंकि  सशर्त काउंसलिंग , मेरिट कट-ऑफ़ , प्रक्रिया जारी रोकने के लिए कोई स्थगनादेश नहीं है तो काफी सारे अभ्यर्थी उम्मीद कर रहे हैं
कि आज काउंसलिंग की कट ऑफ़ जारी हो सकती है ।

इस बीच दो विरोधाभासी न्यूज़ आयी है -

१. हिंदुस्तान पेपर ने न्यूज़ दी है कि काउंसलिंग मुश्किल





२. जागरण अखबार ने कल देर रात न्यूज़ में सचिव का बयान दिया है  जिसमें  :
शिक्षा निदेशक बासुदेव यादव ने कहा है कि शिक्षामित्रों को शीघ्र ही समायोजित किया जाएगा। पूरा प्रयास किया जा रहा है कि चुनाव आचार संहिता लागू होने के पूर्व यह कार्य कर लिया जाए। उन्होंने जूनियर हाई स्कूल में गणित-विज्ञान के सहायक अध्यापकों के 29 हजार पदों की काउंसिलिंग 12 फरवरी से शुरू किए जाने की बात कही


See News:-
***************
शिक्षामित्रों का समायोजन शीघ्र: बासुदेव यादव
Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:27 PM (IST)
खुटहन (जौनपुर): शिक्षा निदेशक बासुदेव यादव ने कहा है कि शिक्षामित्रों को शीघ्र ही समायोजित किया जाएगा। पूरा प्रयास किया जा रहा है कि चुनाव आचार संहिता लागू होने के पूर्व यह कार्य कर लिया जाए। उन्होंने जूनियर हाई स्कूल में गणित-विज्ञान के सहायक अध्यापकों के 29 हजार पदों की काउंसिलिंग 12 फरवरी से शुरू किए जाने की बात कही।

श्री यादव मंगलवार को ग्राम विकास इंटर कालेज में शिक्षण कक्ष के लोकार्पण के पश्चात बतौर मुख्य अतिथि बोल रहे थे। उन्होंने कहा कि सपने हमेशा देखना चाहिए और उसी को लक्ष्य मानकर आचरण व श्रम करने से सफलता अवश्य मिलती है। सत्कर्म और अथक प्रयास से भाग्य तो बनता है लेकिन केवल भाग्य के भरोसे रहने वाला इंसान कभी लक्ष्य को हासिल नहीं कर सकता।

अपने संबोधन में जहां उन्होंने शिक्षकों को उनके दायित्वों का बोध कराया वहीं छात्रों को पठन-पाठन से संबंधित कुछ टिप्स भी दिए।

बालिका शिक्षा पर जोर देते हुए कहा कि इनके शिक्षित होने से दो परिवार लाभान्वित होते हैं। माता-पिता शिक्षित हों तो बच्चों में जन्मजात शैक्षिक गुण आ जाते हैं। लोकार्पण के पश्चात अपने संबोधन में उन्हें इस कालेज को पांच विषयों वाणिज्य, गृह विज्ञान, कृषि, सिलाई-कढ़ाई व संगीत विषय की मान्यता दिए जाने की घोषणा की।

कार्यक्रम से पूर्व मां सरस्वती के चित्र के सामने दीप प्रज्ज्वलन किया गया। विद्यालय की छात्रा शिखा पाल, सुप्रिया सिंह व आफरीन ने सरस्वती वंदना तथा गौरवी उपाध्याय एवं ज्योति यादव ने स्वागत गीत प्रस्तुत किया। इस मौके पर जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक भाष्कर मिश्र, प्रबंधक रामबली यादव, एनके यादव प्रधानाचार्य अनिल उपाध्याय, डा.रमेश सिंह, लक्ष्मीदत्त चतुर्वेदी, खंड शिक्षाधिकारी अशोक यादव, विश्वजीत, रुद्र प्रताप, डा.रणजीत सिंह आदि मौजूद रहे। अध्यक्षता केशवदास गोस्वामी और संचालन राम कुमार यादव ने किया। प्रधानाचार्य डा.रमेश यादव ने आगंतुकों के प्रति आभार ज्ञापित किया।

News Sabhaar : Jagran (04.02.2014)
*********************************************

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

UPTET :ठीक एक साल पहले 72825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती पर स्टे

UPTET :ठीक एक साल पहले 72825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती पर स्टे

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News


आज  से  ठीक एक साल पहले 72825 शिक्षकों की भर्ती पर स्टे लगा था ,
और हमने कोर्ट का यह निर्णय प्रकाशित किया  था

(यह ब्लॉग यू पी टी ई टी के जन्म से आपके साथ , बने रहें जरूरी जानकारी के लिए ब्लॉग के साथ )



UPTET : Stay on Selection Process till 11th Feb 2013
See Hearing Details -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 33 


Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Navin Srivastava And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastava 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 
����������������������������������� And 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Sujeet Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Shailendra 
����������������������������������� And 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 152 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Sadanand Mishra,Seemant Singh 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta 
����������������������������������� And 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav 
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � And 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 161 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Alok Singh And Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others 
Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastasva 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar 

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J. 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. 
������� In this bunch of similar appeals, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Connect these appeals and list them together as a bunch on 11.02.2013. 
������ All candidates have cleared the TET. One of the basic questions that arises in these cases is that if the criteria for selection is the TET merit, then whether the selection had taken place before the training, or after the training, the result would have been the same. Clause No. 10 of the Advertisement says that after successful completion of training (approved by the NCTE) the substantive appointments would be made as per 1981 Rules and Twelfth amendment 2011. While deciding a case we have to go by the substance. By way of example if the selected candidates had not been called 'apprentice teachers', but had been selected on merits merely for 'training with scholarships equivalent to salary', and after successful completion of training again subjected to selection as per their merit in TET (which at that time was the prescribed criteria), the result in substance would have been the same as obtaining today. And in such case the ground that there was no post of 'apprentice teachers' would not be available. 
������� The basis for cancellation of the earlier selection process as mentioned in the order dated 26.07.2012 consists of two kind of grounds. The first ground says that some alleged irregularities were found in conducting of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET for short). It appears that some High Powered Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary gave a report. On the basis of that report, the entire selection process, wherein the merit of the TET was the determining�criteria, was canceled. 
������� The learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order that if some irregularities were found at some places, the good part of the TET should have been attempted to be separated from the bad or vitiated part, but the entire selection should not have been canceled. 
����� �� So far as there is nothing to show from the side of the State that the good part that is to say places where there was no irregularity in the TET could or could not be separated from the bad part that is from places or areas where irregularities had taken place. 
�������� As prayed by the learned Additional Advocate General, the report of the High Powered Committee may be placed on record by means of a counter-affidavit, which will also indicate with cogent reasons, on the basis of that report or other previous records, whether it was, or was not, possible to separate the good part from the bad part. 
����� � The second kind of ground of the order dated 26.07.2012 indicates that it was felt that the criteria for determining the merit for selection on the basis of merit in the TET should be replaced by the criteria of determining the merit on the basis of quality point marks as calculated on the basis of past academic record, ignoring the merit of TET. This substituted criteria was believed to be better by way of some after-thought. Accordingly Rules were amended. 
������� The learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order that such change of criteria can only be prospective and cannot affect the previous selections. 
������� Moreover, we are also prima facie of the opinion that this change of thought namely that the previous criteria could be replaced by seemingly better criteria for determining merit cannot be a ground for canceling the entire selection process. If that kind of ground urged by the State is accepted, it is equally possible that tomorrow some other Government or some other official may think that perhaps the new suggested criteria (of quality point marks) could be replaced by what he believes to be a still better criteria, could again form the basis of scrapping the fresh selection process which is ongoing. 
������� In the fresh selection process, there is an extremely large number of candidates whose counseling is said to have started from today. 
�������� Obviously, the counseling will take time, and we intend, with the consent of the parties, to finally dispose of all these appeals at the admission stage, for which we have fixed 11.02.2013. Therefore, we are of the opinion that so many candidates should not be put to the trouble of counseling, which may, if these appeals are ultimately allowed, be reduced to a futile exercise. Therefore, keeping in view the larger overall interest of all parties involved, including the interest of those candidates who are not parties before us, we are of the opinion that the ongoing selection process should remain suspended till 11.02.2013

Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.2.2013
Sunil Kr Tiwari
(Manoj Misra,J.) (Sushil Harkauli,J.) 

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

I think court said that - If counselling allowed and appeal of candidate (i.e demanding selection through TET merit ) ultimately allowed then counselling has no meaning.

A big point is - Changes in selection process is prospective (aage ke leeye) OR retrospective ( peeche bhrtee ke niyamon ke leeye ) honge, aur UPTET ka kya hoga, lakhon candidates ka kya hogaa.

Don't worry, Be Happy (Live your life happily, ALL IS WELL, Khush Raho, Aapkee Jindgee aur Samay Anmol Hai)

I hoped all matter will resolve in best way, so that all candidates, government will be benefited from it.
And Government will implement RTE act in UP effectively in the schools of UP.

Shiksha Mitra News : kaise di jay tet se mukti mathapacchi jari hai

Shiksha Mitra News : kaise di jay tet se mukti mathapacchi jari hai

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News


News Source / Sabhaar : Hindustan Paper (04.02.2014)

UPTET 2014 EXAM CENTER INFORMATION

UPTET 2014 EXAM CENTER INFORMATION


UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News





News Source / Sabhaar : Hindustan Paper (04.02.2014)


Monday, February 3, 2014

UPTET / ALLAHABAD HC on Recruitment of Teacher in 2001

 ALLAHABAD HC decisions on Recruitment of Teacher in 2014


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

RESERVED
Court No. - 3
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1375 of 2004
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Shukla and others.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy Basic Education And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr L.P.Misra,N.R.Tripathi,Sanjay Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.M. Asthana
And
Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1294 of 2003
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. Basic Education Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Mishra,N.R. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C..,R.K.Katiyar
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.

Heard Dr.L.P.Mishra, learned Advocate and Mr. Prafull Tripathi, learned counsels for the petitioners as well as Mr.M.M. Asthana, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 4, and Mr. Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the District Basic Education, Officer Baharaich.
Since in both the writ petitions the same controversy is involved, those are decided by following common order.
The petitioners possessing the two years diploma in education from the various institutions of State of Madhya Pradesh claimed their eligibility for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools in District Baharaich. Their claim have been rejected by means of order impugned i.e. (Annexure No.1, 2 and 3) on the ground that they do not possess the eligibility for appointment as Assistant Teacher under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as Service Rules, 1981). Since they have completed the diploma course through correspondence courses, they have also challenged the government order dated 27 March 1998 which excludes such trained teachers from the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.
They also claim their eligibility under the qualifications prescribed by the National Council of Teachers Education as it recognizes the distant courses for the purpose of admission in training courses. The controversy for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools of the State of U.P. had come for consideration before this Court in several cases as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the leading one was Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and others 2008 (1) ESC 160 (SC) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the NCTE Act has no over riding effect over U.P. Basic Education Act and the rules made therein. In fact the two acts operate in altogether two different fields. The NCTE, deals with the teachers training institution while the Basic Education deals with ordinary Primary Education in U.P. and not any Teachers' Training Institute.
In the case on hand the advertisement does not entail the qualification of diploma in education from outside the State as a eligible qualification, rather it provides the eligibility for appointment as Assistant Teachers in two years BTC Course completed from the institution situated in the respective districts. Rule 8 of Service Rules, 1981 also does not recognize such qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Division Bench of this Court in Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. District Basic Education Officer, (Writ A No. 58 of 2003) and other connected matters has elaborately discussed this issue and ultimately expressed its opinion that the petitioners did not fulfill the qualifications as prescribed under Rule 8 of 1981 and they are not eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers in the institutions. In this case also the petitioners had obtained the diploma certificate of two years course from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of the full bench of this Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soni and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2351. A bare perusal of this decision shows that the facts of the said case are distinguishable to the case on hand as in that case the Division Bench has dealt with the qualification for the teachers training courses. Another Full Bench decision of this Court dealing with the case of Ram Surat Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (1) ADJ 1(FB) has discussed the issue in detail. In this matter the Division Bench doubting the correctness of the judgment of another Division Bench given in the case of Rishi Kant Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others 2008 (6) ADJ (DB) referred the matter to the Full Bench. In this case the vacancy of the Assistant Teacher was advertised and pursuant to that selection took place in 2006. Since none of the appointees possessed the Certificates of Training prescribed by the Rules, such as HTC, JTC, BTC or CT, their appointment were held to be invalid.
In Rishi Kant Sharma's case an advertisement was issued for the post of Head Master, appellant was selected, a year later his appointment was challenged. The writ petition was allowed consequently the approval of his appointment was cancelled. In Appeal the Division Bench held that the appointment of the Appellant was made by following due process of law, after an appointment was issued and selection was processed on the point of qualification it distinguishes the decision rendered in the case of Mohd. Sartaj and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (2006) 2 SCC 315 on the ground that in that case the cancellation of order for appointment was issued within very short span of time giving no probability for any legitimate expectations to the appellants regarding their qualification of his service, however, in the present case the Division Bench held that the appellants had continued in service for eight years during the pendency of the writ proceedings. On this ground the Division Bench set-aside the judgment of Learned Single Judge Considering the several decisions rendered on the point. The Full Bench of this Court expressed its view that the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case cannot be regarded as lying down the correct law, the relevant paragraph 18 is extracted below:-
"18. In our view, the decision of the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case cannot be regarded as laying down the correct principle of law. First and as a matter of fundamental principle, when a requirement of eligibility is prescribed in statutory Rules which govern a selection, appointment of a person who does not fulfill the norm of eligibility cannot be regarded as lawful. Secondly, when a selection process is initiated in pursuance of an advertisement and the advertisement lays down the conditions of eligibility, a person who does not fulfill the required qualifications can have no legitimate entitlement to hold the post. Thirdly, the view which has been taken by the Division Bench is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a line of authority. We have already adverted to the decisions in P.M. Latha, Yogesh Kumar, Dilip Kumar Ghosh and Pramod Kumar. Once the Rules which have been framed under the Statute prescribe the eligibility qualifications, those qualifications have to be adhered to. A candidate who does not fulfill the required qualifications has no entitlement to the post and even if such an appointment is made, it would be contrary to law. Fourthly, the ground on which the decision in Mohd. Sartaj has been distinguished is, with respect, erroneous. Mohd. Sartaj's case was sought to be distinguished on the ground that the appointment of the appellant in that case as an Assistant Teacher in Urdu was sought to be cancelled within a short span of time from the date of his appointment. Now, a careful reading of the decision in Mohd. Sartaj's case would indicate that the cancellation of the order of appointment in that case was questioned on the ground that it had been effected without allowing to the appellant a due opportunity of being heard. The argument in regard to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice was repelled by the Supreme Court, holding that the case fell within the exception carved out in the decision in S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors.12, that where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue a writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe it but because Courts do not issue futile writs. Since the appellant did not possess the BTC, HTC, JTC or CT or any other training course recognized by the government of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that the case fell within the exception to the principles of natural justice. Moreover, in that context, it was also held by the Supreme Court that the cancellation order had been issued within a short span of time giving no probability for a legitimate expectation regarding the continuance in service. Hence, it is clear that the issue as to whether a short span of time had elapsed since the date of the appointment was a factor which was considered by the Supreme Court in relation to the argument that there had been a breach of the principles of natural justice. This point, with respect, has been missed in the judgment of the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case. Again, the decision in Rishi Kant Sharma's case cannot be regarded as laying down the correct principle in law when it holds that there was a long standing dispute as to whether the BEd degree course can be taken as a superior course to the BTC. Such a contention has been expressly turned down in the judgments of the Supreme Court in P.M. Latha, Yogesh Kumar and Dilip Kumar Ghosh. The Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case relied upon a Government Order. But it is well settled that a Government Order cannot override statutory Rules. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the judgment in Rishi Kant Sharm'a case cannot be regarded as laying down the correct principle of law."
In the mean time the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Act, 2009 has been enacted and in exercise of powers conferred by section 38 of the said Act Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 have also been framed which provides the minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in Primary Schools to the Intermediate Colleges, however, the same has not been given retrospective effect and that has also been taken care by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Surat Yadav (Supra),and the Full Bench of this Court provided that the disputes prior to the enactment of the aforesaid act shall be governed under the relevant statutes.
So far as the issuance of Government Order dated 27th March 1998 which includes the candidates having completed their training from correspondences courses are concerned. I hold that the State Government is fully empowered to regulate the recruitment under the Act, therefore the same cannot be said to be faulty.
The present dispute relates to the recruitment, year 2001, therefore, obviously it shall be governed under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, as well as the rules framed there under. Since the petitioners do not possess the qualification as is prescribed under Rule 8 of the Service Rules,1981 for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools. I do not find error in the orders impugned.
In the result the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.01.2014
A.K. Singh

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=3044052


UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgements in 2014


UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgements in 2014

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3316 of 2014

Petitioner :- Bhagirath Singh And 13 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents no.1 to 3 to issue certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test-2013 (Primary Level) in pursuance of the decision taken by the N.C.T.E. dated 10.1.2014, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have appeared in the U.P. TET-2013 Examination but the certificate has not been issued.
The petitioners in this regard are stated to have preferred a representation before the Secretary Basic Education , U.P., Lucknow on 13.01.2014 which is stated to be still pending.
I have heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.1, Secretary Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow to take a decision of the petitioners' representation dated 13.01.2014 strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
Order Date :- 20.1.2014
N Tiwari

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=3049269

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgements in 2014

UPTET : Allahabad Highcourt Judgements in 2014

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1859 of 2014

Petitioner :- Muzahid Husain
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
The petitioner is seeking a direction to consider the grievances of the petitioner's candidature adopting the principle of rounding off in the Teacher Eligibility Test (in short T.E.T.) examination, 2013.
I have heard Sri B.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel, representing the respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2.
Sri Akhtar has placed on record an order dated 10.1.2014, wherein it has been stated that the case of all the persons to appear in the TET examination, 2013 with regard to rounding off has been accepted by the National Council of Teachers' Education, respondent no. 3 and the case of the petitioner will also be covered by the Decision of NCTE dated 10.1.2014 and in the circumstances, this writ petition has therefore become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees in view of the decision taken by the NCTE that this writ petition has become infructuous.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.
Order Date :- 13.1.2014
Puspendra

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=3037735


Petitioner wants recrruitment of Asst. Teacher on compassionate ground referring G.O dtd 15.02.2013, Writ Dismissed

 Petitioner wants recrruitment of Asst. Teacher on compassionate ground referring G.O dtd 15.02.2013, Writ Dismissed

 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News



RESERVE
AFR
Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52073 of 2013

Petitioner :- Amit Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 29.8.2013, whereby, the petitioner has been given appointment on a Class-IV post in the Prathmik Vidyalaya, Nagla Khepar Vikas Khand Janshath, District-Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner has further sought a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher in a Prathmik Vidyalaya on the basis of his educational qualification.
From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the father of the petitioner late Kalu Ram was employed as a Permanent Assistant Teacher in the Senior Basic School run by the Board of Basic Education, District-Muzaffarnagar and expired while still in service on 3.5.2012. The petitioner submitted his application for grant of compassionate appointment before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar on 19.5.2012. According to the petitioner his educational qualifications are B.Sc with Mathematics, M.Sc. with Mathematics and B.Ed. Degree and even though as on 9.5.2012 his result of the B.Ed. Examination was still awaited the same was declared on 27.12.2012. The petitioner is also stated to have qualified the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2011 (Primary Level).
I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Chaube, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents no.1 to 3.
The Principal objection raised by the petitioner to his appointment to the Class IV post of Assistant Teacher is that he possesses the requisite educational qualification entitling him to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and even though he may not have the Teachers Training Certificate the same can be undergone by him within six months on his appointment in terms of the National Council for Teacher Education Notification Dated 23.8.2010.
Para 3 of the NCTE Notification Dated 23.8.2010 reads as follows.
"3. Training to be undergone; A person-
(a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class 1 to VIII upto 1st January 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized 6 month special programme Elementary Education."
It is submitted by Sri Ashok Khare that although the cut-off date prescribed in para 3 was 1.1.2012 however the said date has subsequently been relaxed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School Education and Literacy) Notification dated 10.9.2012 and relaxation has been granted upto 31.3.2014.
The submission of Sri Ashok Khare further is that this relaxation extending the cut-off date from 1st January, 2012 upto 31.3.2014 was on the own request of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and therefore, even if the petitioner does not have the qualification of Special BTC, the same would not come in the way of appointment of the petitioner once relaxation has been extended upto 31.3.2014 and the petitioner in any case will have to undergo the six months special programme of Elementary Education in terms of Para 3 (A) of the NCTE Notification Dated 23.8.2010. A reference in support of his submission has also been made to the observations of the Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in 2013 (6) ADJ 310 (F), Shiv Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein, the Full Bench referring to the provisions of Section 23 (2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act, 2009) has held that relaxation can be granted in a particular contingency subject to the condition where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or unavailability of teachers possessing minimum qualifications.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as Assistant Teacher has been deliberately overlooked by the respondent no.4 in view of the State Government Notification Dated 15.2.2013, wherein, among the guidelines for appointment of Teachers on compassionate ground laid down, the Training Certificate of BTC or Special BTC as a requisite qualification has also been insisted upon.
Sri Virendra Chaube, learned counsel representing the Basic Shiksha Adhikdari, respondent no.4, on the other hand submitted that the family of the petitioner was paid Rs.7 lacs by way of terminal benefits and Rs.17,000/- is being paid as family pension to the widow and if the petitioner excepts the Class IV employment offered to him he would also get monthly salary of Rs.13,500/- which would bring home a total salary of Rs. 30,500/- which is enough to mitigate any financial hardships otherwise being faced by the family on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family.
Learned Counsel for the respondent further referred to the provisions of Rule 8 of the UP Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which provides academic qualifications for appointment of Assistant Masters or Assistant Mistresses of a Junior High School, wherein, Basic Teachers Certificate BTC, two years BTC (Urdu) Special BTC and passing Teachers Eligibility Test alongwith Bachelors Degree from a University established by law or Degree recognised by the Government have been prescribed as the requisite qualification. Reference has also been made to the letter of the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad dated 12.6.2012, wherein, the passing of the TET has been held to be compulsory in addition to the qualifications otherwise provided in the 1981 Rules. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
Before coming to the fundamental question regarding grant of relaxation in terms of the order of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School Education and Literacy) Notification dated 10.9.2012 it would be necessary to refer to the other objection raised by the respondents based upon the judgment of the Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crises arising out of the death of the sole bread winner and while granting such appointment the Government or the Public Authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Object of granting compassionate appointment is to give relief to the family of the deceased employee to meet immediate financial crises and from the immediate threat of destitution.
Although in the counter affidavit of the respondents, it has been stated that the terminal benefits paid to the family would be about Rs. 7 lacs and family pension of the widow would be about 17,000/- even so the concerned authority thought it a fit case for granting appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds even though it was aware that the petitioner would also draw a salary of Rs. 13,500/- as a Class IV employee and that the total monthly income of the family therefore, would be 30,500/- as stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit. That being the factual position it is not for the court to examine as to whether the benefit of the judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) was rightly given to the petitioner or not, the Competent Authority in this regard having already taken a decision to do so.
It is also not a case where the petitioner is claiming the post of Assistant Teacher solely on the ground that his father was also an Assistant Teacher. Rather the claim for the Class III post of Assistant Teacher is being based on the educational qualifications which the petitioner claims to possess which entitle him to stake a claim to the class III post of Assistant Teacher therefore, now the Court has to examine as to whether the petitioner indeed possesses the requisite qualification for appointment on the Class III post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the NCTE notification dated 23.8.2010 which has also been upheld by the Full Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra) training to be undergone as prescribed in Para 3-A is that a person with a B.A./B.Sc with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment provided he undergoes after appointment an NCTE recognised six months special programme of Elementary Education the only irretant in the implementation of this Government Notification in the case of the petitioner is the cut off date prescribed therein of 1.1.2012 for grant of such appointment. However, it is noticed that subsequently the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School Education and Literacy) issued Notification dated 10.9.2012 whereby relaxation in the cut off date in para 3-A of the NCTE Notification dated 23.8.2010 has been granted for a period upto 31.3.2014. This relaxation was granted on the own request of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh made through its letter dated 26.7.2012 the only rider being that the State Government shall conduct the Teacher Eligibility Test. It is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner is a B.Sc. with Mathematics, M.Sc. with Mathematics and possess B.Ed. Degree and has also qualified the U.P. Teacher eligibility Test-2011 (Primary Level), but as objected by the respondents, he does not have the qualification of B.T.C. or Special B.T.C.. The Full Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) in para 37 has held that Sub-Section 2 of Section 23 of the Act, 2009 gives power to the Central Government to relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher for a period not exceeding five years. This relaxation is in a particular contingency subject to the condition where a State Government does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or unavailability of teachers possessing the minimum qualifications.
Para-37 of the said judgment reads as follows-
"37.Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 gives power to the Central Government to relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher for a period not exceeding five years, which appears to have been made with the object that such teachers who on the commencement of the Act do not have the minimum qualification, may acquire the same within a period of five years. Relaxation therefore is in a particular contingency subject to the condition where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or unavailability of teachers possessing minimum qualifications."

The Full Bench has, while approving the Division Bench decision in the case of Prabhaker Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 651, has held that after coming into force of the Act, 2009 and the prescription of qualifications thereunder through Academic Authority, the State is not a free agent. Every rule of the State Government for qualification has to abide by the qualification prescribed before making any appointment after the issuance of the Notification dated 23.8.2010.
Paras 86,87 and 88 of the said judgement read as follow:-
"86. We fully approve the view of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case confirming the authority of the Central Government and the NCTE to prescribe the qualifications as detailed in Para 52 and 53 of the reported judgment. We are also in complete agreement with the division bench that after the coming into force of the 2009 Act and the prescription of qualifications thereunder through the Academic Authority the State is not a free agent as held in Para 51 thereof. The failure of the State Government to timely implement the qualifications prescribed before making any appointment after 23.8.2010 will not dilute or take away the impact of the notification which is mandatory. Every rule of the
State Government for qualification has to be abide by the same by virtue of the force of Section 23 (1) of the 2009 Act.

87. The legislative competence and the intent therefore lead to the conclusion that the Central Government has authorised the National Council for Teacher Education to make provisions and which have been carefully en-grafted in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. The State Government has followed suit. However, the State Government delayed the incorporation as the Rules were framed by it later on in 2011 and the 1981 Rules were amended much later. The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th amendment in the 1981 Rules were brought at a later period. In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated these provisions
in its rules later on would not take away the impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education that stood enforced w.e.f. 23.8.2010. The delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions framed by the Central Government. The notification dated 23.8.2010 therefore has an overriding effect and it could not have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to make appointments after 23.8.2010 without complying with the provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would be deficient in such qualification.

88. It may be emphasised that there is no challenge raised to such appointments against rules, but the law is certain that appointment de-hors the rules cannot be said to be valid. After the enforcement of the notification dated 23.8.2010 every candidate aspiring to become a teacher of elementary education in any of the institutions defined under the 2009 Act has to be possessed of the qualifications prescribed therein. The intention therefore of the legislature is clear that no teacher without such a qualification can be allowed to continue as a teacher in the institution. We wish to clarify that the binding effect of the notifications and the guidelines is such that the weightage which is contemplated under the guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 cannot be ignored. The minimum score that is required of a candidate is 60% to pass the teacher eligibility test. A concession of 5% has been made in favour of the reserved category candidates including the physically challenged and disabled persons. This norm therefore cannot be diluted. Apart from this,
the State Government has to take notice of the fact that weightage has to be given in the recruitment process as well. It is for the State Government to suitably adopt the said guidelines and we do not wish to add anything further at this stage as we are only concerned with the essentiality of the qualification of the teacher eligibility test to be possessed by any candidate aspiring to be appointed as a teacher.


Therefore, although the provisions laying down the essential eligibility qualifications in the NCTE Notification dated 23.8.2010 cannot be diluted by the State Government, it does not necessarily mean that the State Government cannot prescribe necessary additional qualifications, which are otherwise not in conflict with those already prescribed in the Notification dated 23.8.2010, for appointment on the post of the Assistant Teacher.

The U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 as amended on 9.11.2011 (12th Amendment) has made amendments to Rule 8, which provides for the academic qualifications for appointment as Assistant Teacher. The amended Rule 8 reads as follows:

Column -I Existing Rule
Column-II Rule as hereby substituted
"8. Academic Qualifications:- 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:
"8. Academic Qualifications:- 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
recognized by the
Government as
equivalent thereto
Mistress of Nursery
School
Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government as
equivalent thereto
together with the
Certificate of teaching (Nursery) from recognized training institution of Uttar Pradesh or any other training course recognized by the
Government as equivalent thereto
and have passed
teacher eligibility test
conducted by the
Government of Uttar
Pradesh.
(ii) Assistant Master and Assistant
Mistress of Junior Basic School
A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as
equivalent thereto
together with the
training qualification
consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate,Hindustani Teacher's
Certificate, Junior
Teacher's Certificate,
Certificate of
Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as
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
Mistress of Junior Basic School
Bachelor's degree
from a University
established by law in
India or a degree
recognized by the
Government as
equivalent thereto
together with any
other training
qualification
consisting of a Basic
Teacher's Certificate
(BTC), two years'
BTC (Urdu) Vishist
BTC and have
passed teacher
eligibility test conducted by the
Government of Uttar
Pradesh.


(2) The essential qualifications of
candidates for appointment to a post
referred to in sub-clause (iii) and (iv) of
clause (h) of Rule 5 for teaching Science,
Mathematics, Craft or any language other than Hindi and Urdu shall be as follows:
(2) The essential qualifications of
candidates for appointment to a post referred to in sub-clause (iii) and (iv) of clause (b) of Rule 5 for teaching Science,
Mathematics, Craft or any language other
than Hindi and Urdu shall be as follows:
(i) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree
recognized by the Government as
equivalent thereto with Science,
Mathematics, Craft or particular language,
as the case may be, as one of the subjects,
and

(I) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto with Science, Mathematics, Craft or particular language,
as the case may be, as one of the subjects, and
(ii) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any
other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(ii) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto and have passed teacher
eligibility test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

(iii) Head Master or Head Mistress for Senior Basic School At least five years' experience as
permanent Head Master or Head Mistress of Junior Basic School or permanent and Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Senior Basic School, as the case may be. Provided that if sufficient number of suitable or eligible candidates are not available for promotion to the posts mentioned as
serial numbers (ii) or (iii) the field of eligibility may be extended by the Board by giving
relaxation in the period of experience.
(iii) Head Master or Head Mistress for Senior Basic School At least three years' experience as
permanent Head Master or Head Mistress of Junior Basic School or permanent and
Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Senior Basic School, as the case may be.
Provided that if sufficient number of suitable or eligible candidates are not available for
promotion to the posts mentioned at serial numbers (ii) or (iii) the field of
eligibility may be extended by the Board by giving relaxation in the period of experience.

(4) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to the post referred to in clause (a) and sub-clause (iii) and (iv) of clause (b) of Rule 5 for teaching Urdu Language shall be as follows:
(4) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to the post referred to in clause (a) and sub-clause (iii) and (iv) of clause (b) of Rule 5 for teaching Urdu Language shall be as follows:
(i) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto with Urdu as one of the subjects.
Note: A candidate who does not possess the aforesaid qualification in Urdu shall be eligible for appointment if he possesses a Master's Degree in Urdu.
(i) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto with Urdu as one of the subjects.
Note: A candidate who does not possess the
aforesaid qualification in Urdu shall be eligible for appointment if he possesses a Master's Degree in Urdu.

(ii) Basic Teacher's Certificate from any of the training centers in Lucknow, Agra,
Mawana in district Meerut and Sakaldiha in district Chandauli established by the Government for imparting training for teaching Urdu or any other training
qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(ii) Basic Teacher's Certificate from any of the training centers in Lucknow, Agra, Mawana in district Meerut and Sakaldiha in district Chandauli established by the
Government for imparting training for teaching Urdu or any other training qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto or Basic Teacher's
Certificate (BTC) (Urdu) and have passed teacher eligibility test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

5. The essential qualifications of candidates having proficiency in Urdu for appointment
to the posts referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Rule 5 for teaching in Urdu medium shall be as follows:
5. The essential qualifications of candidates having proficiency in Urdu for appointment to the posts referred to in sub-clause (ii) of
clause (a) of Rule 5 for teaching in Urdu medium shall be as follows:
(i) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. The qualifications for
proficiency in Urdu will be such as may be
prescribed from time to time by the Government.
(i) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree
recognized by the Government as
equivalent thereto. The qualifications for proficiency in Urdu will be such as may be
prescribed from time to time by the Government.
(ii) Training qualifications of two years B.T.C. Urdu special training course.
(ii) Training qualification of two years B.T.C. Urdu special training course and have passed teacher eligibility test conducted by
Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The Rules relating to compassionate appointment are contained in the Government Order dated 4.9.2000. Relevant portion of which reads as follows-:

¼4½ ,sls e`rd vkfJr tks lsok;kstu gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dh frfFkdks lgk;d v/;kid ds in gsrq lsok fu;eksa esa fofgr 'kSf{kd vgZrk j[krs gksa] ijrq izf'k{k.k vgZrk ugha j[krs@iwjh ugha djrs] dks vizf'kf{kr v/;kid ds :i esa lsok;kstu gsrq vkosnudjus ij ;Fkk lEHko rhu ekg ds vanj lsok;kstu dh lqfo/kk
iznku dh tk;sxhA ,sls e`rd vkfJr dks lsok;kstu
ds ckn lacaf/kr tuin ds ftykf'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k
laLFkku esa izkjEHk gksus okys csfld v/;kid izek.k
i= ¼ch0Vh0lh0½ izf'k{k.k ikB;dze ds vkxkeh
igys cSp esa izf'k{k.k gsrq izos'k fn;k tk;sxkA
e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa izkFkfed fo|ky; esa lgk;d v/;ikd@v/;kfidk ds in ijfu;fer fu;qfDr
iznku djus ds fy, mudks ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k ikB;dze
lQyrkiwoZd iw.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA izf'k{k.k
vof/k esa mUgsa vizf'kf{kr v/;kid ds :i esa fu;r
osru] tSlk fd 'kklu }kjk le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr
fd;k x;k gks ns; gksxkA csfld v/;kid izf'k{k.k
ikB;dze esa mRrh.kZ gksus ds ckn gh izkFkfed fo|ky; esa lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr iznku dh tk;sxhA


This G.O. itself provides that a person seeking appointment on compassionate ground but does not fulfil the requisite educational qualification can move an application before the Competent Authority and thereafter appointment can be offered to such a candidate, who would be sent for training of B.T.C. course in the respective District Institutes of Education and Training and after they have successfully completed the training, they would be offered appointment on regular basis. However, if the candidate after appointment fails to clear the B.T.C. Training Course/Examination, his candidature would automatically stand cancelled. In such an eventuality he could be offered appointment on a class IV post.

The Government Order dated 4.9.2000, however, stands superseeded by implication by G.O. dated 15.2.2013 which was issued by the State Government wherein in para-3 it has specifically been provided that appointment on compassionate ground can be given only if the candidate possesses the requisite qualification as laid down in the Rules including training course (B.T.C. or Special B.T.C.) and if he does not possess these qualifications, such appointment should not be made. The Notification dated 15.2.2013, which is also under challenge in the present writ petition, does not provide for any such relaxation as earlier provided under the G.O. dated 4.9.2000 where appointment could be made but the candidate would be required to clear B.T.C. Training/Examination and only then regular appointment could be given. However, the G.O. of 15.2.2013 in my opinion is in no way in conflict with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School Education and Literacy) Notification dated 10.9.2012 which provides for relaxation in the cut of date on 1.1.2012 prescribed in the G.O. dated 23.8.2010 which date has now been relaxed and extended to 31.3.2014 on the request letter of Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 26.7.2012.

In my opinion, the impact of the G.O. dated 15.2.2013 does not in any manner dilute the rigour of the NCTE Notification dated 23.8.2010 and therefore, the Government Notification dated 15.2.2013 cannot be said to be in conflict with the N.C.T.E. Notification dated 23.8.2010 as relaxed by the Notification dated 10.9.2012. However, since the petitioner admittedly has neither done her BTC or Special BTC course. The benefit of the G.O. dated 10.9.2012 cannot be extended to her.

For reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.


Order Date :- 24.01.2014
N Tiwari/Asha

Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=3060134