SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by persons, who have completed the Special Basic Teacher Certificate Course 2007 and 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special B.T.C) on 27th September, 2011, for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith grant appointment to them as Assistant Teachers in Elementary Schools run by the Board of Basic Education U.P. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Basic Education Board') in district Mathura without requiring the petitioners to pass the U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P TET') to be conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'Intermediate Education Board') as a condition for grant of appointment as Assistant Teachers. The petitioners have, accordingly, sought the quashing of the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCTE') laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Classes I to VIII in a School referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act, which amongst others, also provides that the person should pass the Teachers Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

(2.) It is stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and in pursuance of the notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Government of India, the NCTE issued the notification dated 23rd August, 2010 which was subsequently amended by the notification dated 29th July, 2011. Paragraph 5 of the Notification provides that where an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers has been issued prior to the date of the notification, then appointments could be made in accordance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "2001 NCTE Regulations') as amended from time to time. It is, therefore, stated that the petitioners are not required to appear at the U.P.TET because the advertisement to initiate process of appointment of the petitioners was issued prior to 23rd August, 2010 and the 2001 NCTE Regulations which will be applicable to the petitioners do not require a person to appear at any eligibility test. For this purpose it is pointed out that an advertisement had been issued for selection of candidates for admission to the Special B.T.C. Training Course and this is the advertisement which should be taken into consideration for the purposes of paragraph 5 of the Notification since appointment of a candidate who has successfully completed the Special B.T.C. Training Course is automatically granted subject to only verification of his certificates and the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers), Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the '1981 Rules') also do not envisage any process of selection from amongst the Special B.T.C. candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers. It is also asserted that infact no advertisements have been issued in the State for the past several years under Rule 14 of the 1981 Rules and immediately after declaration of result appointment orders are issued to candidates who have successfully completed the Special B.T.C. Training.

(3.) It is for these reasons that Sri Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is not necessary for the petitioners to appear at the U.P.TET and they should be granted appointments as Assistant Teachers in Elementary Schools provided they satisfy the conditions stipulated in the 2001 NCTE Regulations. In this connection he has also pointed out that the State of Uttarakhand has correctly appreciated this position and has, accordingly, exempted the candidates who have successfully completed the Special B.T.C. Training Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioners were selected for Special B.T.C. Course in the seventh list published on 5th April, 2008 and even though 860 such candidates, after completion of the training, have been appointed as Assistant Teachers but the remaining 120 candidates including the petitioners have been asked to clear the UP-TET. He has also pointed out that in respect of candidates of B.T.C-2004, which comprised of two batches, the candidates of the First Batch who completed the training in April, 2011 were granted appointment as Assistant Teachers on 1st July, 2011 even though they had not cleared the U.P.-TET but the candidates of Second Batch who completed their training subsequently were asked to clear the U.P.-TET.