RAVI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed by persons who are undergoing or have undergone the Basic Teacher Course (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.T.C') or Special Basic Teacher Course (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special B.T.C') for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith grant appointment to the petitioners 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 different district of the State 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 to the petitioners as Assistant Teachers.

(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 National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCTE') issued a notification dated 23rd August, 2010 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 TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. This notification dated 23rd August, 2010 was subsequently amended by the notification dated 29th July, 2011 which 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 B.T.C/Special B.T.C. Training Course and this is the relevant advertisement as the appointment of a candidate who has successfully completed the B.T.C/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') do not envisage any process of selection from amongst the B.T.C/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 B.T.C/Special B.T.C. Training.

(3.) It is for these reasons that Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior 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 B.T.C/Special B.T.C. Training Course. In respect of petitions dealing with B.T.C-2004 which comprised of two batches he has submitted that 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 are being asked to clear the U.P-TET. It is his submission that there cannot be any discrimination between the candidates of 2004 Batch.