Thursday, January 5, 2012

Highcourt : No objection on TET Merit for selection in Primary Teacher (PRT) of UP Edu. Dept.

See judgement
This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 71558 of 2011
Petitioner :- Seeta Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C., Suresh Singh 

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, and perused the record.
2. Petitioner is challenging advertisement dated 29/30.11.2011 as also Rule 14 (3) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1981"). It is contended that National Council for Teachers Eduction (hereinafter referred to as "NCTE") provided minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools and passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "TET") conducted by appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines given by NCTE was made essential qualification. Pursuant thereto the State Government conducted TET on 13.11.2011 result whereof was declared on 25.11.2011. Petitioner passed said test. In the meantime, Rules,1981 were amended by notification dated 9.11.2011 vide U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2011 which came into force at once. It made amendment in Rules 8, 14, 27 and 29. Rule 8 was with reference to qualifications and Rule 14 with reference to procedure to be followed for recruitment for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools. The amendment incorporates TET as a part of essential qualification besides others and Rule 14 (3) provides that a list of the candidates of such persons who appear to possess prescribed academic qualification and eligible for appointment shall be prepared wherein their names shall be arranged in such manner that their names are placed in the descending order on the basis of marks in Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by Government of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to the said amendment in the Rules, an advertisement was published on 29/30.11.2011 for selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School which is consistent to the said amendment in the Rules. Sri Khare submitted that TET is one of the qualifying examination prescribed by NCTE and the process of such examination commenced before 13.11.2011 pursuant whereto the examination was held on 13.11.2011 and the result was declared on 25.11.2011. For the purpose of making selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher the said qualification cannot be made a basis/foundation particularly considering the process of the said test as it amounts to change of rules of the game when the game has already commenced and in support thereof placed reliance on judgements of this Court in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11.
3. He further submitted that a qualifying test cannot be made sole basis for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher and in this regard placed reliance on a Full Bench Judgement in Uma Shankar Singh & others Vs. Chairman, Public Service Commission (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1412 and Apex Court decision in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & others (2009) 5 SCC 1.
4. However, I find no force in the submission.
5. The examination held by State Government, i.e. TET, 2011 is pursuant to Regulations framed by NCTE under the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009 and it only confers a qualification upon a candidate so as to make him eligible to participate in the process of recruitment whenever it commences for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. The advertisement dated 29/30.11.2011 is not a commencement of the process of recruitment pursuant to Rules, 1981(as amended) for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Training prescribed therein i.e. six months special training is pre appointment training contemplated under the Regulations framed by NCTE and has nothing to do with the process of recruitment in service. It shall commence with the advertisement published as contemplated in Rule 14 of Rules, 1981. It is in these circumstances, it cannot be said that rules of the game have been changed afterwards inasmuch the two processes cover different fields and operate totally differently.
6. In K. Manjusree (supra) a selection was held but during the process of selection, criteria for selection was changed. It is in these circumstances, the
Apex Court
said that the Rules of game cannot be changed afterwards i.e. after the interview was over. Similar was the position in Hemani Malhotra (supra) and both the judgements, therefore, have no application to the facts of this case.
7. In Uma Shankar Singh (Supra), it was clearly prescribed that the preliminary examination is a mere screening test and that being so this Court held that it cannot be included for the purpose of final examination. The judgement has no application to the present case.
8. In Baloji Badhavath (supra), it was held that a procedure evolved for laying down mode and manner for consideration of a right to be considered for appointment can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair, which learned counsel for petitioner failed to prove in the case in hand and, therefore, reliance placed thereon is totally misconceived.
9. So far as making of qualifying examination basis of selection is concerned, it is always permissible to the rules framing authority to determine the criteria for selection which may base on the merits of the candidate possessed in various academic qualifications or qualifying test or any other criteria which may otherwise be valid and once it is so determined, unless it can be said that the same amendment in the rule is contrary to any statutory provision or otherwise ultra vires or vitiated in law, the same cannot be interfered.
10. In the result, writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
Dt. 12.12.2011

No comments: