Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Through The Secretary ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90048-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
*****
A.F.R.
(Sl No.24)
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 441 of 2024
Appellant :- Rajendra Singh and 3 others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Secretary Department Of Basic Education And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Aklank Kumar Jain,Arun Kumar Rana
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present Special Appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Writ A No. 17951 of 2018 (Ratnesh Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others).
3. It appears from the record that "Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Bhauti, Kanpur Nagar"1, is a recognised & aided Junior High School. The institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 19722; the rules framed thereunder and the provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other employees) Act, 19783. The District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 25.6.2011 had accorded approval for filling up four vacant posts of Assistant Teacher in the institution. The meeting of Selection Committee, which also consisted the nominee of District Basic Education Officer, was held on 15.12.2011, wherein appointment of petitioners was recommended for approval. Finally, the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 12/13.3.2012 had accorded approval to the petitioners' appointment. Accordingly, the appointment letters were issued in favour of the petitioners on 13.3.2012 and they joined their services on 17.3.2012.
4. Once the petitioners were not paid their salary then they moved a representation before the respondent authorities on 26.10.2012. Finally, the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 12.07.2018 had rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the Teachers Eligibility Test4, which is an essential qualification under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20095. The petitioners had filed the writ petition for quashing the aforesaid order dated 12.07.2018 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement and order dated 12.03.2024 has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with following observations:-
"13. Learned counsel for respondents on the basis of above conclusion submitted that TET was an essential qualification w.e.f. from the date of notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by NCTE and admittedly in present case recruitment process was commenced later on, therefore, it was mandatory that petitioners must possess TET qualification at the time of selection, but admittedly they did not.
14. In Sarvesh Kumar Yadav (supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not referred the above judgment passed by Full Bench though it was prior to it. It appears that it was not brought into the notice of co-ordinate bench, therefore, conclusion of it cannot be relied upon, therefore, in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra), a Full Bench has categorically held that TET was an essential qualification in any recruitment process commenced after date of relevant notification i.e. 23.8.2010, therefore, no benefit could be granted to petitioners in regard to Clause 5 of subsequent notification issued by NCTE dated 29.7.2011.
15. In the aforesaid circumstances argument of learned Senior Counsel are unsustainable since they are contrary to the decision of Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra).
16. Accordingly, I do not find that petitioners have any legally sustainable claim as well as benefit of subsequent TET Examination could also not be granted.
17. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
18. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in this backdrop submits that the selection of petitioners was held strictly in accordance with the Rules and their selection was also recommended for approval by the Selection Committee, which included the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. Finally, the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 12/13.3.2012 had accorded approval to the selection of the petitioners. The appellants were duly appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers in the institution on 13.3.2012 and they joined their services on 17.3.2012. At the time of appointment of the petitioners, the passing of TET as an essential qualification was not included in the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 19786. The TET was introduced by Notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by National Council for Teachers Education7 in reference to Clause (N) of Section 2 of Act, 2009 and the Act, 2009 was made effective only from 1st of April, 2010.
6. It is submitted that the State of U.P. had framed Rules under the Act, 2009 and notified the same on 27th of July, 2011. The Government Order dated 5th of December, 2012 provided that under the Act, 2009 and Rules framed thereunder in 2011, the TET has been prescribed as an essential qualification for Teachers of Junior Basic and Senior Basic Schools. Under Section 23 (1) of the Act, 2009 it has been provided that all those Teachers, who did not possess the requisite TET qualification, were to obtain the said qualification within five years from the appointed date as notified by the Academic Authority i.e. N.C.T.E. The last date for obtaining such qualification was 31.03.2015. In the Government order dated 07th of September, 2011 a mention has merely been made that after the notification of the Act, 2009 there is need for holding TET. The standards for holding such tests have been prescribed and the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad has been given the responsibility for holding such test.
7. It is the case of the petitioners also that the NCTE was notified as Academic Authority by the Central Government under the Act, 2009 and it issued its first notification prescribing the minimum eligibility qualification only on 23rd of August, 2010 and the said notification dated 23rd of August, 2010 was further amended on 29th of July, 2011 and guidelines for conducting the TET were issued by the State Government thereafter on 7th of September, 2011. It is also submitted that none of the Government orders relied upon by the District Basic Education Officer prohibited the appointment of teachers under the existing Rules. The Act, 2009 and the Rules framed thereunder by the State Government in the year 2011 could not have put the ban on selection of teachers to be held by various Junior High Schools for the vacancies arising in between the notification of the Act in 2009 upto the notification of amended Rules in 2011. As the teaching being an essential service, hence the selections of teachers could not be put on hold merely because of notification of the Act of 2009. It was, thus, clarified by the Government order dated 5th of December, 2012 that relaxation for obtaining the minimum TET qualification was extended upto 31st of March, 2015. Admittedly, the petitioner nos.3 and 4 had qualified TET in 2013-2014 respectively. The amendment in relevant Rules, 1978 prescribes TET as an essential qualification, which was notified only on 5.12.2012 i.e. subsequent to the commencement of the recruitment process of the petitioners and could not be given retrospective effect. Therefore, they are entitled for payment of their salary.
8. Per contra, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that the TET was an essential qualification with effect from the date of notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE. Admittedly, in the present case the recruitment process was commenced later on and therefore, it was mandatory that the petitioners must possess TET qualification at the time of selection but admittedly they did not possess the TET qualification. The notification dated 23.08.2010 is reproduced here under:-
"राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद्
अधिसूचना
नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त,2010
फा.सं. 61-03/2010/एनसीटीई (एन.एंड एस.)- निः शुल्क एवं अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा अधिनियम,2009 (2009 का 35) की धारा 23 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और स्कूली शिक्षा और साक्षरता विभाग, मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार द्वारा जारी दिनांक 31 मार्च, 2010 की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 750(अ) के अऩुसरण में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् एतद्द्वारा इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से निःशुल्क और अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा अधिनियम,2009 की धारा 2 के खण्ड (ढ) में संदर्भित स्कूलों में कक्षा I से VIII में अध्यापक के रूप में नियुक्ति की पात्रता हेतु निम्नलिखित न्यूनतम योग्यता निर्धारित करती है-
1. न्यूनतम योग्यता-
(1) कक्षा I-V
(क) न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में द्विवर्षीय डिप्लोमा (जिस नाम से भी जाना जाता हो)
या
न्यूनतम 45% अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में द्विवर्षीय डिप्लोमा (जिस नाम से भी जाना जाता हो) जो राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (मान्यता, मानक और क्रियाविधि) विनिमय, 2002 के अनुसार प्राप्त किया गया हो।
या
न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्षीय प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र स्नातक (बी.एल.एड)
या
न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं शिक्षा शास्त्र
में द्विवर्षीय डिप्लोमा (विशेष शिक्षा)
और
(ख) राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा निरूपित मार्गदर्शी सिद्धान्तों के अधीन उपयुक्त सरकारों द्वारा आयोजित (अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी.) में उत्तीर्ण।
(I) कक्षा VI-VIII
(क) बी.ए./ बी.एस.सी. और प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में द्विवर्षीय डिप्लोमा (जिस नाम से भी जाना जाता हो)
या
न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ बी.ए./बीएस.सी. एवं शिक्षा शास्त्र में एकवर्षीय स्नातक (बी.एड)
या
न्यूनतम 45% अंकों के साथ बी.ए/बी.एससी. एवं शिक्षा शास्त्र में एकवर्षीय स्नातक (बी.एड.) जो इस संबंध में समय-समय पर जारी राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (मान्यता, मानक और क्रियाविधि विनिमय के अनुसार प्राप्त किया गया हों
या
न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं वर्षीय प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र स्नातक (बी.एल.एड.)
या
न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्षीय बी.ए./बी.एससी एड, या बी.ए.एड./बी.एसी.सी.एड
या
न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ बी.ए/बी.एस.सी एवं एक वर्षीय बी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा)
और
(ख) राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा निरूपित मार्गदर्शी सिद्धान्तों के अधीन उपयुक्त सरकारों द्वारा आयोजित [अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी) में उत्तीर्ण]।
2. अध्यापक शिक्षा में डिप्लोमा/डिग्री पाठ्यक्रम- इस अधिसूचना के संदर्भ में केवल राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (राअशिप) द्वारा मान्यता-प्राप्त अध्यापक शिक्षा शास्त्र में डिप्लोमा/डिग्री पाठ्यक्रम मान्य होगा। शिक्षा शास्त्र में डिप्लोमा (विशेष शिक्षा) और बी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) के लिए केवल भारतीय पुनर्वास परिषद् (आरसीआई) द्वारा मान्यता-प्राप्त पाठ्यक्रम मान्य होगा।
3. विशेष अनिवार्य प्रशिक्षण - वह व्यक्ति,.
(क) जिसके पास न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ बी.ए./बी.एससी और बी.एड. योग्यता है, कक्षा I से V में नियुक्ति के लिए 1 जनवरी, 2012 तक पात्र होगा, बशर्ते कि वह नियुक्त्ति के बाद प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त -6-माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त कर ले।
(ख) जिसके पास डी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) या बी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) की योग्यता है, उसे नियुक्ति के बाद प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त -6 - माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करना आवश्यक होगा।
4. इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से पहले नियुक्त अध्यापक- इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से पूर्व कक्षा I से VIII के लिए नियुक्त निम्नलिखित श्रेणी के अध्यापकों को उपर्युक्त पैरा (1) में निर्धारित न्यूनतम योग्यता हासिल करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है :-
(क) राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (स्कूलों में अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए न्यूनतम योग्यताओं का निर्धारण) विनियम, 2001 (समय-समय पर यथा संशोधित) के अनुसार 3 सितम्बर, 2001 अथवा उसके बाद नियुक्त अध्यापक।
किन्तु बी.एड. की योग्यता रखने वाले कक्षा I से V के अध्यापकों या बी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) या डी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) की योग्यता रखने वाले अध्यापकों को प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6 माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करना होगा।
(ख) कक्षा I से V के शिक्षा स्नातक (बी.एड) योग्यताधारी अध्यापक जिसने पूर्व में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा अनुमोदित 6 माह का विशेष आधारभूत अध्यापक पाठ्यकम (विशेष बी.टी.सी.) पूरा कर लिया है।
प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6 माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त कर ले ।
(ख) जिसके पास डी. एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) या बी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) की योग्यता है, उसे नियुक्त्ति के बाद प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6 माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करना आवश्यक होगा ।
4. इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से पहले नियुक्त अध्यापक :- इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से पूर्व कक्षाIसे VIII के लिए नियुक्त निम्नलिखित श्रेणी के अध्यापकों को उपर्युक्त पैरा (1) में निर्धारित न्यूनतम योग्यता हासिल करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है :-
(क) राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (स्कूलों में अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए न्यूनतम योग्यताओं का निर्धारण) विनियम, 2001 (समय-समय पर यथा संशोधित) के अनुसार 3 सितम्बर, 2001 अथवा उसके बाद नियुक्त अध्यापक।
किन्तु बी.एड. की योग्यता रखने वाले कक्षा I से V के अध्यापकों या बी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) या डी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) की योग्यता रखने वाले अध्यापकों को प्रारंभिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6 माह का विशेष प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करना होगा।
(ख) कक्षा I से V के शिक्षा स्नातक (बी.एड) योग्यताधारी अध्यापक जिसने पूर्व में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा अनुमोदित 6 माह का विशेष आधारभूत अध्यापक पाठ्यक्रम (विशेष बी.टी.सी.) पूरा कर लिया है।
(ग) भर्ती नियमों के अनुसार 3 सितम्बर, 2001 से पहले नियुक्त अध्यापक।
5. कुछ मामलों में इस अधिसूचना की तिथि के बाद नियुक्त अध्यापक - इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से पूर्व यदि सरकारों अथवा स्थानीय प्राधिकारियों अथवा विद्यालयों द्वारा विज्ञापन जारी कर अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया आरम्भ कर दी गई है, ऐसी स्थिति में नियुक्तियाँ, राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (स्कूलों में अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए न्यूनतम योग्यताओं का निर्धारण) विनियम, 2001. (समय-समय पर यथासंशोधित) के अनुसार की जा सकती है।"
9. It is further submitted that while dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 12.3.2024 has considered the Act, 2009 and rightly held that the TET was an essential qualification in any recruitment process commenced after the date of relevant notification i.e. 23.8.2010 and therefore, no benefit could be granted to the petitioners in regard to Clause 5 of subsequent notification issued by the NCTE dated 29.7.2011. The notification dated 29.07.2011 is reproduced hereunder:-
"राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद्
अधिसूचना
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2011
फा. सं. 61-1/2011/राअशिप (मा.तथा मा.)-निःशुल्क एवं अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा अधिनियम, 2009 (2009 का 35) के खण्ड 23 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का, प्रयोग करते हुए और स्कूली शिक्षा और साक्षरता विभाग, मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार द्वारा जारी दिनांक 31 मार्च, 2010 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 750 (अ) के अनुसरण में, राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (राअशिप) एतद्वारा अध्यापक के रूप में नियुक्ति के लिए पात्र होने के वास्ते न्यूनतम अर्हताएं निर्धारित करने वाली दिनांक 23 अगस्त, 2010 की फा. संख्या 61-1/2010-राअशिप (मा. तथा मा.) के रूप में भारत के राजपत्र, असाधारण के भाग III, खण्ड 4 में प्रकाशित संख्या 215 दिनांक 25 अगस्त,2010 की अधिसूचना में एतद्वारा निम्न संशोधन करती है (जिसका उल्लेख मूल अधिसूचना के रूप में किया जाएगा)-
(I) मूल अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 के उप-पैरा (1) के स्थान पर निम्न प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा, नामतः :-
1. न्यूनतम अर्हताएं:
(i) कक्षा I से V
(क) न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (अथया इसके समकक्ष) तथा प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा में द्विवर्षीय डिप्लोमा (चाहे उसे कोई भी नाम दिया गया हो)
अथवा
न्यूनतम 45 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (अथवा इसके समकक्ष) एवं प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में द्विवर्षीय डिप्लोमा चाहे जिस किसी नाम से जाना जाता हो जो राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिया परिषद् (मान्यता मानदण्ड और क्रियाविधि) विनियम, 2002 के अनुसार प्राप्त किया गया हो।
अथवा
न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उच्चार माध्यमिक (अथवा इसके समकक्ष) तथा 4 वर्षीय प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में स्नातक (बी.एल.एड.)
अथवा
न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उच्तर माध्यमिक (अथवा इसके समकक्ष) तथा शिक्षा शास्त्र (विशेष शिक्षा) में द्विवर्षीय दिप्लोमा
अथवा
स्नातक तथा प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा में द्विवर्षीय डिप्लोमा (चाहे जिस किसी नाम से जाना जाता हो)
तथा
(ख) राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा इस प्रयोजन के लिए जारी किए गए मार्गदर्शी सिद्धान्तों के अनुसार उपयुक्त सरकार की आयोजित अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी.) में पास होना।
(II) मूल अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 के उप-पैरा (ii) के स्थान पर निम्न प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा, नामत:
1. (ii) कक्षा VI-VIII
(क) स्नातक और प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा में द्विवर्षीय दिप्लोमा (चाहे जिस किसी नाम से जाना जाता हो)
अथवा
न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ स्नातक एवं शिक्षा शास्त्र में एक वर्षीय स्नातक (बी.एड.)
अथवा
न्यूनतम 45 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ स्नातक एवं शिक्षा शास्त्र में एक वर्षीय स्नातक (बी.एड.) जो इस सम्बन्ध में समय-समय पर जारी किए गए राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् मान्यता मानदण्ड तथा क्रियाविधि) विनियमों के अनुसार प्राप्त किया गया हो।
अथवा
न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (अथवा इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्षीय प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा शास्त्र में स्नातक (बी. एल. एड.)
अथवा
न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ उच्चतर माध्यमिक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्षीय बी.ए./बी.एस.सी.एड. या बी.ए.एड./बी.एस.सी.एड.
अथवा
न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों से साथ स्नातक तथा एक वर्षीय बी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा)
तथा
(ख) राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा इस प्रयोजन के लिए जारी किए गए मार्गदर्शी सिद्धान्तों के अधीन उपयुक्त सरकार द्वारा आयोजित अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी.) में उत्तीर्ण।
(III ) मूल अधिसूचना के पैरा 3 के स्थान पर निम्न प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा, नामतः
(1) प्राप्त किया जाने वाला प्रशिक्षण- ऐसा व्यक्ति भी-
(क) जिसने न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ स्नातक और बी.एड. अर्हता अथवा इस सम्बन्ध में समय-समय पर जारी किए गए राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (मान्यता मानदण्ड और क्रियाविधि) विनियमों के अनुसार न्यूनतम 45 प्रतिशत अंकों के साथ स्नातक तथा शिक्षा में एक वर्षीय स्नातक (बी.एड.) उत्तीर्ण किया हो, जनवरी 2012 तक कक्षा I से V तक के लिए नियुक्त किए जाने का पात्र होगा बशर्ते कि नियुक्ति के बाद वह प्राम्भिक शिक्षा में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा मान्यताप्रदत्त 6 महीने का विशेष कार्यक्रम पूरा कर ले।
(ख) वह व्यक्ति, जिसने डी.एड. (विशेष शिक्षा) अथवा बीएड (विशेष शिक्षा) उत्तीर्ण की हो, नियुक्ति के बाद प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा प्रदत्त 6 महीने का विशेष कार्यक्रम पूरा करेगा।
(ग) आरक्षण नीति: आरक्षित श्रेणियों जैसे कि एस.सी./एस.टी.ओ.बी.सी.पी.एच. आदि के अभ्यर्थियों को अर्हक अंकों में 5 प्रतिशत तक की छूट दी माएगी।
(IV) मूल अधिसूचना के पैरा 5 के स्थान पर निम्न प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा, नामतः
5. (क) कुछ मामलों में इस अधिसूचना की तिथि के बाद नियुक्त अध्यापक- इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से पूर्व यदि सरकारों अथवा स्थानीय प्राधिकारियों अथवा विद्यालयों द्वारा विज्ञापन जारी कर अध्यापकों की नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया आरम्भ कर दी गई है, ऐसी स्थिति में नियुक्ति, राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् (स्कूलों में अध्यापकों की भर्ती के लिए न्यूनतम योग्यताओं का निर्धारण) विनियम, 2001 (समय-समय पर यथासंशोधित के अनुसार की जा सकती हैं।
(ख) इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित न्यूनतम योग्यता मानदण्ड भाषा, सामाजिक अध्ययन, विज्ञान आदि के अध्यापकों के मामले में लागू होते हैं। शारीरिक शिक्षा के अध्यापकों के मामले में शारीरिक शिक्षा अध्यापकों के लिए उल्लिखित न्यूनतम योग्यता मानदण्ड लागू होंगे। कला शिक्षा, शिल्प शिक्षा, गृह विज्ञान, कार्य शिक्षा आदि के अध्यापकों के मामले में राज्य सरकारों तथा अन्य स्कूल प्रबन्धक वर्गों द्वारा निर्धारित पात्रता मानदण्ड तब तक लागू रहेंगे जब तक कि ऐसे अध्यापकों के सम्बन्ध में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा परिषद् न्यूनतम योग्यताएं निर्धारित नहीं कर देती।
विक्रम सहाय, संयोजक
[ विज्ञापनIII/4/13I/2011/सा.]
टिप्पणीः- मूल अधिसूचना दिनांक 23 अगस्त 2010 की फा.स.61-1/2011/राअशिप (मा. तथा मा.) के रूप में भारत के राजपत्र असाधारण के भाग III के खण्ड 4में प्रकाशित हुई थी।"
10. We have carefully gone through the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the records and find that while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 12.3.2024 the learned Single Judge has proceeded to consider the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Ors8 alongwith other connected cases, wherein, the Full Bench had framed following questions for consideration:-
"(a) What does the phrase "minimum qualifications" occurring in Section 23 (1) of the right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act) mean - whether passing the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and it insistence by the NCTE in the Notification dated 23.8.2010 is in consonance with the powers delegated to the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act?
(b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the Notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 issued by the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act, permits persons coming under the ambit of that clause to not undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', before they are eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers? What is the significance of the words "shall also be eligible for appointment for Class-I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six months special programme in elementary education"?
(c) Whether the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?"
11. Finally, the Full Bench had answered all the above three questions with following observations:-
"The questions that have been therefore framed by us are answered as follows:-
1. The teacher eligibility test is an essential qualification that has to be possessed by every candidate who seeks appointment as a teacher of elementary education in Classes 1 to 5 as per the notification dated 23.8.2010 which notification is within the powers of the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act.
2. Clause 3(a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 is an integral part of the notification and cannot be read in isolation so as to exempt such candidates who are described in the said clause to be possessed of qualifications from the teacher eligibility test.
3. We approve of the judgment of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case to the extent of laying down the interpretation of the commencement of recruitment process under Clause 5 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 but we disapprove and overrule the ratio of the said decision in relation to grant of exemption and relaxation from teacher eligibility test to the candidates referred to in Clause 3 (a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010, and consequently, hold that the teacher eligibility test is compulsory for all candidates referred to in Clause 1 and Clause 3 (a)."
12. We have also considered very carefully the contents of the impugned judgment and the case set up by the appellants-writ petitioners in context of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi9, wherein the following observations have been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paras 6, 16 and 17:-
"6. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification.
16. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application though he applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification, i.e., eligibility, character verification etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23.2.2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court.
17. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.
There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance.
The appeal is devoid of any merit and does not present special features warranting any interference by this court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the case of Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa10 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] stating: (SCC p. 175, para 10):
"10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. We find that the TET was an essential qualification with effect from the date of notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by NCTE. Admittedly, in the present case, the recruitment process had commenced later on and therefore, it was mandatory that the petitioners must possess TET qualification at the time of selection, which they did not possess. In Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra), the Full Bench has categorically held that TET was an essential qualification in any recruitment process commenced after date of relevant notification i.e. 23.8.2010, therefore no benefit could be granted to the petitioners in regard to Clause-5 of subsequent notification issued by the NCTE dated 29.7.2011.
15. Learned Single Judge, while considering the claim set-up by the appellants-petitioners has considered that TET was essential qualification with effect from the date of notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE. In the present case, the recruitment process commenced later on. Admittedly, at the time of initiation of the recruitment process, even on the last date of submission of the form, the appellants-petitioners were not inhering the essential qualification of TET. Therefore, in such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, the said provision can be relaxed, as it is already answered by the Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma's case (supra). Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which warrant any interference in this intra court appeal.
16. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application, though he applied, representing himself that he possessed the same and the provisional/conditional letter of offer of appointment was issued to him. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23.2.2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. Like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates, who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality.
17. In Dipitimayee Parida (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates, who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, as it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications.
18. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) and Dipitimayee Parida (supra), we find that the instant appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (M.C. Tripathi,J.)
