Smt. Mamta And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 65 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Mamta And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 April, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44781-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 907 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Mamta And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Kumar Mishra,Bhola Nath Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

Ref.:-Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. There is delay of 267 days in filing of the instant appeal.

3. Cause shown for delay in filing of the instant appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. This delay condonation application stands allowed.

5. Office to allot regular number to the instant appeal.

Ref.:-Memo of Special Appeal

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th February, 2024 passed in Writ-A No. 40447 of 2014 (Smt. Mala Yadav & 10 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others) and two connected appeals, holding the petitioners-appellants not eligible for appointment to the post of assistant teacher in primary school.

3. While passing the judgment impugned, the learned Single Judge, referring to the judgment of another Division Bench dated 5th February, 2014 passed in Special Appeal (D) No. 130 of 2014 (Harsh Kumar & Anohter Vs. State of U.P. & Others) has observed that the notification issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short "NCTE") dated 23rd August, 2010 (amended vide notification dated 29th July, 2011) clearly specifies the qualification required for each category of posts including the assistant teachers of primary school. As per the amended notification dated 29th July, 2011, the minimum qualifications for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in primary institution (Classes I to V) read as under:

?(i) Classes I-V.

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)

OR

Graduate and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.?

4. In the facts of the present case, the appellants have obtained qualification of TET, which is only the eligibility qualification. Training qualification is specified in the aforesaid notification of the NCTE. The appellants admittedly do not possess the training qualifications for appointment to the post of assistant teacher in primary institution. The training qualification possessed by the appellants is of training in a nursery institution and not in the primary section.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants, a Government Order was issued way back in the 2007, according to which the certificate of training (C.T. Nursing) has been treated as equivalent to the Basic Training Certificate (for short "BTC").

6. The law is well settled that after the issuance of the notification by the NCTE on 23rd August, 2010 (amended vide notification dated 29th July, 2011), the competent authority to prescribe the qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary institution would be the NCTE. The NCTE neither vide its regulation nor any separate order has treated training qualification for nursery teachers to be equivalent to any of the training qualifications prescribed in the NCTE regulation, which is required for a primary school teacher.

7. The learned Single Judge for such reasons has rightly non-suited the appellants.

8. Though the learned counsel for the appellants vehementally submits that the training qualification of the appellants is prior to 2010, as such, they ought to be granted the benefit of the Government Order of the year 2007, but such argument cannot be accepted in view of the settled position that qualification for appointment to the post would have to be viewed on the date of making of the application for such appointment.

9. In the facts of the case, the appointment process was initiated after issuance of the advertisement in the year 2013. Once that be so, any previous Government Order of the State Government holding the nursery training certificate to be equivalent to BTC cannot form any basis for valid claim for appointment. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge 16th February, 2024, therefore, suffers from no infirmity.

10. This special appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

Order Date :- 1.4.2025

Sushil/-