Uttarakhand High Court
Vinay Kumar And Others ............... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 November, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal
11th November 2025
Writ Petition No. 2292 of 2018 (S/S)
Vinay Kumar and Others ............... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others
............Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 172 of 2019 (S/S)
Laxman Singh Samant and another
............ Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others
............Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati
Verma, Mr. S.C. Bhatt, learned
counsel
Counsel for the State: Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Standing
Counsel
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan
Singh, learned counsel.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned
counsel for respondent no. 4.
Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, learned
counsel for respondent no. 5
through V.C.
(Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. Appointment of the private respondents have been
challenged by the petitioners who admittedly qualified
TET Examination conducted by the State.
2. An advertisement was issued for appointment of
the Assistant Teacher in primary institutions run by the
State Government. The eligibility has been prescribed
under 2012 Rules which was time to time amended in
2014 and lastly in 2016, and after last amendment of
2016, the advertisement was issued on 17.02.2016. Mr.
V.B.S. Negi, learned senior counsel argued that 2016
amendment is based upon the NCTE Notification of 2010
followed by the subsequent notification of 2014 whereby
relaxation was given to those candidates who were
having B.Ed degree to qualify TET examination. He
submits that as per 2014 Rules only TET trained are
eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in primary
institution run by the State Government. He submits
that so far as CTET qualified students are concerned,
they are not eligible to be appointed as Assistant
Teacher run by the State Government rather they are
eligible to be appointed in the primary institutions run
by the Central Government. In support of his argument,
he refers Section 2 and 2(n) of the RTE Act which reads
as under:-
"2(a) "appropriate Government" means -
(i) in relation to a school established, owned or
controlled by the Central Government, or the
administrator of the Union territory, having no
legislature, the Central Government;"
Section 2(n)(i) of the 2009 Act reads as follows:
"2(n) "school" means any recognised school imparting
elementary education and includes -
(i) a school established, owned or controlled by the
appropriate Government or a local authority;"
3. By referring the aforesaid definition clause, Mr.
Negi submits that from the definition clause it is very
clear that the appropriate government, in respect of the
institution run by the Central Government is the Central
Government and for the institution run by the State
Government the appropriate Government is the State
Government. He submits that the advertisement was
issued in respect of the institutions run by the State
Government, therefore, only TET trained candidates are
eligible to the appointed and not CTET trained
candidates.
4. N.C.T.E. also filed counter affidavit wherein it is
stated that in respect of the institutions for which the
advertisement has been issued, only TET trained
candidates are eligible.
5. In furtherance of his arguments, Mr. V.B.S. Negi
submits that the notification of the N.C.T.E. dated
23.08.2010, also referred guidelines issued by the
Central Government on 11.02.2011 which is at page 615
of the paper book and clause 10 of guidelines is relevant
which read as under:-
No. 76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.02.2011
To,
All Secretaries/Commissioners of Education of State
Governments/UTs
Subject: Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) under the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act (RTE) 2009
Sir/Madam,
In accordance with the provisions of sub-section
(1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE) had vide Notification dated
23rd August, 2010 laid down the minimum qualifications
for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher
in classes I to VIII. It had been inter alia provided that
one of the essential qualifications for a person to be
eligible for appointment as a teacher in any of the
schools referred to ion clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE
Act is that he/she should pass the Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) which will be conducted by the appropriate
Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed
by the NCTE.
In this regard, please find enclosed the Guidelines
for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for
necessary actions at your end.
This may be brought to the knowledge of all
concerned.
Clause 10.
(a) TET conducted by the Central Government shall
apply to all schools referred in sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
(b) TET conducted by a State Government/UT with
legislature shall apply to:
(i) a school of the State Government/ UT with
legislature and local authority referred to in sub-
clause (i) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE
Act; and
(ii) a school referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause
(n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act in that State/UT.
A school at (i) and (ii) may also consider eligibility
of a candidate who has obtained TET Certificate awarded
by another State/UT with legislature. In case a State
Government/UT with legislature decides not to conduct a
TET, a scholl at (i) and (ii) in that State/UT would
consider the TET conducted by the Central Government.
(c) A school referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause
(n) of section 2 of the RTE Act may exercise the option
of considering either the TET conducted by the Central
Government or the TET conducted by the State
Government/UT with legislature
6. In response to the argument of Mr. Negi, Mr.
Rawat, who appears for the private respondent brings to
the notice of this Court the notice issued by the CBSE
which is enclosed at page 106 wherein there is reference
of the instructions issued by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Govt. of India wherein it is
provided that CTET shall apply to the schools of the
Central Government i.e. KVS, NVS, Tibetan Schools etc.
and schools under the administrative control of UT of
Chandigarh and Andaman & Nicobar Islands and the
schools owned and managed by the State government/
local bodies and aided schools shall consider the TET
conducted by the State Government. However, the State
Government can also consider the CTET if it decides not
to conduct the State TET.
By giving reference of this notice, Mr. Rawat
argued that taking into consideration the instructions
issued by the Ministry in 2012 Rules it is provided that
TET trained candidates which will be conducted by the
State/ Central Government, as per the Guideline issued
by NCTE are also eligible. By referring 2012 Rules Mr.
Rawat argued that the candidates who qualified CTET
examination conducted by the Central Government are
also eligible in terms of 2012 Rules.
7. In response to the arguments of the Mr. Rawat, Mr.
Negi submits that after 2014 Notification issued by the
NCTE, a further amendment was carried out in 2012
Rules and only those candidates who were having B.Ed.
upto 31.03.2016 and having TET certificate are eligible.
Mr. Negi submits that in view of the notification of the
NCTE dated 12.08.2014, and as per the amendment of
Rules of 2016 only B.Ed. trained who qualified TET
examination conducted by the State are eligible to be
appointed in the Institutions run by the State
Government. Mr. Negi also submits that all these
aspects have been dealt by the Division Bench of this
Court in its judgment which is reflected from para 31
onwards to pare 37 which are being reproduced herein
as under:
31. The problem arises, however, with the undoubted
requirement in law that, be it a person who is having the minimum
qualification or a person having B.Ed., he should also possess TET
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
guidelines issued by NCTE. The respondents are all persons, except
those which we have made reference to earlier, who have obtained
CTET. CTET is nothing but TET, which is conducted by the Central
Government. The controversy is whether all the respondents, who
have passed CTET also, therefore, under the statutory rules, read
with the Advertisement, they would, on the surface, appear to be
persons, who are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed. But the
nice controversy that is sought to be projected by the appellants,
who, it may be noted, have been worsted in the selection on the
basis of the criteria, which has been employed (which is that whether
persons with B.Ed. would be evaluated on the basis of the year of
obtaining the B.Ed.), is that, since the party respondents have
obtained CTET after 2011 and as per the conditions set out by CBSE,
they were not eligible even to participate in CTET. Therefore, their
having obtained CTET is of no avail. In fact, it is impressed upon us
by the learned counsel for the appellants that it has been mentioned
in Clause 17 as follows:
"17. It is to be noted that if a candidate has been
allowed to appear in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test
it does not imply that the candidate's eligibility has been
verified. It does not vest any right with the candidate for
appointment. The eligibility shall be finally verified, by
the concerned recruiting agency/appointing authority.
The candidate should satisfy his/her eligibility before
applying and shall be personally responsible in case
he/she is not eligible to apply as per the given eligibility
criteria."
32. Appellants would also remind us that the applications
were given online and there was obviously no mechanism for
CBSE to weed-out candidates, who were not eligible, and,
hence, it is that the declaration contained in Clause 17
assumes significance. It is also reflected in the mark list.
Therefore, it was the bounden duty of the State Government to
crosscheck this aspect and weed-out those, who were not
really eligible to participate in the test and it is here that the
element of fraud is also emphasized before us.
33. We may also notice, for the sake of clarity, that, after
Notification dated 23.08.2010 was issued, as in terms thereof,
apparently, guidelines 17 were necessary, guidelines came to
be issued on 11.02.2011. Clause 5 of the same is extracted as
under:
"5. The following persons shall be eligible for appearing
in the TET:
i. A person who has acquired the academic and
professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification
dated 23rd August 2010.
ii. A person who is pursuing any of the teacher
education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the
case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd
August 2010.
iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be
relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted
relaxation under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act.
The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the
Central Government under that sub-section."
34. It could, indeed, be said that, as far as Clause 5(i) is
concerned, in terms of Clause 3(a) of Notification dated
23.08.2010, a person with B.Ed. was rendered eligible as he
would fall within Clause 5(i) as a person, who has acquired the
academic and professional qualification under Notification
dated 23.08.2010. But, in terms of the said Notification, it
could also be said that this right came to an end on
01.01.2012. The question would arise as to what is to be the
interpretation to be placed on Clause 5(iii). Clause 5(iii)
provides that the eligibility condition for appearing in TET may
be relaxed in relation to the State / Union Territory, which has
been granted relaxation under subsection (2) of Section 23 of
the 2009 Act. But the guidelines provide that the relaxation is
to be specified in the Notification issued under subsection (2)
of Section 23. There can be no doubt that, in respect of the
State of Uttarakhand, relaxation has been granted under
Section 23(2) of the 2009 Act. That is to say, in view of
shortage of persons with requisite minimum qualification and
heeding to the request from the State of Uttarakhand, persons
with B.Ed. degree were rendered eligible from time to time
and, finally, culminating with the Notification for the year
2014, by which the period was extended till 31.03.2016. In a
search for the relaxation, which is contemplated under Clause
5(iii), we did locate, in 18 Annexure-5 in the Appeal,
Notification dated 17.10.2012. It does refer to sub-clause (a)
of Clause (i) of paragraph 3 of Notification dated 23.08.2010
and, obviously, refers to B.Ed. qualification and that the
Government decided to give a relaxation to the State of
Uttarakhand and allowed persons mentioned in sub-clause (a)
of Clause (i) of paragraph 3. This means that persons with
B.Ed. degree, who are the persons who are mentioned in
paragraph 3, were rendered to be eligible. It was given subject
to a condition in paragraph 2, namely, that the State
Government shall conduct TET as specified in the said
Notification, as amended from time to time, in accordance with
the guidelines for conducting TET. The actual relaxation is seen
granted in paragraph 3. It reads as follows:
"3. The persons referred to in sub-clause (i) of
paragraph 3 of the said notification as amended from time to
time, shall be eligible for appearing in the Teacher Eligibility
Test conducted by the State Government in respect of teacher
appointments made in the State up to 31st March, 2014, in
accordance with sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 5 of the
guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test under the said
Act issued by the Council vide its letter dated the 11th
February, 2011."
35. The appellants would, undoubtedly, point out that this
paragraph would emphasize that it is for the State Government
to conduct the State Eligibility Test and that if at all the B.Ed.
degree holders were to be rendered eligible for appearing in
the TET conducted by the State Government. This relaxation
does not extend to the eligibility test, which was being
conducted by the Central Government and which awarded the
certificate called as CTET. We may also see Annexure 6, which
is a Notification issued by NCTE again under Section 23(2)
dated 12.08.2014. Therein, paragraph 3 is similarly worded as
paragraph 3, which we have extracted for the earlier years of
Notification issued under Section 23(2) of the 2009 Act.
Therefore, it could undoubtedly be said that, read along with
the terms and conditions issued by CBSE, wherein B.Ed.
degree holders are conspicuous by their absence as eligible
persons, the party respondents, who had obtained CTET after
2011 were, indeed, not eligible to sit for the test. We may in
this regard also refer to paragraph 19 10 of the guidelines
referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General. It
prima facie appears to us that the scheme of the guidelines is
that CTET is to be conducted by the Central Government and
which will apply to the schools referred to in sub-clause (i) of
Clause (a) of Section 2 of 2009 Act. Section 2(a)(i) reads as
follows:
"2(a) "appropriate Government" means -
(i) in relation to a school established, owned or
controlled by the Central Government, or the
administrator of the Union territory, having no
legislature, the Central Government;"
36. Clause 10(b) refers to TET conducted by the State
Government or a Union Territory. It is to apply to the schools
of the State Government/Union Territory with legislature and
local authority referred to in sub-clause (i) of Clause (n) of
Section 2 of the 2009 Act.
Section 2(n)(i) of the 2009 Act reads as follows: "2(n)
"school" means any recognised school imparting elementary
education and includes -
(i) a school established, owned or controlled by the
appropriate Government or a local authority;"
37. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 10(b) refers to a school referred
to in sub clause (ii) of Clause (n) of Section 2 of the 2009 Act.
It is important to notice that, thereafter, it is mentioned that
the school at sub-clauses (i) & (ii) may also consider the
eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET certificate from
another State / Union Territory with legislature. It is further
provided that, in case, the State Government/Union Territory
with legislature decides not to conduct TET, a school in sub-
clauses (i) & (ii), which would cover the schools with which we
are concerned, namely, State Government Schools, would
consider TET conducted by the Central Government. We had
noted already that CTET is nothing but TET conducted by the
Central Government. Here, Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya would
point out that there is no scope for considering CTET granted
for the reason that it is not a case, where the State of
Uttarakhand was not conducting TET and it may be another
matter that the number of tests, 20 which were conducted,
were inadequate to accommodate all applicants; but, that
would not be sufficient to invoke this Clause.
8. On the request of Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Standing
Counsel for the State, put up this matter on 14.11.2025
after fresh.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
Parul
