Uttarakhand High Court
Vinay Kumar And Others ...Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 December, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (SS) No. 2292 of 2018
Vinay Kumar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 172 of 2019
Laxman Singh Samant and Another ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
Presence:
1. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Subhash
Upadhyay, (through V.C.) learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State.
3. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Tapan
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
On the previous date a specific response was asked from the Secretary of the department to explain why the candidates, who were not having TET qualification though B.Ed. upto 31.03.2016 were given appointment particularly when the eligible candidates having B.Ed. with TET were available. A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, but in the compliance affidavit there is no answer to the query as raised by this court in the previous order dated 19.11.2024. What he has stated in the compliance affidavit it is necessary to reproduce the same:
"6. That in the state of Uttarakhand, due to the unavailability of candidates trained in the two-year D.El.Ed. program for the appointment of teachers for classes 1 to 5, the 2 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), at the request of the State Government, issued Notification No. 208 dated 17.10.2012. This notification extended the deadline for the appointment of candidates with B.Ed. qualifications and TET-1 certification from 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2014. Subsequently, at the State Government's request, the NCTE issued Notification No. 809 dated 12.08.2014, further extending the deadline for appointing B.Ed. and TET-I certified candidates to vacant posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) from 31.03.2014 to 31.03.2016. Based on this, recruitment processes were conducted through state-level selection in 2014 and 2016, in which candidates holding B.Ed. qualifications and CTET-I certification were selected."
2. Learned senior counsel Mr. V.B.S. Negi assisted by Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya vehemently argued that in view of the finding and the observation as recorded by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 29.05.2018 passed in bunch of special appeals, the leading one is, Special Appeal No. 307 of 2016 the B.Ed. CTET not at all are eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School. Paragraph 35 and 36 of the said judgment are being reproduced as under:
"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;"3
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;"
3. On perusal of the observation as recorded by the Division Bench it clearly reveals that the CTET qualification is nothing but a test, which is equivalent to TET conducted by Central Government; and as per the notification dated 12.08.2014 it is clear that the candidates having B.Ed. with TET conducted by State of Uttarakhand are admittedly only to be eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Institution.
4. Learned senior counsel Mr. A.S. Rawat argued that as per the Rules of 2012 the CTET qualified candidates are also eligible to be appointed and the advertisement was issued strictly as per the Rules of 2012. He submits that neither the Rules of 2012 nor the conditions of eligibility as stipulated in the advertisement were challenged at any point of time.
5. In response to this, learned senior counsel Mr. V.B.S. Negi submits that even on perusal of Rules of 2012 it is very clear that only the TET qualified candidates are eligible for appointment. Not only this, he submits that the 2012 were further amended in the year 2016, which clearly provides that only the TET qualified candidates are eligible.
6. Learned Additional C.S.C. also bring to the notice of this court the statement given by the Secretary in its affidavit dated 30.11.2024, wherein, in paragraph-7(d) it is mentioned that in the State of Uttarakhand UTET-1 and CTET-1 are considered to be equivalent; however, no such notification is placed on record.4
7. In response to this, Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya submits that the contentions as advanced by the learned senior counsel Mr. A.S. Rawat were noted in paragraph-12 of the judgment and subsequently, it was discussed and ultimate observation and finding has been drawn by the Division Bench that the CTET qualified candidates are not eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School.
8. In response to this, learned senior counsel Mr. A.S. Rawat submits that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya are misconceived in view of the observation as recorded by the Division Bench in paragraph-13 of the aforesaid judgment.
9. I peruse the affidavit filed by the Secretary but from perusal of the same it appears that the Secretary avoided the response to the query as raised in the previous order.
9. Let the Secretary file an additional affidavit within a period of three days to give the response to the query as raised by this court in the previous order. In addition to this, the Secretary will place before this court the notification with regard to the equivalence of TET-1 with CTET-1.
10. Put up this matter on 10.12.2024 at 2:00 PM.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.12.2024 PR