Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Essential Qualification: (i) Graduate with B. Ed. (Special Education) or B. Ed. with a two years Diploma in Special Education or Post Graduate Professional Diploma in Special Education or any other equivalent qualification approved by Rehabilitation Council of India, (ii) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the CBSE.

2. As has been stated in the Original Application, the applicants applied for the post in question and filed the present Original Application expressing apprehension that since they had not passed the CTET conducted by the CBSE, which is necessary requirement as per the Advertisement, their candidature might be summarily rejected. This Tribunal passed the interim order dated 26.4.2013 directing the respondents to allow the applicants to appear in the written examination provisionally. For easy reference, the said interim order passed by the Tribunal is extracted hereinbelow:-

3. The short question arises to be determined in the present Original Application is, when the applicants have not passed the CTET conducted by the CBSE whether they can be considered eligible for the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code 01/13). Mr. K.P. Gupta, learned counsel for applicants submitted that in the recruitment rules dated 4.11.2010, there is no such condition that only such candidates who qualify the CTET are eligible for the post of Special Education Teacher. He referred to Column 8 of the recruitment rules. He also argued that for the purpose of recruitment to any post, the recruitment rules issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are sacrosanct and even if there is some parallel piece of legislation, the spirit of the same need to be reflected in such rules by way of amendment. He emphasized that no condition contrary to recruitment rules could be stipulated while filling up the post of Special Education Teacher.

2. Applicants, as per the advertisement under 1/13 (which is filed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) for appointment as a Special Education Teacher in Directorate of Education, besides having the qualification of being a graduate with B. Ed (Special Education), must also have passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by CBSE. Petitioners are the aspirants for the advertised posts.
3. The requirement of teachers, holding the other qualification, of clearing the CTET Test conducted by CBSE, was as to bring about better education standards. Powers were accordingly exercised by the appropriate authority from time to time under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The National Council for Teacher Education vide its circular dated 11.2.2011 has issued the guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Tests under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. CTET examinations are accordingly being conducted for the teachers.
4. Petitioners admittedly do not have the CTET qualification. They have not appeared for the CTET examination, and thus do not have the CTET qualification. The petitioners yet claim that they should be entitled to apply for and seek appointment pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/13 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
5. xx xx xx xx
6. In my opinion, the writ petition is clearly misconceived for the reason that this Court cannot sit in the place of the appropriate authority which decides qualifications for being employed as teachers. In the present case, so far as the employer is concerned, being the National Capital Territory of Delhi, it has quite clearly been prescribed in the advertisement that the Special Education Teachers must have CTET qualification. I do not think that there is any illegality or absurdity in any employer asking that to seek appointment/employment as a teacher, he/she must have CTET qualification, and which qualification was to bring about a higher standard of education. The circular dated 11.1.2012 of the Rehabilitation Council of India does not in any manner support the petitioners case inasmuch as though the qualifications with respect to teachers of different classes have been specified in the said circular (which is filed as Annexure P-7), however, the said circular begins with the expression minimum requirement i.e the requirements as mentioned for appointment as Special Education Teachers must consist of at least those qualifications which are specified in the circular dated 11.1.2012 i.e it does not mean that any employer cannot insist that teachers must have additional CTET qualification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to sit in the examination and seek appointment without CTET qualification is misconceived and rejected.