Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 16 in The National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Telangana Education Act, 1982
Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005
23. The effect of the 1993 Act, and regulations, in the context of a similar contention for enforcement of recruitment conditions in rules that contained contrary stipulations, were considered by the Supreme Court, in a recent judgment reported as Rajesh Kumar Gupta' v. State of UP . The court held as follows:
Union Of India & Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002
19. Relying on the judgment of Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College , the High Court held that the National Council for Teacher Education constituted under Section 3 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 is an expert body whose function is to maintain the standards of education in relation to teachers' education. It was for this body to prepare norms for recognised courses for teachers' education on different levels. The special BTC training course contemplated by the State of U.P. had not been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education Act under the 1993 Act. It was. therefore, not a recognised teachers' training course. The State government therefore, could not have declared it or treated it as equivalent qualification for the purpose of Assistant Masters or Assistant Mistresses, Merely because the State was under pressure and in a hurry to recruit a large number of teachers, the requirement of educational standards of the training imparted to the teachers could not be compromised. Strangely, despite recognition of E.Ed/L.T. and other courses recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education Act under the 1993 Act, the State government had not bothered to declare their equivalence for the purpose of making appointment on posts of Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistress for the schools run by the Board. The High Court therefore, pointed out that the Government Order recognizing special BTC course as equivalent qualification was contrary to the provisions of the UP Basic Education Act and provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, particularly so in view of Section 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the State Act.