Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.78 seconds)
) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 23 March, 2011 cites

Kallash Chandra Harijan vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 23 January, 2006

6) Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the Syllabus of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' to argue that the students have to study the subjects of English, Hindi, Environment Education, Computer Science and Social Service Scheme etc. The qualification of Senior Secondary possessed by the appellants in which also the same subjects are tought, cannot be therefore in any manner described different, than the qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya'. For that matter, argued the learned counsel, medium of instruction of optional subject of Sanskrit of the appellants is also Sanskrit. It was argued that the amendment notification dated 22/8/2008 in the Rules of 1978 was introduced pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kailash Chandra Harijan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : RLR 2006(1) 665. Purpose of the said amendment was to ensure that only those, who are proficient in the language of Sanskrit are appointed Teachers in Sanskrit Education at Primary Level but here in the present case, appointments that are sought to be made, are although on the aforesaid post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) but such appointees are being recruited to be posted in the Upper Primary Section. If the interpretation, which the respondents are taking as per amended rules is upheld, this would frustrate the very purpose of bringing about such an amendment.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 201 - V Kothari - Full Document

P.M. Latha And Another vs State Of Kerala And Others on 5 March, 2003

18) Merely because the Sanskrit Education Department has on its website indicated the qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' of the level of the Senior Secondary, does not mean that every candidate having Senior Secondary Examination certificate would be treated having equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium for the purpose of Rules of 1978. Howsoever high qualification the appellants may possess, whether BA in Sanskrit or MA in Sanskrit or Shiksha Shastri, they do not have the basic foundational qualification of 'Varishtha Upadhyaya' or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium. They cannot be therefore treated as eligible. We may in this connection usefully refer to the judgment in P.M. Latha and another Vs. State of Kerala and others : (2003) 3 SCC 541. In that case too, B.Ed. candidates were allowed to compete in seeking for appointment and were selected contrary to the terms of advertisement for imparting education in Primary and Upper Primary Government schools. The candidates, who possessed Teachers Training Certificate (TTC) qualification, questioned their non-selection due to inclusion of B.Ed. candidates in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission of the State of Kerala. The Single Bench of the High Court of Kerala allowed all the writ petitions holding that B.Ed. candidates, who did not have TTC qualification and were yet included in the rank list should be deleted therefrom and their appointments be cancelled and the merit list should be prepared afresh. The judgment was challenged before the Division Bench, which reversed the same and the matter travelled to the Supreme Court. While reversing the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring that of the Single Bench, the Supreme Court in para 13 of the report of the judgment observed, as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 212 - Full Document

Dilip Kumar Ghosh & Ors vs Chairman & Ors on 12 September, 2005

20) In Dilip Kumar Ghosh and others Vs. Chairman and others : (2005) 7 SCC 567 also the candidates having B.Ed. qualification were denied appointment in preference to the candidates with Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers Training Certificates. Writ petitions were dismissed by the Calcutta High Court, which is why they approached the Supreme Court. Supreme Court relying on the above referred to two judgments held that in the case of junior basic training and primary teachers training certificates, the emphasis is on the development of the child studying in the primary schools. The person, who is trained in B.Ed. degree may not be equipped to understand the psychology of a child at that early stage. To accept a proposition that a candidate, who holds a B.Ed. degree, that is, higher degree, cannot be deprived appointment to the post of primary school teacher would negate the aims and objects of the Rules for the purpose for which it is framed. These Rules were framed primarily for recruitment of the teachers for primary schools and in that context the Rules were designed to give credit to the candidates, who are specifically trained to teach in primary schools. The idea behind framing of these Rules was that the junior basic training and primary teachers training certificate trained teachers should be appointed so that they can impart proper education to the child of tender age, who requires an expert and tending hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 61 - H K Sema - Full Document
1