IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey And Others - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 38431 of 2017 With Writ-A Nos.-- 4869 of 2016, 11614 of 2017, 39408 of 2017, 40551 of 2017, 40552 of 2017, 41295 of 2017, 42356 of 2017, 42373 of 2017, 42386 of 2017, 42392 of 2017, 42668 of 2017, 42682 of 2017, 42684 of 2017, 42688 of 2017, 42706 of 2017, 42709 of 2017, 42712 of 2017, 42732 of 2017, 42734 of 2017, 43086 of 2017, 43098 of 2017, 43101 of 2017, 43108 of 2017, 43542 of 2017, 43543 of 2017, 43545 of 2017, 43719 of 2017, 44009 of 2017, 44011 of 2017, 44018 of 2017, 44022 of 2017, 44252 of 2017, 44256 of 2017, and 44264 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2017
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT TEACHERS - UTTAR PRADESH BASIC EDUCATION ACT, 1972, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ACT, 1993, RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009 - SECTION 9, 19, 32, 31(1), 32, 23 - The judgment discusses the appointment of assistant teachers in Basic Schools in Uttar Pradesh and the relevant legal provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It highlights the interpretation of the NCTE guidelines and the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in the recruitment of teachers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought appointment as trainee teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education Board. The appointment process was subject to a series of litigations culminating in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014, State of U.P. and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, dated 25th July, 2017. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Government Order dated 26th July, 2012, and the Fifteenth Amendment Rules dated 31st August, 2012, and directed the State to proceed with the selection as per the advertisement dated 30th November, 2011. The Supreme Court upheld the Fifteenth Amendment Rules and directed the State to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with the law after issuing a fresh advertisement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought by the petitioners to reopen the issues on the appointment of 862 candidates in pursuance of the interim order dated 07th December, 2015, was misconceived. It held that all the 66,655 appointments, including the 862 candidates, had not been disturbed by the Supreme Court, and therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to consider the alleged illegality in the appointments made pursuant to the interim order. The court dismissed the writ petitions as lacking in merit.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the legality of the appointments made pursuant to the interim order dated 07th December, 2015, and the jurisdiction of the court to consider the alleged illegality in the appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the Supreme Court's direction to issue a fresh advertisement for recruitment in respect of the remaining vacancies and the lack of jurisdiction to modify the order of the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions as lacking in merit and held that the relief sought by the petitioners to reopen the issues on the appointment of 862 candidates in pursuance of the interim order dated 07th December, 2015, was misconceived.
This batch of writ petitions raises substantially similar issue of law and facts. The writ petitions can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
2. All the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions were the candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Schools in pursuance of a Government Order dated 27th September, 2011. They have instituted the present writ proceedings for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to grant them appointment as trainee teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education Board.
3. In pursuance of a Government Order dated 27th September, 2011 total 72,825 posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by the Board were advertised on 30th November, 2011. The said selection was to take place on the basis of the marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test TET only. The advertisement and subsequent Government orders in respect of the said recruitment became subject matter of a series of litigation which culminated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014, State of U.P. and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, dated 25th July, 2017.
4. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this batch of petitions are recapitulated as under:
In the State of Uttar Pradesh, prior to coming into force the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, the basic education was governed under the provisions of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 and the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. It was felt by the State Government that these institutions are not being properly conducted and run by the local bodies for various reasons, therefore, it became necessary for the State Government to take over its control into its own hands for reorganising, reforming and expanding elementary education.
5. Accordingly, in the year 1972, the Act, 1972 i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 34 of 1972) was enacted to streamline the basic education in the State with an object to achieve the goal of directive principles of the State enshrined under Article 45 of the Constitution of India. All the institutions run in the rural areas and urban areas conducted by the Zila Parishads and Municipal Corporations were transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act, 1972. The services of the teachers and non-teaching staff of such institutions also stood transferred to the Board.
6. The State Government exercising its power under Section 19 of the Act, 1972 framed the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The said Rules of 1981 provides the procedure for recruitment, qualification and other service conditions of the teachers.
7. All the teachers in the Basic Schools run by the Board were appointed in terms of the qualification prescribed in the Rules, 1981 upto the year 1993.
8. In the year 1993 the Parliament enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The object of the NCTE Act is to establish a National Council for Teacher Education6 with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country. Section 31(1) of the NCTE Act confers the rule-making power upon the Central Government. Section 32 thereof empowers the NCTE to frame regulations to carry out the object of the NCTE Act.
9. Regard may be had to the fact that the NCTE, after the enactment of the NCTE Act, exercising its power under Section 32 of the NCTE Act, on 04th September, 2001 framed the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (NCTE Regulations, 2001). The NCTE Regulations, 2001 lays down the essential qualification for appointment to the post of teachers in Basic Schools including elementary schools imparting instructions at Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.