IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the T.E.T. requirements and the eligibility criteria for the appointment of Primary Teachers, as prescribed by the Government Order and NCTE guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge allowing Writ Appeal No. 45784 of 2014 filed by respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’). In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by appellant no. 1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (appellant no. 2) on the ground that the petitioner had passed T.E.T. Examination in Sanskrit language and not T.E.T. meant for teaching primary level classes. He therefore did not fulfill the eligibility prescribed for the post. In reaching to the said conclusion, reliance has been placed on the Government Order dated 15.10.2013.

2. The learned Single Judge has held that the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 does not place any such restriction. It merely requires that the candidate should have passed T.E.T. Examination. As the petitioner had duly cleared the T.E.T. Examination, though in Sanskrit language, he was held eligible for the post and accordingly, direction was issued to the appellants to issue appointment letter to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Government decided to fill up 10,000 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in primary schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. In furtherance, it issued a Government Order dated 15.10.2013. It stipulated that the educational qualification required was graduation degree from a recognised degree college, two years BTC Course from authorised institution of the State Government and certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) meant for classes 1 to 5 i.e. primary level. The requirement of having T.E.T. certificate was an essential condition in view of the stipulations laid down in this behalf by the National Council for Teacher Education in exercise of its powers under Section 23 (1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The State Government, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE, had issued Government Order dated 17.04.2013 disclosing the manner in which T.E.T. Examination would be held. According to it, T.E.T. Examination was held for four separate categories:

(i) Primary Level (Classes I to V)

(ii) Language Teacher - Primary Level (Classes I to V)

(iii) Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII)

(iv) Language Teacher - Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII)

4. In Para 2 of the said Government Order, the subjects in which candidates would be tested for T.E.T. certificate in a particular category, was specified. It reveals that a candidate who passes T.E.T. in any particular category can only teach students of that category. The candidates also had the option to appear in papers of all categories. The Guidelines issued by the State Government dated 17.04.2013 were kept in mind while taking decision to fill up 10,000 vacancies of primary teachers. This is evident from Clause 1.1 of the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 which specifically provided that the person should have passed T.E.T. meant for teaching Classes I to V. As such, the finding of learned Single Judge that there was no bar under the Government Order for a candidate possessing T.E.T. in Sanskrit language to be recruited for the post of primary teacher is manifestly incorrect. In other words, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that as per guidelines dated 17.04.2013 issued by the Government keeping in mind the notifications issued by NCTE from time to time, a candidate to be recruited for teaching primary classes from Standard I to V had to possess T.E.T. certificate of primary level and not the T.E.T. certificate of any other category.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 contains no such inhibition and the learne