IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SS) No. 2292 of 2018 Vinay Kumar and other. …….Petitioners.

Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ….…Respondents.

And Writ Petition (SS) No. 172 of 2019 Laxman Singh Samant and other. …….Petitioners.

Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ….…Respondents.

Present:

Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.C. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Hargovind Pant and Mr. Tarun Mohan, learned Brief Holders for the State.

Mr. A.S.Rawat, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The issues, as involved in these two writ petitions, are that whether the official respondents were right in offering the appointment to the private respondents who were not having eligibility by ignoring the claim of the petitioners, who are, in fact, eligible under the Rules as well as in terms of NCTE Notification dated 12.08.2014.

2. The matter was heard at length on several occasions. On 19.11.2024, the Secretary was directed to file an affidavit explaining why the candidates, who were not having TET qualification have been given appointment particularly, when the eligible candidates having B.Ed. with TET qualification were available, who are petitioners, herein.

3. In compliance thereof, the Secretary filed an affidavit but there was no answer to the query of the court. Relevant extract of the affidavit is recorded my earlier order dated 03.12.2024, which is being reproduced as under:

“6. That in the state of Uttarakhand, due to the unavailability of candidates trained in the two-year D.El.Ed. program for the appointment of teachers for classes 1 to 5, the 2 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), at the request of the State Government, issued Notification No. 208 dated 17.10.2012. This notification extended the deadline for the appointment of candidates with B.Ed. qualifications and TET-1 certification from 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2014. Subsequently, at the State Government’s request, the NCTE issued Notification No. 809 dated 12.08.2014, further extending the deadline for appointing B.Ed. and TET-I certified candidates to vacant posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) from 31.03.2014 to 31.03.2016. Based on this, recruitment processes were conducted through state-level selection in 2014 and 2016, in which candidates holding B.Ed.

qualifications and CTET-I certification were selected.”

4. In response to the compliance affidavit of Secretary, Mr. V.B.S. Negi, argued that the statement, as given by the Secretary is thoroughly misconceived in view of the Division Bench judgment dated 29.05.2018 passed in bunch of Special Appeals, the leading one Special Appeal No. 307 of 2016 wherein it was observed that the candidates though having B.Ed. with CTET are not at all eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools. At this juncture, the relevant extract of paragraph 35 and 36 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench are being reproduced as under:

“35. The appellants would, undoubtedly, point out that this paragraph would emphasize that it is for the State Government to conduct the State Eligibility Test and that if at all the B.Ed. degree holders were to be rendered eligible for appearing in the TET conducted by the State Government. This relaxation does not extend to the eligibility test, which was being conducted by the Central Government and which awarded the certificate called as CTET. We may also see Annexure 6, which 9 is a Notification issued by NCTE again under Section 23(2) dated 12.08.2014. Therein, paragraph 3 is similarly worded as paragraph 3, which we have extracted for the earlier years of Notification issued under Section 23(2) of the 2009 Act. Therefore, it could undoubtedly be said that, read along with the terms and conditions issued by CBS