Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 75474 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dr. Prashant Kumar Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that
Rule 14 (1) and (2) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981 as amended by notification dated 9th
November, 2011 making amendment in U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 i.e. 12th
Amendment is illegal, inasmuch as, it makes the marks
obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as
"T.E.T.") as the basis for including a person in the list to be
prepared by the appointing authority after advertisement
issued for appointment which is to be submitted to the
Selection Committee though T.E.T. is only eligibility
qualification and cannot be a basis for making selection.
2. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The
aforesaid amendment of the Rule by no stretch of
imagination, can be construed as contrary to the guidelines
issued by National Council for Teacher Education
(hereinafter referred to as "NCTE") inasmuch as, NCTE
provides T.E.T. qualification as a necessary qualification for
appointment of Primary Teachers but simultaneously
provides that it shall not guarantee appointment to any
person merely on account of possession of such
qualification. The Rules do not go contrary thereto but only
provide that before a candidates is to be considered by
Selection Committee, list of candidates, who have applied
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, shall be
prepared and in that preparation of list, T.E.T. marks shall be
the criteria. It is like a guideline for ascertaining zone of
- 2 -
consideration and field of eligibility but by itself does not
provide any guarantee for appointment. The Rules thus
cannot be said to be contrary to NCTE guidelines.
3. No interference therefore called for.
4. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2012
KA
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 75474 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dr. Prashant Kumar Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that
Rule 14 (1) and (2) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981 as amended by notification dated 9th
November, 2011 making amendment in U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 i.e. 12th
Amendment is illegal, inasmuch as, it makes the marks
obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as
"T.E.T.") as the basis for including a person in the list to be
prepared by the appointing authority after advertisement
issued for appointment which is to be submitted to the
Selection Committee though T.E.T. is only eligibility
qualification and cannot be a basis for making selection.
2. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The
aforesaid amendment of the Rule by no stretch of
imagination, can be construed as contrary to the guidelines
issued by National Council for Teacher Education
(hereinafter referred to as "NCTE") inasmuch as, NCTE
provides T.E.T. qualification as a necessary qualification for
appointment of Primary Teachers but simultaneously
provides that it shall not guarantee appointment to any
person merely on account of possession of such
qualification. The Rules do not go contrary thereto but only
provide that before a candidates is to be considered by
Selection Committee, list of candidates, who have applied
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, shall be
prepared and in that preparation of list, T.E.T. marks shall be
the criteria. It is like a guideline for ascertaining zone of
- 2 -
consideration and field of eligibility but by itself does not
provide any guarantee for appointment. The Rules thus
cannot be said to be contrary to NCTE guidelines.
3. No interference therefore called for.
4. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2012
KA
No comments:
Post a Comment