Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1654 of 2016
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 7
Petitioner :- Sandhya Dwivedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:
"i.� Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Chandauli wherein the petitioner has been denied the appointment and joining on the ground that she is not having qualified TET Examination (Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).
ii.� Issue a writ order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as assistant teacher in Prathmik Vidyalaya run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. in District Chandauli and to pay the petitioner the regular monthly salary on such basis regularly every months.
iii.� Issue a writ order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to pass the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test as a pre-condition for grant of appointment to the petitioner as assistant teacher."
The petitioner claims that she did her Special B.T.C. Training-2004 and she is entitled for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. Her claim has been rejected by the District Basic Education Officer on the ground that the petitioner has not passed Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), therefore, she is not eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher.
Learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer has submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB), has held that after coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the notification of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 23rd August, 2010, TET is one of the essential qualifications.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to an order of this Court dated 19th February, 2015 passed in Writ-A No. 10018 of 2015 (Rajeev Verma and 102 others v. State of U.P. and others). In that case, the only ground raised was that in the case of one Smt. Deep Mala Sengar i.e. Writ Petition No. 4246 of 2013 (Smt. Deep Mala Sengar v. State of U.P. and others) she has been given the appointment although she has not cleared TET.
Learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer submits that� steps have been taken to cancel the appointment of Smt. Deep Mala Sengar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra) has held that TET is an essential qualification. Concededly, the petitioner has not cleared TET examination held by the State Government� i.e. UPTET or the Central Government i.e. CTET. In view of the above, she does not have a minimum qualification. Moreover, under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner cannot claim a negative equality even assuming that Smt. Deep Mala Sengar was given appointment contrary to law. This Court cannot enforce a negative equality which is contrary to law. The view taken by the District Basic Education Officer in the impugned order that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as she does not have TET certificate, is perfectly legal and in consonance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra). I do not find any error in the order of the District Basic Education Officer. The writ petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.1.2016
SKT/-
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 7
Petitioner :- Sandhya Dwivedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:
"i.� Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Chandauli wherein the petitioner has been denied the appointment and joining on the ground that she is not having qualified TET Examination (Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).
ii.� Issue a writ order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as assistant teacher in Prathmik Vidyalaya run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. in District Chandauli and to pay the petitioner the regular monthly salary on such basis regularly every months.
iii.� Issue a writ order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to pass the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test as a pre-condition for grant of appointment to the petitioner as assistant teacher."
The petitioner claims that she did her Special B.T.C. Training-2004 and she is entitled for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. Her claim has been rejected by the District Basic Education Officer on the ground that the petitioner has not passed Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), therefore, she is not eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher.
Learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer has submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB), has held that after coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the notification of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 23rd August, 2010, TET is one of the essential qualifications.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to an order of this Court dated 19th February, 2015 passed in Writ-A No. 10018 of 2015 (Rajeev Verma and 102 others v. State of U.P. and others). In that case, the only ground raised was that in the case of one Smt. Deep Mala Sengar i.e. Writ Petition No. 4246 of 2013 (Smt. Deep Mala Sengar v. State of U.P. and others) she has been given the appointment although she has not cleared TET.
Learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer submits that� steps have been taken to cancel the appointment of Smt. Deep Mala Sengar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra) has held that TET is an essential qualification. Concededly, the petitioner has not cleared TET examination held by the State Government� i.e. UPTET or the Central Government i.e. CTET. In view of the above, she does not have a minimum qualification. Moreover, under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner cannot claim a negative equality even assuming that Smt. Deep Mala Sengar was given appointment contrary to law. This Court cannot enforce a negative equality which is contrary to law. The view taken by the District Basic Education Officer in the impugned order that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as she does not have TET certificate, is perfectly legal and in consonance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra). I do not find any error in the order of the District Basic Education Officer. The writ petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.1.2016
SKT/-
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC