दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट के फैसले में एयर फ़ोर्स सी बी एस ई स्कूल में यू पी टेट पास को टी जी टी नौकरी नहीं मिली , सिर्फ सी टेट पास को ही केंद्र सरकार संचलित /सहायता प्राप्त स्कूलों को अर्ह माना , टी जी टी नौकरी के लिए टी ई टी पास होना जरूरी बताया गया : 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Latest News

May 17, 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER

W.P.(C) 5675/2013

Decided on: 12.11.2014

IN THE MATTER OF :

UMA KUMARI

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate

versus

THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL &

ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with

Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal,

Advocates for R-1/School.

Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.

Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate for R-4.

CORAM

HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

that the appointment of the respondent No.4 be declared as bad in law and her appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be quashed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the IAF Educational and

Cultural Society had issued an advertisement dated 31.01.2012 for

recruitment of teaching and administrative staff, including the appointment of teachers to the post of TGT (Hindi), which is the subject matter of the present petition. The required qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi) was graduation in Hindi (Hons.) with 50% marks and Bach

elors Degree in Education. The applicants were expected to submit their forms to the respondents by 09.02.2012. The eligible candidates

had to undergo a written test on 09.02.2012 and those, who would qualify in the written test, were to participate in a personal interview.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that she had appeared in the written examination on the date and time mentioned in the advertisement and she had successfully cleared the said examination. Vide intimation dated

24.02.2012, the petitioner was called to appear for an interview on

02.03.2012. The petitioner had appeared before the Selection Board on the assigned day for an interview, whereafter she kept waiting for the results to be declared by the respondent No.1/School. However,

when the petitioner accessed the website of the respondent No.1/School,she discovered that her name was not included as one of the successful candidates.

4. Aggrieved by the results declared by the respondent No.1/School for

the post of TGT (Hindi), the petitioner had a legal notice dated 9.4.2012

issued to the respondent No.1/School stating inter alia that she possessed the desired educational qualifications and had also cle

ared the written examination and participated in the interview but was not selected, in violation of the rules and regulations. It was also stated that as per the Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the Nationa

l Council for Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a

candidate to qualify in the Teacher Eligibility Test (in short ‘TET’) which is conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed in that regard and if the School had appointed a teacher, who did not qualify the TET, then such an appointment was invalid.

5. When the petitioner failed to receive any response from the

respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C) 3025/2012 praying inter alia that the respondent No.1/School be directed to appoint her to the post of TGT (Hindi).

6. The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2012,

with directions to the respondent No.1/School that it should respond to the legal notice dated 09.04.2012, by passing a speaking order and the same should be communicated to the petitioner. The aforesaid order was passed at the stage of admission and at that time, the School

was not represented before the court. In the meantime, the respondent

No.1/School on its own sent a reply dated 19.5.2012 to the legal notice issued by the petitioner, denying the allegations leveled against it and stating inter alia that the petitioner was not found fit for selection to the p

ost of TGT (Hindi) and was therefore, not selected. It was also stated that the Selection Committee had considered the candidature of all the candidates objectively and thereafter, selected the eligible candidates. Aggrieved by the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent No.1/School, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. The leitmotif of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the subject post is that the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010

prescribes that a school cannot appoint teachers to the post of Primary Regular Teacher (PRT) or TGT (Class I to VIII) when they do not possess the TET certificate. He submits that the petitioner herein possesses the TET certificate issued by the Haryana Education Board, but the respondent No.4, who has been selected to the subject post, does not possess the said qualification and therefore her

appointment ought to be quashed.

8. Ms. Palli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/School disputes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of the Court to the Circular dated 06.03.2012 issued b

y the respondent No.2/CBSE, wherein it is stated that the TET conducted by the Central Government would apply to schools under the Central Government and Union Territories without Legislature, and that the Managements of the schools affiliated to the Boards such as CBSE, ICSE etc. may also opt for the TET conducted by the Central Government. Learned counsel states that the Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE was directed to be implemented by the CBSE only on 06.03.2012, whereas the subject advertisement was issued prior thereto, on 31.01.2012 and the selection process was completed by 02.03.2012, which was also prior in time and

therefore, possession of a TET certificate was not mandatory for the

candidates at that point in time.

9. Supporting the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 adds that though possession of a TET certificate was not mandatory prior to issuance of the Circular dated 6.3.2012, his client had passed the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test held in November, 2011, as stipulated in the Notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by the NCTE. In support of the said submission, learned counsel refers to page 215 of the paper book, where he has filed a copy of the Certificate dated 25.11.2011 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate

Education, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of the respondent No.4, certifying inter alia that she had passed Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test held in November, 2011 (Upper Primary Level). He further states that subsequently in the year 2013, the respondent No.4 had passed Central Teacher Eligibility Test (in short

‘CTET’) and was issued a Certificate dated 02.09.2013, that is placed at

page 216 of the paper book.

10. In view of the documents placed on record by the respondent No.4

that include a TET certificate of Upper Primary Level issued in her favour

by the State of U.P. and a CTET certificate issued in her favour by the CBSE, it is manifestly clear that she satisfies the requirements of the Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE. Moreover as is apparent from a perusal of the advertisement enclosed with the writ

petition, at the time when the subject advertisement was issued by the respondent No.1/School, inviting applications to fill-up the posts of TGT (

Hindi), it was not mandatory for the candidates to possess the TET certificate. The only qualifications that a candidates was required to po

ssess was graduation in Hindi (Hons.) with 50% marks and a Bachelor’s degree in Education and the respondent no.4 fulfilled both the qualifications.

11. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the copies of the certificates filed by the respondent No.4 ought to be verified by the

respondent No.1/School, is found to be rather incongruent in the light of the fact that on her part, the petitioner has chosen not to file any such certificate to substantiate her claim that she possesses a TET

certificate purportedly issued by the State of Haryana. This demand is all

the more discordant when the sole argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner to assail the appointment of the respondent No.4 is non-possession of the TET certificate by her. Had the petitioner wanted to file the said certificate, she had an opportunity to do so alongwith the writ petition and having failed to do so at that stage, she could have done so while filing the rejoinder to the counter affidavits filed by the respondent no.1/School and respondent No.4.

However, for reasons best known to her, the petitioner elected not to do so.

Therefore, counsel for the petitioner cannot insist that the respondent No.4 be directed to produce her original certificates for purposes of verification.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

opinion that the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of TGT

(Hindi) does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness for interference in the present proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/-

(HIMA KOHLI)

NOVEMBER 12, 2014

JUDGE

sponsored links:
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines