HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3293 of 2017
Respondent :- State Of U.P. 4nd 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Seemant Singh
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. Nil of 2017 dated 23.1.2017 is allowed.
Necessary impleadment be made in the body of the writ petition.�
Office is directed to allot a number to the impleadment application.
Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shantanu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K.Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents including the respondent No.4 as well as Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent No.6-Sunil Dwivedi.
In this writ petition, the grievance raised is with regard to allotment of quality point marks for selection of 12,460 posts of Assistant Teachers to be filled up in the Institution maintained by the Basic Education Board. For Assistant Teachers in junior and senior basic schools maintained by the Basic Education Board, the necessary qualification has been prescribed in the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981. The said Rules envisage a candidate to possess a two year teacher's training course of B.T.C. Training Course as essential eligibility qualification for appointment. There are other requisite qualification also in the said Rules. The B.T.C. Training Course is imparted as a two year's regular teachers training course in District Institute of Education and Training established in each district of the State and also privately managed Institution approved for the said purpose by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). All the petitioners have done training course in 2012.
Pursuant to notification dated 15.12.2016 for filling up the posts of 12,460. The petitioners, who have done their B.T.C. Training Course in 2012 as well as candidates, who have done their B.T.C. Training Course in 2013 applied.
A circular dated 26.12.2016 was issued by the Basic Education Board specifying guidelines governing the selection. The guidelines specify quality points to be awarded to the candidates on the basis of academic qualification and teachers training qualification. The quality points that were to be awarded was 12,6,3 to the candidates having first, second and third division respectively in theory/practical of teachers training course. The first, second and third division was given on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the aforesaid training course. The first division was given to the candidates, who have obtained more than 60% marks, second division was given to the candidates, who have obtained 50 to 59% marks and third division was given to the candidates, who have obtained 33 to 49% marks. The allotment of division on the basis of percentage of marks for the trainee of 2012 B.T.C. was subsequently changed with respect to candidates of B.T.C. Training Course-2013 and the grading system was introduced as being Grade A, B, C and D. A candidate, who has obtained 80% and above marks was given Grade-A, a candidate, who has obtained 65 to 80% marks was given Grade-B, a candidate, who has obtained 65% marks was given Grade-C and a candidate, who has obtained below 50% marks was declared failed and was given Grade-D.
Clause 9 (Ka) of the guidelines dated 26.12.2016 specifies the procedure for selection. It has been provided therein that the selection is to be made on the basis of quality point marks which is dependent on the Division obtained by a candidate.
Since 2013 B.T.C., no divisions are awarded only Grades are being awarded and clause (9) provides for awarding quality point marks on the basis of divisions obtained by a candidate in B.T.C.. There is no mention of quality points marks being awarded on the basis of grading system. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as long as awarding of quality point marks on the basis of grading system is not provided, selection cannot be made and there will be serious anomaly in the selection as before 2013 Divisions were awarded but thereafter Grading system is being followed. There is no similarity as regards awarding of marks in BTC.. Till 2012 Divisions were awarded on the basis of marks obtained separately in theory and practical. The candidates securing 60% and above were declared pass in first division and candidates securing less than 60% but more than 50% were declared pass in second division and a candidate securing 33% but less than 50% were declared pass in third division. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the evaluation system stood drastically altered with regard to BTC training course, 2013. Instead of awarding division, now grades are being awarded. The candidates securing 80% or more in the written examination were awarded Grade -A, the candidates securing marks between 65-80% in theory were awarded Grade-B and the candidates securing between 50-65% were awarded Grade-C in theory and the candidates securing less than 50% marks in theory were declared fail and were awarded Grade-D. Similarly, in practical examination, a candidate securing 85% or more was awarded Grade-A, a candidate securing 70-85% marks in practical was awarded Grade-B and a candidate securing between 60-70% was awarded Grade-C and the candidate securing less than 60% in practical was declared fail.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for (i) quashing of clause 9(ka) of Circular dated 26.12.2016 issued by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education,U.P., Allahabad (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) insofar it pertains to awarding of quality point marks to candidates having passed 2 year BTC, 2013, (ii) commanding the respondents to modify the methodology of awarding quality point marks to BTC, 2013 and (iii) commanding the respondents to equate Grade-A to Ist Div., Grade-B to IInd Div. And Grade-C to IIIrd Div.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the awarding of quality point marks on the basis of BTC is dependent on the division, a candidate has got. He further submits that a different methodology has been specified with regard to candidates possessing Bachelor degree in Elementary Education.
He submits that in the absence of any clarification in the notification with regard to the candidates who have done BTC, 2013, the selection procedure will be unworkable and the specification of procedure to be followed for awarding marks to the candidates who have passed BTC, 2013 is must. He submits that in the absence of any clarification, the entire selection would be vitiated by equating unequal which is not legally permissible.
The main ground of attack of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition is that one uniform procedure of awarding quality point marks to the candidates passing BTC in two different years, i.e., 2012 and 2013 having two different procedure for awarding marks in the BTC Exam, cannot be applied. Sri Khare submits that there is no justification for providing uniform method of awarding quality point marks to the candidates having done BTC in 2012 and 2013 when there is different method of awarding pass certificate.
Sri Khare submits that the aforesaid clause 9(Ka) in the notification fails to address itself to candidates having passed 2 year regular BTC, 2013 in which no divisions are awarded and only grading system is provided.
Sri Khare has pointed out that if Grad-A is equated to Ist Div, Grade-B is equated to IInd Div and Grade-C is equated to IIIrd Div, this anomaly will be removed.
However, learned counsel appearing for newly impleaded respondent No.6 submits that equating the Grade to Division would cause great injustice to the candidates who have passed BTC in 2013 as awarding of Grade is based upon much higher marks than the marks awarded while awarding Division.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, there is only mention of correspondence being made by the authorities and in para 6 it is mentioned that qualify point marks are to be awarded on the basis of First, Second and Third Division marks in theory and practical both but nothing has been stated about the procedure of awarding quality point marks to the candidates who have done BTC 2013 when the grading system was applicable to them.
The crux of the matter is that when no criterion has been given in the Notification for awarding quality point marks in relation to the candidates who passed BTC, 2013 when Grading system was in operation, then how the selection is to be made is not clear as in the Notification awarding of quality point marks is based upon Divisions. Only.
Therefore, in my view, the criterion fixed by the authorities is faulty and does not treat the B.T.C. Training Course-2012 equally with B.T.C. Training Course-2013. Accordingly, the marking system of quality point marks in Clause 9 (Ka) not being in consonance with the Rules cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.�
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to re-fix the criteria taking into account the observations made herein above and then proceed with the selection. Till such action is done, the selection proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and shall abide by the final decision by the authorities. The writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.5.2017
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3293 of 2017
- SC के संभावित आर्डर : 12 वा और 15,16 इन दोनों संशोधन में से एक संशोधन ही बचेगा
- PPF प्लान NPF से कहीं ज्यादा बेहतर : 5000 रुपये प्रति माह का calculation
- 11 फरवरी की गाइड लाइन TET की अनिवार्यता को पुनः दोहरा दिया गया : एस के पाठक
- संघर्ष के 6 वर्षों में NCTE की भूमिका पर पोस्ट और उसका विस्तार : S K Pathak
- लखनऊ-यूपी कैबिनेट की अहम बैठक खत्म, यह हुए आज की बैठक में फैसले
- बीटीसी की 84 हजार सीटों पर प्रवेश शुरू, परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी आज जारी करेगा विस्तृत कार्यक्रम
Respondent :- State Of U.P. 4nd 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Seemant Singh
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. Nil of 2017 dated 23.1.2017 is allowed.
Necessary impleadment be made in the body of the writ petition.�
Office is directed to allot a number to the impleadment application.
Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shantanu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K.Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents including the respondent No.4 as well as Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent No.6-Sunil Dwivedi.
In this writ petition, the grievance raised is with regard to allotment of quality point marks for selection of 12,460 posts of Assistant Teachers to be filled up in the Institution maintained by the Basic Education Board. For Assistant Teachers in junior and senior basic schools maintained by the Basic Education Board, the necessary qualification has been prescribed in the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981. The said Rules envisage a candidate to possess a two year teacher's training course of B.T.C. Training Course as essential eligibility qualification for appointment. There are other requisite qualification also in the said Rules. The B.T.C. Training Course is imparted as a two year's regular teachers training course in District Institute of Education and Training established in each district of the State and also privately managed Institution approved for the said purpose by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). All the petitioners have done training course in 2012.
Pursuant to notification dated 15.12.2016 for filling up the posts of 12,460. The petitioners, who have done their B.T.C. Training Course in 2012 as well as candidates, who have done their B.T.C. Training Course in 2013 applied.
A circular dated 26.12.2016 was issued by the Basic Education Board specifying guidelines governing the selection. The guidelines specify quality points to be awarded to the candidates on the basis of academic qualification and teachers training qualification. The quality points that were to be awarded was 12,6,3 to the candidates having first, second and third division respectively in theory/practical of teachers training course. The first, second and third division was given on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the aforesaid training course. The first division was given to the candidates, who have obtained more than 60% marks, second division was given to the candidates, who have obtained 50 to 59% marks and third division was given to the candidates, who have obtained 33 to 49% marks. The allotment of division on the basis of percentage of marks for the trainee of 2012 B.T.C. was subsequently changed with respect to candidates of B.T.C. Training Course-2013 and the grading system was introduced as being Grade A, B, C and D. A candidate, who has obtained 80% and above marks was given Grade-A, a candidate, who has obtained 65 to 80% marks was given Grade-B, a candidate, who has obtained 65% marks was given Grade-C and a candidate, who has obtained below 50% marks was declared failed and was given Grade-D.
Clause 9 (Ka) of the guidelines dated 26.12.2016 specifies the procedure for selection. It has been provided therein that the selection is to be made on the basis of quality point marks which is dependent on the Division obtained by a candidate.
Since 2013 B.T.C., no divisions are awarded only Grades are being awarded and clause (9) provides for awarding quality point marks on the basis of divisions obtained by a candidate in B.T.C.. There is no mention of quality points marks being awarded on the basis of grading system. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as long as awarding of quality point marks on the basis of grading system is not provided, selection cannot be made and there will be serious anomaly in the selection as before 2013 Divisions were awarded but thereafter Grading system is being followed. There is no similarity as regards awarding of marks in BTC.. Till 2012 Divisions were awarded on the basis of marks obtained separately in theory and practical. The candidates securing 60% and above were declared pass in first division and candidates securing less than 60% but more than 50% were declared pass in second division and a candidate securing 33% but less than 50% were declared pass in third division. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the evaluation system stood drastically altered with regard to BTC training course, 2013. Instead of awarding division, now grades are being awarded. The candidates securing 80% or more in the written examination were awarded Grade -A, the candidates securing marks between 65-80% in theory were awarded Grade-B and the candidates securing between 50-65% were awarded Grade-C in theory and the candidates securing less than 50% marks in theory were declared fail and were awarded Grade-D. Similarly, in practical examination, a candidate securing 85% or more was awarded Grade-A, a candidate securing 70-85% marks in practical was awarded Grade-B and a candidate securing between 60-70% was awarded Grade-C and the candidate securing less than 60% in practical was declared fail.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for (i) quashing of clause 9(ka) of Circular dated 26.12.2016 issued by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education,U.P., Allahabad (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) insofar it pertains to awarding of quality point marks to candidates having passed 2 year BTC, 2013, (ii) commanding the respondents to modify the methodology of awarding quality point marks to BTC, 2013 and (iii) commanding the respondents to equate Grade-A to Ist Div., Grade-B to IInd Div. And Grade-C to IIIrd Div.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the awarding of quality point marks on the basis of BTC is dependent on the division, a candidate has got. He further submits that a different methodology has been specified with regard to candidates possessing Bachelor degree in Elementary Education.
He submits that in the absence of any clarification in the notification with regard to the candidates who have done BTC, 2013, the selection procedure will be unworkable and the specification of procedure to be followed for awarding marks to the candidates who have passed BTC, 2013 is must. He submits that in the absence of any clarification, the entire selection would be vitiated by equating unequal which is not legally permissible.
The main ground of attack of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition is that one uniform procedure of awarding quality point marks to the candidates passing BTC in two different years, i.e., 2012 and 2013 having two different procedure for awarding marks in the BTC Exam, cannot be applied. Sri Khare submits that there is no justification for providing uniform method of awarding quality point marks to the candidates having done BTC in 2012 and 2013 when there is different method of awarding pass certificate.
Sri Khare submits that the aforesaid clause 9(Ka) in the notification fails to address itself to candidates having passed 2 year regular BTC, 2013 in which no divisions are awarded and only grading system is provided.
Sri Khare has pointed out that if Grad-A is equated to Ist Div, Grade-B is equated to IInd Div and Grade-C is equated to IIIrd Div, this anomaly will be removed.
However, learned counsel appearing for newly impleaded respondent No.6 submits that equating the Grade to Division would cause great injustice to the candidates who have passed BTC in 2013 as awarding of Grade is based upon much higher marks than the marks awarded while awarding Division.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, there is only mention of correspondence being made by the authorities and in para 6 it is mentioned that qualify point marks are to be awarded on the basis of First, Second and Third Division marks in theory and practical both but nothing has been stated about the procedure of awarding quality point marks to the candidates who have done BTC 2013 when the grading system was applicable to them.
The crux of the matter is that when no criterion has been given in the Notification for awarding quality point marks in relation to the candidates who passed BTC, 2013 when Grading system was in operation, then how the selection is to be made is not clear as in the Notification awarding of quality point marks is based upon Divisions. Only.
Therefore, in my view, the criterion fixed by the authorities is faulty and does not treat the B.T.C. Training Course-2012 equally with B.T.C. Training Course-2013. Accordingly, the marking system of quality point marks in Clause 9 (Ka) not being in consonance with the Rules cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.�
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to re-fix the criteria taking into account the observations made herein above and then proceed with the selection. Till such action is done, the selection proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and shall abide by the final decision by the authorities. The writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.5.2017
- कमाई का जरिया बन फर्जी शिक्षक संगठन, बीएड, बीटीसी टीईटी पास वालों को कोर्ट से न्याय दिलाने के नाम कर रहे ठगी
- B.Ed वालों के लिए बहुत ही जल्दी बड़ी भर्ती : मुख्यमंत्री
- कुछ पॉइंट है जो क्लियर कर दू, आर्डर में ये हो सकता है : Amit Srivastava
- सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फाइनल संभावित आर्डर : 172000 शिक्षामित्रों, 99000 अकैडमिक, 72000 टी ई टी मेरिट सबको समाप्त करके खुली प्रतियोगिता की संभावना
- कैसे होगा न्याय : ये संभव नही की 83 वाला नियुक्त रहे और 115 वाला कम्पटीशन दे
- जनरल ऑर्डर आएगा : सभी टेट पास रिक्त पदों के योग्य , सभी टेट 2011 पास को ये नौकरी मिलेगी
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines