LT GRADE TGT Computer के लिए B Ed अनिवार्य नहीं, हालांकि अभी सिर्फ याची को राहत दी कोर्ट ने

LT GRADE TGT Computer के लिए B Ed अनिवार्य नहीं, हालांकि अभी सिर्फ याची को राहत दी कोर्ट ने - -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9688 of 2018
Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner possesses qualification of MCA whereas the requirement under the advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Computer is a B.Tech./B.E. (in Computer Science) or B.Sc. in Computer Science or B.Sc. in Computer Application or Bachelor of Computer Application or Bachelor's Degree with 'A' Level course from NIELIT. Contention is that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is in accordance with the Regulations framed by the NCTE, and therefore, the respondents would not be justified in denying right of consideration to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that similar controversy has been entertained in Service Single No.8175 of 2018 in which following order was passed:-
"Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Notices for respondents no. 1 and 2 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas notices for respondent no. 3 have been received by Sri Ashok Shukla, Advocate.
By means of this petition the petitioner has submitted that they be permitted to submit application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.3.2018 and declare the petitioner to be eligible for being considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Men/Women) possessing M.C.A. degree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the qualification so fixed by the State Government by means of U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service (IVth Amendment) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2016) is in violation of the qualification so fixed by the Central Government by means of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be Recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-Primary, Primary, Upper-Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Maharashrta vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shiksha Shastra Mahavidyalaya reported in 2006(9) SCC 1 wherein vide para 48 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that with a view to achieve the object, National Council for Teachers Education has been established and it is not open to the State legislature to encroach upon the provisions so fixed by the Central Government. The relevant para no. 48 is being reproduced herein below:
"48. In the instant case, admittedly, parliament has enacted 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher-education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving that object. National council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List i of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on 'policy consideration'."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 63 of 2003: State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Federation of Indian Polytechnic Teachers Organisation & Anr. wherein this Court in identical circumstances has held that any Rule so framed by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India if the same is contrary to the recommendations made by the AICTE would not be enforceable. The relevant para is being reproduced herein below:
"The legal position with regard to recommendations of AICTE in pursuance to the provisions of the Act is not in dispute. The judgments of the Apex Court in Adhiniyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors. (supra) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (Supra) still hold the field. The recommendations under Section 10(1)(a) to (v) of the act 1997 laying down norms and standards for ensuring guaranteed and integrated development of technical and management education have more than persuasive value. The State Government bound by the Central legislation do not have liberty to ignore the recommendations. The Rules of 1990 framed by the State of U.P. under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India and Regulation of 1996 framed under the U.P. Technical Education Act, 1962, after enforcement of the Act of 1987 contrary to the recommendations made by AICTE are unforceable."
Per contra learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the Rules, 2016 whereby the qualification has been fixed, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, if any rule etc. has been made by the State Government against the Rules / Act framed by the Central Government, the same would be void from the very beginning, therefore, said Rules, 2016 has not been assailed. It would be open for the counsel for the State-respondents to take this plea while filing counter affidavit and the said submission of counsel for the State-respondents would be considered at the stage of final hearing.
However, in view of the above, the matter requires consideration.
Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within 10 days. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
In the meantime, the petitioners may be permitted provisionally, to deposit the examination fee and submit the application form. It is needless to say that the aforesaid interim relief shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition."
Matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 has been accepted by learned Standing Counsel, whereas Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Advocate, has appeared for respondent no.2.
All respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within a week thereafter.
List thereafter.
Following the order passed in Service Single No.8175 of 2018 and� for the reasons recorded therein, it is provided that petitioner shall be permitted provisionally to appear in the examination by depositing examination fee and submit examination form, but his candidature shall be subject to the outcome of the present petition.� .
Order Date :- 11.4.2018
Ashok Kr.