69000 शिक्षक भर्ती से जुड़े विभिन्न प्रश्नों के हाईकोर्ट के फैसले दिनाँक 06 मई 2020 पर आधारित, यह बिंदु बने फैसले के आधार
69000 शिक्षक भर्ती से जुड़े विभिन्न प्रश्नों के हाईकोर्ट के फैसले दिनाँक 06 मई 2020 पर आधारित
■ प्रश्न : क्या एक समान पदधारी शिक्षामित्रों के लिए दो क्रमिक भर्तियों में अलग अलग मापदंड लगाना गलत है?
★ उत्तर : मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा पाया गया कि 2018 एवं 2019 की शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा में स्पष्ट अंतर था। जहां 2018 की परीक्षा लघु उत्तरीय थी एवं 107000 अभ्यर्थी सम्मिलित हुए थे वहीं 2019 की परीक्षा बहु विकल्पीय थी एवं 410000 अभ्यर्थी सम्मिलित हुए थे। अतः दोनों परीक्षा के लिए अलग अलग कटऑफ अंक का मापदंड प्रयोग करना अनुचित नहीं था।
(पैरा 100) The ATRE - 2018 and ATRE 2019 were two separate selection processes and were conducted under different Rules as the Twentieth amendment was applicable as per Government Order dated 9.1.2018 on the ATRE - 2018 examination and the Twenty-Second amendment was applicable as per Government Order dated 1.12.2018 on the ATRE - 2019 examination, Ii is also not in dispute that in ATRE - 2018 examination, only 1,07,000 candidates appeared against 68,500 vacancies whereas in ATRE - 2019 examination, 4,10,000 candidates appeared against 69,000 vacancies. As per clauses of the aforesaid ATRE, which we have quoted, it is very clear the examination of ATRE - 2018 and ATRE - 2019 is valid only for a particular year. The ATRE - 2019 examination was based on a different pattern as it only had multiple choice questions and there was no condition like clause 7 (1) and 7 (2) of ATRE - 2018 regarding minimum marks and thereafter, after examination of ATRE - 2019 was held on 6.1.2019, the State Government under Rule 2 (x) of 1981 Rules took a conscious decision and issued Government Order dated 7.1.2019 to fix 65% minimum qualifying marks for General Category and 60% for reserved category candidates.
(पैरा 104) The examination conducted in 2019 for second ATRE – 2019 does not discriminate between the Shiksha Mitras who appeared in 2018 and The Shiksha Mitras who appeared in 2018 and 2019 do not constitute one class for the purposes of passing the examinations of 2018 and 2019 as the standards of both the examinations was different and they have to pass the examination as per the advertisement and the Rules regulating both the examinations.
■ प्रश्न : क्या किसी उद्देश्य की प्राप्ति हेतु सांठगांठ करते हुए कटऑफ में अप्रत्याशित वृद्धि की गई?
★ उत्तर : सरकार द्वारा तय किये गए कटऑफ मार्क्स बी०टी०सी० अभ्यर्थी, बी०एड० अभ्यर्थी एवं शिक्षामित्रों पर समान रूप से प्रभावी थे अतः किसी विशेष वर्ग के लाभ अथवा हानि हेतु वृद्धि किये जाने की कोई स्थिति नहीं है।
(पैरा 101) The minimum qualifying marks which had been fixed vide Government Order dated 7.1.2019 were made uniformly applicable on all duly qualified candidates participating in the selection al hand, irrespective of whether such candidates possessed a BTC degree, B.Ed. degree or were Shiksha Mitras. The minimum qualifying marks were made uniformly applicable to all the examines sitting for ATRE - 2019 and thus, we are of the view that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) had never directed that Shiksha Mitras shall constitute one homogeneous clause for the purpose of recruitment or it had caused any prejudice to the Shiksha Mitra because the same was applicable to all candidates who had participated in the ATRE 2019 examination.
■ प्रश्न : क्या कटऑफ सम्बन्धी शासनादेश मा0 सुप्रीम कोर्ट के वेटेज दिए जाने सम्बन्धी आदेश के विरुद्ध था?
★ उत्तर : मा0 सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा शिक्षामित्रों की आयु सम्बन्धी बाधा को दूर करते हुए अगली दो भर्तियों में सम्मिलित करने हेतु आदेश दिया था। परन्तु मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा बच्चों के लिए बेहतर शिक्षक के चयन हेतु न्यूनतम मानक में कोई कमी किये जाने की कोई बात नहीं करी थी। अतः परीक्षा हेतु मेरिट लिस्ट तैयार करते समय न्यूनतम योग्यता में कोई वेटेज देकर परिवर्तन नहीं किया जा सकता है।
(पैरा 71) In Anand Kumar Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court merely provided that the Shiksha Mitras shall be given an opportunity to participate in the selection process at hand in two consecutive selections, irrespective of age while being given benefit of age relaxation as determined by the State Government, in an open and transparent selection process along with other duly qualified candidates and it nowhere provided that the Shiksha Mitras shall constitute a homogeneous class apart from other duly qualified candidates participating in the selection process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while keeping in mind the interest of the school children held that the regularization of unqualified Shiksha Mitras on the post of Assistant Teacher was illegal as the school children whose interests, though were not duly represented, had a right to obtain quality education from duly qualified teachers under the provisions of Right to Education Act and gave due importance to the merit of the candidates who are ultimately going to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher as the ultimate losers would be the small primary school children if the merit is compromised in the selection process.
(पैरा 73) Thus, the arguments of the writ petitioners and finding recorded by the learned Writ Court that the increase in cut-off marks from 45% and 40% to 65% and 60% by the Government Order dated 7.1.2019 is nullifying the beneficial direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) has no legs to stand,and is pre-mature as the benefit is available only at the time of recruitment, once they hold the prescribed minimum qualifications and their names are published in the merit list prepared under Rule 14 (2) of the 1981 Rules.
■ प्रश्न : क्या परीक्षा होने के बाद सरकार को कटऑफ मार्क्स घोषित करने का अधिकार था?
★ उत्तर : नियमावली 1981 के नियम 2(X) के अनुसार राज्य सरकार को समय समय पर न्यूनतम मार्क्स तय करने का अधिकार है। यह नियम कहीं नहीं कहता कि परीक्षा से पहले ही न्यूनतम मार्क्स तय हो जाने चाहिए। अतः राज्य सरकार को ये अधिकार प्राप्त है।
(पैरा 69) The finding of the learned Writ Court that minimum qualifying marks were neither prescribed in the Government Order nor in the advertisement and as such, it cannot be provided subsequently is absolutely untenable in the teeth ofRule 2 (x) of 1981 Rules which empowers the State Government to determine the minimum marks from time to time. The aforesaid Rule does not provide that minimum qualifying marks are to be provided before the examination starts. On the other hand, without fixation of qualifying marks result cannot be declared and one cannot be said to have been passed the examination without scoring the qualifying marks. Further, Rule 2 (x) is not under challenge and as such, the Government was fully competent to prescribe the cut-off marks for passing 'ARTE'.
(पैरा 103) The power of the Government to prescribe the qualifying marks
of passing the examination even after the advertisement and the examination in exercise of power conferred under Rule 2 (x) of 1981 Rules is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surendra Singh and others (supra) and Jharkhand Pubic Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and others (supra). From the aforesaid, we are of the view that the decision of the Government for fixing of the minimum qualifying marks cannot be faulted.
■ प्रश्न : क्या परीक्षा के बाद कट ऑफ मार्क्स की घोषणा, खेल शुरू होने के बाद नियम बदलने के समान है?
★ उत्तर : चूंकि मिनिमम कटऑफ मार्क्स का निर्धारण मात्र एक बार ही हुआ था एवं किसी भी समय उनमे कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया गया इसलिए इसे खेल के नियम बाद में बदले जाने के समान नहीं देखा जा सकता है।
(पैरा 97 ) In respect of question, as to whether the Government Order dated 7.1.2019, whereby the minimum qualifying marks were fixed for all the candidates, who were participated in the examination of ATRE. - 2019 on 6.1.2019 amounts to changing the rules of the game, the principle that the Rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has started was not at all attracted in the present facts and circumstances of the case because the minimum qualifying marks which had been fixed for the first time by the Government on 7.1.2019 will apply to all candidates who had participated in the ATRE qualifying examination - 2019 on 6.1.2019. In Rule 14 (1) (b) of the 1981 Rules, it has been provided that a separate Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination shall be conducted by the Government for every time vacancies are notified for recruitment on the post of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School concemed. Rule 2 (x) of the 1981 Rules empowers the State Government to fix the qualifying marks of the ATRE from time to time. It has nowhere been provided that once the minimum qualifying marks have been fixed for the first ATRE, they shall be carried forward or be applicable for eternity on all future selection processes. The said argument of the Shiksha Mitras is contrary to the terms and conditions of statutory guidelines dated 1.12.2018.
■ प्रश्न : क्या शिक्षामित्रों या बीटीसी प्रशिक्षुओं द्वारा बीएड अभ्यर्थियों को परीक्षा में शामिल न करने की मांग की गयी?
★ उत्तर : मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा इस बिंदु पर स्पष्ट रूप से मत व्यक्त किया कि मूल याचिका में परीक्षा में बीएड अभ्यर्थियों को शामिल करने के विरुद्ध कोई मांग नहीं की गई है परंतु बहस के दौरान उन्हें परीक्षा हेतु अयोग्य माने जाने पर प्रतिवादियों द्वारा मौखिक पक्ष रखा गया है।
(पैरा 74) In respect of eligibility of B.Ed., candidates, there was no
pleading but it was extensively argued by the respondents (original writ petitioners) that B.Ed. candidates are ineligible and their participation in the ATRE - 2019 was illegal and learned Writ Court in the impugned judgment has very categorically observed that there is no challenge in any of the writ petitions for inclusion of B.Ed. candidates
■ प्रश्न : क्या बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यर्थियों को परीक्षा में शामिल करना सही है?
★ उत्तर : NCTE की नोटिफिकेशन द्वारा बीएड को प्राथमिक कक्षाओं हेतु सहायक अध्यापक बनने के लिए योग्य माने जाने एवं सरकार के आदेश दिनाँक 14/06/2019 द्वारा पच्चीसवें संशोधन के उपरांत बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यथियों को परीक्षा में शामिल करना पूर्णतः वैध है।
( पैरा 92 ) Thus, we are of the view that once the B.Ed. candidates were made eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, subject to them acquiring the minimum qualification, the State Government was bound to permit them to participate in the ARTE - 2019 passing which is the minimum qualification to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Accordingly, the State Government carried out the necessary amendments to the 1981 Rules to align them with the NCTE notification, prior to commencement of the recruitment process.
(पैरा 85) The 1981 Rules have been amended well in time, and prior to commencement of the recruitment process to provide for recruitment of B.Ed. candidates directly to the post of Assistant Teacher, subject to them undergoing a post appointment training, strictly in accordance with and as prescribed by the NCTE. These changes have been brought about by the Twenty- Third amendment dated 29.01.2019; Twenty-Fourth amendment dated 07.03.2019 and the Twenty-Fifth amendment dated 14.06.2019. Vide these amendments, the concept of 'trainee teacher' has entirely been done away with in accordance with the amendment issued by the NCTE, and the Appendix - I has also been amended to set-out the manner of calculating the quality point marks of B.Ed. candidates.
■ प्रश्न : क्या बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यर्थियों को सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति के बाद कोई कोई प्रशिक्षण पूर्ण करना होगा?
★ उत्तर : हाँ, नियमावली के तेइसवें संशोधन अनुसार सहायक अध्यापक पद पर चयन के उपरांत दो वर्ष के भीतर बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यर्थियों को 06 माह का प्रशिक्षण पूर्ण करना अनिवार्य होगा।
(पैरा 86) The Twenty-Third amendment of the 1981 Rules was carried out in the wake of NCTE notification dated 28.6.2018 on 24.1.2019 whereby minimum qualification of the candidates participating in ATRE - 2019 was amended with inclusion of B.Ed. candidates with six months training (that too after holding the ATRE examination) in Rule 8(ii) (a) with retrospective effect from 1.1.2018.
■ प्रश्न : अंततः मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनाँक 07/01/2020 की वैधता पर क्या निर्णय दिया?
★ उत्तर : अंततः मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सरकार के 60/65% न्यूनतम कटऑफ निर्धारण सम्बन्धी आदेश दिनाँक 07/01/2020 को वैध मानते हुए उसी के अनुसार अतिशीघ्र परीक्षा का परिणाम घोषित कर भर्ती प्रक्रिया पूर्ण करने का आदेश दिया।
(पैरा 105) For the reasons aforementioned, it cannot be said that the Government Order dated 7.1.2019 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India nor it makes an unreasonable classification or is nullifying the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order 29.3.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1188 (SS) of 2019 and other connected matters filed by Shiksha Mitras and dismiss the said writ petitions by allowing all the Special Appeals and direct the State of U.P. to declare the result of examination which was held on 6.1.2019 in terms of the Government Order dated 7.1.2019 at the earliest as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Prasad Shukla. Union of India and others (supra). All applications for intervention impleadment civil miscellaneous applications are also disposed of in same terms.
★ उत्तर : मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा पाया गया कि 2018 एवं 2019 की शिक्षक भर्ती परीक्षा में स्पष्ट अंतर था। जहां 2018 की परीक्षा लघु उत्तरीय थी एवं 107000 अभ्यर्थी सम्मिलित हुए थे वहीं 2019 की परीक्षा बहु विकल्पीय थी एवं 410000 अभ्यर्थी सम्मिलित हुए थे। अतः दोनों परीक्षा के लिए अलग अलग कटऑफ अंक का मापदंड प्रयोग करना अनुचित नहीं था।
(पैरा 100) The ATRE - 2018 and ATRE 2019 were two separate selection processes and were conducted under different Rules as the Twentieth amendment was applicable as per Government Order dated 9.1.2018 on the ATRE - 2018 examination and the Twenty-Second amendment was applicable as per Government Order dated 1.12.2018 on the ATRE - 2019 examination, Ii is also not in dispute that in ATRE - 2018 examination, only 1,07,000 candidates appeared against 68,500 vacancies whereas in ATRE - 2019 examination, 4,10,000 candidates appeared against 69,000 vacancies. As per clauses of the aforesaid ATRE, which we have quoted, it is very clear the examination of ATRE - 2018 and ATRE - 2019 is valid only for a particular year. The ATRE - 2019 examination was based on a different pattern as it only had multiple choice questions and there was no condition like clause 7 (1) and 7 (2) of ATRE - 2018 regarding minimum marks and thereafter, after examination of ATRE - 2019 was held on 6.1.2019, the State Government under Rule 2 (x) of 1981 Rules took a conscious decision and issued Government Order dated 7.1.2019 to fix 65% minimum qualifying marks for General Category and 60% for reserved category candidates.
(पैरा 104) The examination conducted in 2019 for second ATRE – 2019 does not discriminate between the Shiksha Mitras who appeared in 2018 and The Shiksha Mitras who appeared in 2018 and 2019 do not constitute one class for the purposes of passing the examinations of 2018 and 2019 as the standards of both the examinations was different and they have to pass the examination as per the advertisement and the Rules regulating both the examinations.
■ प्रश्न : क्या किसी उद्देश्य की प्राप्ति हेतु सांठगांठ करते हुए कटऑफ में अप्रत्याशित वृद्धि की गई?
★ उत्तर : सरकार द्वारा तय किये गए कटऑफ मार्क्स बी०टी०सी० अभ्यर्थी, बी०एड० अभ्यर्थी एवं शिक्षामित्रों पर समान रूप से प्रभावी थे अतः किसी विशेष वर्ग के लाभ अथवा हानि हेतु वृद्धि किये जाने की कोई स्थिति नहीं है।
(पैरा 101) The minimum qualifying marks which had been fixed vide Government Order dated 7.1.2019 were made uniformly applicable on all duly qualified candidates participating in the selection al hand, irrespective of whether such candidates possessed a BTC degree, B.Ed. degree or were Shiksha Mitras. The minimum qualifying marks were made uniformly applicable to all the examines sitting for ATRE - 2019 and thus, we are of the view that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) had never directed that Shiksha Mitras shall constitute one homogeneous clause for the purpose of recruitment or it had caused any prejudice to the Shiksha Mitra because the same was applicable to all candidates who had participated in the ATRE 2019 examination.
■ प्रश्न : क्या कटऑफ सम्बन्धी शासनादेश मा0 सुप्रीम कोर्ट के वेटेज दिए जाने सम्बन्धी आदेश के विरुद्ध था?
★ उत्तर : मा0 सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा शिक्षामित्रों की आयु सम्बन्धी बाधा को दूर करते हुए अगली दो भर्तियों में सम्मिलित करने हेतु आदेश दिया था। परन्तु मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा बच्चों के लिए बेहतर शिक्षक के चयन हेतु न्यूनतम मानक में कोई कमी किये जाने की कोई बात नहीं करी थी। अतः परीक्षा हेतु मेरिट लिस्ट तैयार करते समय न्यूनतम योग्यता में कोई वेटेज देकर परिवर्तन नहीं किया जा सकता है।
(पैरा 71) In Anand Kumar Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court merely provided that the Shiksha Mitras shall be given an opportunity to participate in the selection process at hand in two consecutive selections, irrespective of age while being given benefit of age relaxation as determined by the State Government, in an open and transparent selection process along with other duly qualified candidates and it nowhere provided that the Shiksha Mitras shall constitute a homogeneous class apart from other duly qualified candidates participating in the selection process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while keeping in mind the interest of the school children held that the regularization of unqualified Shiksha Mitras on the post of Assistant Teacher was illegal as the school children whose interests, though were not duly represented, had a right to obtain quality education from duly qualified teachers under the provisions of Right to Education Act and gave due importance to the merit of the candidates who are ultimately going to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher as the ultimate losers would be the small primary school children if the merit is compromised in the selection process.
(पैरा 73) Thus, the arguments of the writ petitioners and finding recorded by the learned Writ Court that the increase in cut-off marks from 45% and 40% to 65% and 60% by the Government Order dated 7.1.2019 is nullifying the beneficial direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) has no legs to stand,and is pre-mature as the benefit is available only at the time of recruitment, once they hold the prescribed minimum qualifications and their names are published in the merit list prepared under Rule 14 (2) of the 1981 Rules.
■ प्रश्न : क्या परीक्षा होने के बाद सरकार को कटऑफ मार्क्स घोषित करने का अधिकार था?
★ उत्तर : नियमावली 1981 के नियम 2(X) के अनुसार राज्य सरकार को समय समय पर न्यूनतम मार्क्स तय करने का अधिकार है। यह नियम कहीं नहीं कहता कि परीक्षा से पहले ही न्यूनतम मार्क्स तय हो जाने चाहिए। अतः राज्य सरकार को ये अधिकार प्राप्त है।
(पैरा 69) The finding of the learned Writ Court that minimum qualifying marks were neither prescribed in the Government Order nor in the advertisement and as such, it cannot be provided subsequently is absolutely untenable in the teeth ofRule 2 (x) of 1981 Rules which empowers the State Government to determine the minimum marks from time to time. The aforesaid Rule does not provide that minimum qualifying marks are to be provided before the examination starts. On the other hand, without fixation of qualifying marks result cannot be declared and one cannot be said to have been passed the examination without scoring the qualifying marks. Further, Rule 2 (x) is not under challenge and as such, the Government was fully competent to prescribe the cut-off marks for passing 'ARTE'.
(पैरा 103) The power of the Government to prescribe the qualifying marks
of passing the examination even after the advertisement and the examination in exercise of power conferred under Rule 2 (x) of 1981 Rules is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surendra Singh and others (supra) and Jharkhand Pubic Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta and others (supra). From the aforesaid, we are of the view that the decision of the Government for fixing of the minimum qualifying marks cannot be faulted.
■ प्रश्न : क्या परीक्षा के बाद कट ऑफ मार्क्स की घोषणा, खेल शुरू होने के बाद नियम बदलने के समान है?
★ उत्तर : चूंकि मिनिमम कटऑफ मार्क्स का निर्धारण मात्र एक बार ही हुआ था एवं किसी भी समय उनमे कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया गया इसलिए इसे खेल के नियम बाद में बदले जाने के समान नहीं देखा जा सकता है।
(पैरा 97 ) In respect of question, as to whether the Government Order dated 7.1.2019, whereby the minimum qualifying marks were fixed for all the candidates, who were participated in the examination of ATRE. - 2019 on 6.1.2019 amounts to changing the rules of the game, the principle that the Rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has started was not at all attracted in the present facts and circumstances of the case because the minimum qualifying marks which had been fixed for the first time by the Government on 7.1.2019 will apply to all candidates who had participated in the ATRE qualifying examination - 2019 on 6.1.2019. In Rule 14 (1) (b) of the 1981 Rules, it has been provided that a separate Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination shall be conducted by the Government for every time vacancies are notified for recruitment on the post of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School concemed. Rule 2 (x) of the 1981 Rules empowers the State Government to fix the qualifying marks of the ATRE from time to time. It has nowhere been provided that once the minimum qualifying marks have been fixed for the first ATRE, they shall be carried forward or be applicable for eternity on all future selection processes. The said argument of the Shiksha Mitras is contrary to the terms and conditions of statutory guidelines dated 1.12.2018.
■ प्रश्न : क्या शिक्षामित्रों या बीटीसी प्रशिक्षुओं द्वारा बीएड अभ्यर्थियों को परीक्षा में शामिल न करने की मांग की गयी?
★ उत्तर : मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा इस बिंदु पर स्पष्ट रूप से मत व्यक्त किया कि मूल याचिका में परीक्षा में बीएड अभ्यर्थियों को शामिल करने के विरुद्ध कोई मांग नहीं की गई है परंतु बहस के दौरान उन्हें परीक्षा हेतु अयोग्य माने जाने पर प्रतिवादियों द्वारा मौखिक पक्ष रखा गया है।
(पैरा 74) In respect of eligibility of B.Ed., candidates, there was no
pleading but it was extensively argued by the respondents (original writ petitioners) that B.Ed. candidates are ineligible and their participation in the ATRE - 2019 was illegal and learned Writ Court in the impugned judgment has very categorically observed that there is no challenge in any of the writ petitions for inclusion of B.Ed. candidates
■ प्रश्न : क्या बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यर्थियों को परीक्षा में शामिल करना सही है?
★ उत्तर : NCTE की नोटिफिकेशन द्वारा बीएड को प्राथमिक कक्षाओं हेतु सहायक अध्यापक बनने के लिए योग्य माने जाने एवं सरकार के आदेश दिनाँक 14/06/2019 द्वारा पच्चीसवें संशोधन के उपरांत बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यथियों को परीक्षा में शामिल करना पूर्णतः वैध है।
( पैरा 92 ) Thus, we are of the view that once the B.Ed. candidates were made eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, subject to them acquiring the minimum qualification, the State Government was bound to permit them to participate in the ARTE - 2019 passing which is the minimum qualification to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Accordingly, the State Government carried out the necessary amendments to the 1981 Rules to align them with the NCTE notification, prior to commencement of the recruitment process.
(पैरा 85) The 1981 Rules have been amended well in time, and prior to commencement of the recruitment process to provide for recruitment of B.Ed. candidates directly to the post of Assistant Teacher, subject to them undergoing a post appointment training, strictly in accordance with and as prescribed by the NCTE. These changes have been brought about by the Twenty- Third amendment dated 29.01.2019; Twenty-Fourth amendment dated 07.03.2019 and the Twenty-Fifth amendment dated 14.06.2019. Vide these amendments, the concept of 'trainee teacher' has entirely been done away with in accordance with the amendment issued by the NCTE, and the Appendix - I has also been amended to set-out the manner of calculating the quality point marks of B.Ed. candidates.
■ प्रश्न : क्या बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यर्थियों को सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति के बाद कोई कोई प्रशिक्षण पूर्ण करना होगा?
★ उत्तर : हाँ, नियमावली के तेइसवें संशोधन अनुसार सहायक अध्यापक पद पर चयन के उपरांत दो वर्ष के भीतर बीएड योग्यताधारी अभ्यर्थियों को 06 माह का प्रशिक्षण पूर्ण करना अनिवार्य होगा।
(पैरा 86) The Twenty-Third amendment of the 1981 Rules was carried out in the wake of NCTE notification dated 28.6.2018 on 24.1.2019 whereby minimum qualification of the candidates participating in ATRE - 2019 was amended with inclusion of B.Ed. candidates with six months training (that too after holding the ATRE examination) in Rule 8(ii) (a) with retrospective effect from 1.1.2018.
■ प्रश्न : अंततः मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनाँक 07/01/2020 की वैधता पर क्या निर्णय दिया?
★ उत्तर : अंततः मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सरकार के 60/65% न्यूनतम कटऑफ निर्धारण सम्बन्धी आदेश दिनाँक 07/01/2020 को वैध मानते हुए उसी के अनुसार अतिशीघ्र परीक्षा का परिणाम घोषित कर भर्ती प्रक्रिया पूर्ण करने का आदेश दिया।
(पैरा 105) For the reasons aforementioned, it cannot be said that the Government Order dated 7.1.2019 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India nor it makes an unreasonable classification or is nullifying the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order 29.3.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1188 (SS) of 2019 and other connected matters filed by Shiksha Mitras and dismiss the said writ petitions by allowing all the Special Appeals and direct the State of U.P. to declare the result of examination which was held on 6.1.2019 in terms of the Government Order dated 7.1.2019 at the earliest as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Prasad Shukla. Union of India and others (supra). All applications for intervention impleadment civil miscellaneous applications are also disposed of in same terms.