ANIL CHANDRA PANDEY & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2012-5-100
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 08,2012

Anil Chandra Pandey And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In this group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the Government Order dated 14th December, 2011 as well as the advertisement dated 15 th December, 2011 by which the respondents invited applications from eligible candidates on the post of 2253 trainee teachers in Government Primary Schools in the State of Uttarakhand. Different petitioners have challenged the aforesaid advertisement on different grounds, the details of which would be set out hereinafter. For facility, the facts of writ petition No. 1888 of 2011 (S/S) is being taken into consideration which has also been made the leading case.
(2.) In this petition, the petitioners claim themselves to be Basic Teacher Certificate (B.T.C.) trainees alleging that they are undergoing the course since the year 2009 and are in their final semester and very shortly their results would be out and they would become eligible to be appointed as primary teachers in Government Primary Schools in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners have alleged that the qualifications for appointment of trainee teachers in Government Primary Schools is graduation with Basic Training Certificate (hereinafter referred to as B.T.C.) whereas the impugned advertisement only invites applications from graduates who holds Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) / Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) certificates and are also required to have a Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) certificate. It was contended that the candidate so selected under the advertisement would have to undergo six months training in an institute recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as N.C.T.E.) whereas the petitioners are already undergoing training which would be completed in a few months and, therefore, the drive by the State Govt. to appoint graduate candidates as trainee teachers was wholly irrelevant and a perfunctory exercise. It was alleged that these graduates are untrained teachers and not fit to teach children in primary schools which requires a specialized training which these graduates candidates do not possess nor have they completed such training. The petitioners contended that they do not have the essential qualifications and, consequently, are ineligible for being appointed as trainee teachers in Government Primary Schools.
(3.) To show the locus standi, the petitioners contended that even though they are B.T.C. trainees, they have a legitimate expectation on these posts which have remained vacant for the past several years and, consequently, there was no urgency for the State Govt. to issue the advertisement inviting candidates from graduates with B.Ed. degrees. The petitioners contended that at the moment from the information available, there are 2720 posts vacant out of which by the impugned advertisement 2253 would be filled up leaving nothing for these B.T.C. candidates who are approximately 3000 in number including candidates from Shiksha Mitra, Shiksha Anudeshak, etc. It was contended that the action of the respondents in this regard was wholly arbitrary. The petitioners also contended that minimum qualification prescribed by the N.C.T.E. vide notification dated 23rd August, 2010 for the post of trainee teacher was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court in Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and Others, 2008 3 SCC 432 has held that N.C.T.E. had no powers to frame the minimum qualifications for the post of trainee teachers inspite of which N.C.T.E. has framed the minimum qualification of these teachers vide notification dated 23rd August, 2010. In Writ Petition No. 1886 of 2011 (S/S), the petitioner has questioned the validity of Clause 6 (a) of the advertisement whereby it was directed that the appointments on the post of trainee teachers pursuant to the select list would be done on the basis of the seniority in the descending order, namely, that the candidates who have passed in the year 2000 would be given first preference and would be selected and, thereafter, the selected candidates from 2001, 2002 onwards would be given preference. The petitioner submitted that a one time window for graduates with B.Ed. degree was opened pursuant to the advertisement dated 15 th December, 2011 and, consequently, meritorious candidates irrespective of the year in which they had passed should be considered and that the manner of selecting in a descending way was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.