Decided on December 13,2012

Bhuwan Chandra Appellant


SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. - (1.) IN all the above bunch of writ petitions what is under challenge is the recruitment process for selection and appointment of primary school teachers in the State of Uttarakhand where the issue is whether the qualification of Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "TET") is mandatory or can be exempted by the State Government in a certain contingency and consequently if the same can be exempted to a particular group of persons whether the same exemption is also liable to be given to the petitioners as well. In all the above writ petitions (barring WPSS No. 1528 of 2012), the petitioners are Basic Teacher Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "BTC") qualified candidates. However, they have done the BTC training and the qualification under a special category inasmuch as all the petitioners prior to getting the said training were employed as "Shiksha Mitras" and in that capacity were teaching in primary schools in the State of Uttarakhand. However, since in order to become primary school teacher BTC training was mandatory, all such "Shiksha Mitras" have been granted this training (by virtue of their being "Siksha Mitra"), and the petitioners fall under that category. They are aggrieved by Government orders dated 14.6.2011 and 29.8.2012 by which the State Government has exempted BTC trained candidates, other than the present petitioners, from appearing in TET for the reasons that they had qualified as a candidate for BTC training through an open competition. The petitioners allege that the present petitioners as well as the group of BTC trained candidates (who have been exempted by orders dated 14.6.2011 and 29.8.20 12 to appear in TET, and have subsequently been impleaded as party and have been heard through their counsel Mr. Sandeep Tiwari) have done their BTC training and training, its period and the and the quality as well as the syllabus under which training was given to the petitioners and the respondents were exactly the same. There was absolutely no difference between the training given to the petitioners and the respondents and therefore the classification made by the State Authorities exempting a particular class of BTC trained candidates from appearing in TET is arbitrary and in violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, taking this argument further the learned counsels have argued that there is no intelligible differentia here and that it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The petitioners have thus claimed the same benefit i.e. exemption to appear in TET!
(2.) THE writ petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) no. 1528 of 2012 are B.Ed. qualified candidates who have also qualified the TET are aggrieved by the above two orders dated 14.6.2011 and 29.8.20 12 inasmuch as the two orders have exempted a BTC trained candidate from appearing in TET. This they submit is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as TET being a mandatory qualification no exemption is liable to be granted to any category of persons.
(3.) AFTER the Right to Education was included as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution of India as Article 21 -A, Parliament enacted a legislation known as Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Consequently under the Act the authorized agency i.e. National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the "NCTE") has framed regulations on 23.8.20 10 by which certain qualifications were laid down for an elementary school teacher. These qualifications, inter alia, were that they should be senior secondary plus teacher training certificate and he should have also qualified a test known as TET. In a bunch of writ petitions before this Court the petitioners had earlier challenged the propriety and the legality of imposing such a condition i.e. TET and this Court while rejecting the contention of the petitioners had held that the condition has been imposed by the State in public interest where the primary purpose is that the children upto the age of 14 must get free and compulsory elementary education - an education which should not be a mere formality but it should be a meaningful education and necessary condition of which would be that the teaching must be imparted by qualified teachers. This being so, all questions and doubts regarding imposition of this condition i.e. TET was rejected by this Court. The writ petitions to that extent were also dismissed. (See Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2011 (2) UD 575);

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