- (1.) The petitioners are three in number and they belong to reserved category. They had appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by either Central or State agency and have obtained 82 marks therein. However, they have been declared ineligible to participate in the counselling for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers.
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 8 ADJ 573, while considering the issue whether a candidate who has got 82 marks in TET is eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher, has passed the following order: "23...We must note in this regard that all three decisions as reflected in the guidelines dated 11 February 2011, the further guidelines of 1 April 2011 and the decision as reflected in the communication dated 10 January 2014 are all of the expert body namely, NCTE. Once NCTE which had formulated the guidelines has taken a considered view in regard to the manner in which the pass marks for TET should be computed, there would be no occasion for this Court to interfere in that decision. Otherwise candidates from the batches of TET of 2011 and 2013 would have been unfairly ousted from applying for the post of Assistant Teacher for no fault of theirs, even though the matter has now been clarified by NCTE on 10 January 2014."
(3.) It is stated that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had clarified in its notification dated 10th January, 2014 that all the candidates under the reserved category who have secured 82 marks in TET shall be treated as eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. In pursuance thereof, the Secretary, Basic Education Board, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad has issued a communication dated 07th January, 2016 addressed to all the District Basic Education Officers of the State to the effect that the candidates of reserved category whose writ petitions are pending and have secured 82 marks in TET shall be allowed to appear in the ongoing counselling. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that they are similarly placed persons, therefore, they have been discriminated and the decision of the Secretary allowing only those candidates who have filed the writ petition and obtained 82 marks to appear in the counselling is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.;