Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 22 (JHR)

Subodh Bilung v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-06

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order : Since a common question of law has arisen in all the writ petitions, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, by a common order all the writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. FACTS: W.P. (S) No. 1 of 2013 3. Pursuant to advertisement issued on 03.07.2011, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and appointment letter was issued on 01.08.2011. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega on 31.10.2011 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). W.P. (S) No. 4 of 2013 4. Pursuant to advertisement issued on 05.10.2011, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and appointment letter was issued on 29.10.2011. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega on 22.02.2012 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). W.P. (S) No. 5 of 2013 5. The petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and appointment letter was issued on 21.12.2011. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega on 16.07.2013 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). W.P. (S) No. 17 of 2013 6. Pursuant to advertisement issued on 09.11.2011, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and appointment letter was issued on 26.11.2011. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega on 25.02.2012 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). W.P. (S) No. 18 of 2013 7. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14.07.2011. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega on 25.08.2011 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). CONTENTIONS: 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in “Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P.”, reported in (2013) 1 ADJ 651 , has submitted that, though the notification dated 23.08.2010 requiring a candidate to pass the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for the class of teachers who possess degree of Senior Secondary however, in cases where a candidate possesses a degree of Graduation with at least 50% marks and who has also acquired B.Ed. qualification, he has been exempted under Clause 3 of the said notification from passing the Teachers Eligibility Test. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and has submitted that since the petitioners did not pass TET examination therefore, in terms of notification dated 23.08.2010 of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), the appointment of the petitioners was contrary to the law and therefore, it cannot be approved by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of the Court to an order passed by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 7939 of 2012. 10. Having appreciated the contentions raised on behalf of the counsel for the parties, I find that under Clause 1 of the notification dated 23.08.2010 which prescribes minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher for Class I to V, a candidate is required to possess the following qualifications: (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2year Diploma in elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002 OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2year Diploma in Education (Special Education). AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. 11. However, under Clause3, it appears that the persons who are Graduate with at least 50% marks and who have acquired B.Ed. qualification on the date of appointment, have been exempted from passing the TET examination provided after the appointment the candidate undergoes an NCTE recognised 6 month special programme in Elementary Education. Paragraph 3 of notification dated 23.08.2010 is extracted below: 3. Training to be undergone – A person :- (a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January, 2012 provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6month special programme in Elementary Education. Paragraph 3 of notification dated 23.08.2010 is extracted below: 3. Training to be undergone – A person :- (a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for class I to V upto 1st January, 2012 provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6month special programme in Elementary Education. (b) with D.Ed ( Special Education ) or B.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6month special programme in Elementary Education. 12. In the present case, admittedly, all the petitioners possess the degree in graduation with at least 50% marks and they had also acquired B.Ed. Degree on the date on which they were appointed. All the petitioners have been appointed prior to 01.01.2012 and therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners in the present batch of cases would be covered under Clause 3 of the notification dated 23.08.2010. 13. In “Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P.” (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has also noted as under: “60. The fact that in the notification the said appointment to BA/B.SC with 50% marks and B.Ed. for Class I to V was limited till 1st January, 2012 clearly indicated that the said Clause 3 was inserted as exception to an additional qualification to one which was provided in Clause I. Further requirement that such teachers appointed to Classes I to V which were B.A/B.Sc with 50% marks and B.Ed. shall be provided six months elementary program is clearly for achieving the purpose for which notification was issued. 61. The notification dated 23rd August, 2010 has been amended by notification dated 29th July, 2011 wherein paragraph 3 was substituted as follows: “3(i) Training to be undergone.-A person (a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or with at least 45% marks and 1year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard, shall also be eligible for appointment to Class I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6 month Special Programme in Elementary Education; (b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment an NCTE recognised 6 month Special Programme in Elementary Education...............” The scheme of Clause 3 as an additional qualification for appointment as teacher to teach Class I to V was thus clearly retained and continued even after amendment.” 14. In the earlier writ proceedings, the exemption clause was neither brought to the notice of the Court nor the judgment passed in Allahabad High Court in “Prabhakar Singh Vs. State of U.P.” (supra), was brought to the notice of the Court and therefore, I am inclined to entertain the present batch of cases. Moreover, factually also, the present batch of cases are different from other cases. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the matters are remitted back to the Respondent No. 2 to take a decision afresh in the matter, in the light of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 shall take such decision within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 16. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.