Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 91 (UTT)

Reshma v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-01

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner is a member of Other Backward Classes (from herein after referred to as the “OBC”) community, namely, “Rawalta” in State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has applied as an ‘OBC’ candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) for which one of the essential requirements for appointment in the State of Uttarakhand, pursuant to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the subsequent Notification of National Council for Teachers Education (from herein after referred to as “the NCTE”) dated 23rd August, 2010, is a Diploma or Certificate in Basic Teaching Certificate (from herein after referred to as the “BTC”) as well as a candidate must have a qualification known as “Teacher’s Eligibility Test” (from hereinafter referred to as the “TET”). 2. Though for general category candidates the passing marks in TET was 60% and for OBC, SC and ST category candidates the passing marks was 50%. Since, the petitioner appeared in Uttarakhand TET as general candidate in the year 2013, as the petitioner was not having an OBC Certificate at the relevant time although she has scored more than 50% marks. 3. Now the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) as an OBC candidate in the year 2014 and she has been declared successful in the said examination. 4. A similar controversy has already been settled by this Court in Writ Petition No.290 (SS) of 2014 (Km. Babita Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) and other connected writ petitions wherein this Court has held that the persons such as petitioner have already been declared to be OBC as far back as in 2004 vide Government Order dated 31.01.2004 and the subsequent Government Order dated 19th November, 2013 is only explanatory in nature and, therefore, even if they appeared in UTET-II as a general category candidate, they will be evaluated as an OBC candidate and their passing marks would be 50%. Present controversy is absolutely similar in nature. 5. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 16.07.2014 rendered in Writ Petition No.290 (SS) of 2014 (Km. Babita Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) and other connected writ petitions. Petitioner, being OBC candidate, will be judged as an OBC candidate for all purposes including her UTET-II, 2014 examination, subject to the petitioner having other qualifications. 6. Babita Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) and other connected writ petitions. Petitioner, being OBC candidate, will be judged as an OBC candidate for all purposes including her UTET-II, 2014 examination, subject to the petitioner having other qualifications. 6. No order as to costs.