Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 92 (UTT)

Meena Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-01

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioners are a member of Other Backward Classes (from herein after referred to as the “OBC”) community, namely, “Rawalta” in State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners have applied as an ‘OBC’ candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher Primary School 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 petitioners appeared in Uttarakhand TET as general candidate in the year 2013, as the petitioners were not having an OBC Certificate at the relevant time and they have scored more than 50% marks, they were declared to be not qualified. 3. Now the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Teacher Primary School as an OBC candidates where the petitioners apprehends that they would be judged as a general category candidate for their TET, although they are an OBC candidate. 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 TET 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. 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. Petitioners, being OBC candidates, will be judged as an OBC candidate for all purposes including their UTET examinations, subject to the petitioners having other qualifications. 6. No order as to costs.