Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 312 (ALL)

KULDIP SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-02-06

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, TARUN AGARWALA

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—State Council of Education Research & Training (SCERT) issued a Training Policy, 2006 for a course of two years B.T.C. training. As per the policy, marks and divisions were awarded namely: Written Exam 60% and above Ist Division 50 to 59 % IInd Division 40 to 49% IIIrd Division Less than 40% Fail Practical 70% and above Ist Division 60 to 69% IInd Division 50 to 59% IIIrd Division Less than 50% Fail 2. In 2013, a new training Policy, 2013 was issued in which the syllabus of the BTC course remained the same but the evaluation system was modified. As per this policy, instead of awarding division, grades were to be awarded, namely: Written Exam 80% and above Grade A 65 to 79% Grade B 50 to 64% Grade C Below 50 Fail Internal 85% and above Grade A 70 to 84% Grade B 60 to 69% Grade C Less than 60 Fail 3. Under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the selection of Assistant Teachers was to be made on the basis of merit of the academic qualification alongwith BTC & TET. While TET was the eligibility criteria, quality points were required to be awarded under these Rules read with Appendix I and II thereto. Thus, Ist division was given 12 quality points, IInd division was given 6 quality points and IIIrd division was given 3 quality points. Under the Rules, quality points are however not awarded against any grade since there is no provision. 4. In order to work out the methodology to work out quality points to eligible candidates, who were given grades in BTC Training of 2013 and who were not awarded divisions, a four member Committee was constituted. A resolution was passed by that Committee on 8.11.2016, wherein it was resolved that since marks are also given to candidates of BTC batch of 2013 alongwith grades, the quality points would be awarded as per the marks in the same manner as per the BTC candidates of 2012. This resolution was adopted by the Director, SCERT on 22.11.2013. 5. The State Government, subsequently, issued a Government Order dated 15.12.2016 for recruitment of 12,460 posts of Assistant Teachers in primary schools. The guidelines for selection criteria were framed on 26.12.2016. 6. This resolution was adopted by the Director, SCERT on 22.11.2013. 5. The State Government, subsequently, issued a Government Order dated 15.12.2016 for recruitment of 12,460 posts of Assistant Teachers in primary schools. The guidelines for selection criteria were framed on 26.12.2016. 6. Clause 9(ka) of the circular dated 26.12.2016 provided a methodology for providing quality point to the candidates of 2012 batch and 2013 batch of BTC. Based on these guidelines, the first counselling was held and the second counselling was postponed. In the meantime, some candidates of BTC 2012 batch challenged the methodology and clause 9(ka) of the guidelines by filing Writ Petition No. 3293 of 2017. Learned Single Judge in his order held that no criteria has been fixed for awarding quality point marks to candidates who passed BTC, 2013 and therefore, quashed Clause 9(ka) of the guidelines on the ground that it was not in consonance with the Rules and further directed the respondents to re-fix the criteria. 7. The candidates of BTC 2013 batch, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, have filed the present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 4.7.2017 stayed the effect and operation of the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the methodology had already been fixed by the respondents on 8.11.2016 prior to the issuance of the notification, which fact was not noticed by the learned Single Judge even though the said methodology was brought on record in the counter-affidavit. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, the Division Bench, prima facie, formed an opinion that the methodology provided by the respondents cannot be worked out and, accordingly, directed the Government to frame the Rules. Based on the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the State Government issued an Office Memorandum dated 11.8.2017 admitting therein the existence of an anomaly in award of quality points to candidates of BTC 2013 batch in view of the clear prescription made in the Rules to award quality points based solely on division achieved in BTC examination, though no division was even awarded to BTC 2013 batch candidates. Consequently, the State Government stayed the selection process till such time proper Rules were not framed. 9. Consequently, the State Government stayed the selection process till such time proper Rules were not framed. 9. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government by the learned Standing Counsel bringing on record the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2017 published on 9.11.2017. It was thus contended that these Rules will now apply. According to the amended Rules, now quality points are to be awarded as a percentage of marks achieved in the BTC examination, without reference to either the division or the grades awarded in that examination. 10. We, are however, of the opinion that this Rule has come into effect from 9.11.2017 and at present it has only prospective effect. Therefore, it will not apply to the selection process initiated earlier. We also notice that the State Government in its Office Memorandum dated 11.8.2017 had clearly found that there was an anomaly in the circular awarding of quality point marks between the BTC 2012 and 2013 batch and, accordingly, stayed the selection process. 11. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the State Government has yet to take a decision as to whether it wants to proceed with the selection process or not. Since the Rules framed are prospective in nature and would not apply to the selection process, which had already started, the State Government should take a decision in this regard. We are further of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Clause 9(ka) of the circular was not in consonance with the Rules of 1981 is patently erroneous inasmuch as clause 9(ka) is nothing but is reflection of Appendix I and II of the Rules of 1981. 12. Consequently, the learned Single Judge fell in error in quashing clause 9(ka) of the guidelines and therefore to that extent the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, we dispose of the Special Appeal directing the State Government to take a decision within four weeks from today as to whether they would like to proceed with the selection process or not. If it chooses to proceed/continue with the selection process pursuant to the Government Order dated 15.12.2016, the State Government must specify the Rules under which quality point marks would be provided to the candidates of BTC 2013 batch.