(Court(cid:146)s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) v. State of Uttaranchal

Sri Khalil Ahamed, counsel for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondents Dated: 10.7.2006 Hon(cid:146)ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Khalil Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner, Standing counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate, for the N.C.T.E. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for special B.T.C. and give him appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary school. Briefly stated, the petitioner obtained the degree of B.Com. from the Kumano University and B.Ed. from Maharshi Dyanand University, Rohtak in the year 1992. According to him, he is a resident of District Udham Singh Nagar. 3 Petitioner has submitted that he is not being considered for special B.T.C. for the appointment of Assistant Teacher on account of correspondence degree of B.Ed. having been obtained from the recognised University, Rohtak. The matter is fully covered by the decision on

21.8.2000 in Writ Petition No. 36726 of 2000 Arjun Singh V. State of U.P. and others in which the following order was passed:- (cid:147)The petitioner has done B.T.C. course by correspondence. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner(cid:146)s case is similar to the case of Sri Prakash Srivastava decided by this Court on 23.4.1999 by means of writ petition No. 17252 of 1999. This writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms and with the same directions as contained aforesaid judgment.(cid:148) In the Writ Petition No. 48138 of 2000 Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P. and others, the following order was passed:- (cid:147)The petitioner B.T.C. correspondence course but he is not being considered for appointment junior Basis Schools as he has not done B.T.C. regular course. It has been held by this court in Ramesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 1993(2) ALR 88, that B.T.C. correspondence 4 course should be treated as equivalent B.T,.C. regular course. Following the said judgment, this petition is allowed. The petitioner should be treated as equivalent to the regular B.T.C. course and the petitioner should be considered accordingly. No order as to costs.(cid:148) In Ramesh Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others A.L.R. 1993 (1), 88, it has been held as under:- (cid:147)This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents take the petitioners interview on the basis of the advertisement dated 27-11-1992 (annexure-9 to the writ petition) and to consider the case of the petitioners on merits for selection and appointment as assistant teacher in Primary Schools and to further consider the petitioners as duly trained B.T.C. teachers. Under Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 as teacher of a Junior Basic School must hold a B.T.C. certificate alongwith intermediate certificate. The petitioners have done B.T.C., correspondence training from a recognized training institute viz., Rajkiya Diksha Vidyalaya, Shivkuti of District Allahabad vide copies of the B.T.C. certificate which are enclosed as Annexure-1 to 7 respectively, to the writ petition. Hence, they claimed for their right to be considered for appointment as Junior B.T.C., teachers. An 5 advertisement dated 28-7-1992 was published in the Daily newspaper (cid:147)Aaj(cid:148) advertising 172 posts of Assistant Teachers in Allahabad District and 51 posts of Assistant Teachers in Pratapgarh District. The petitioner applied against the advertisement. This advertisement subsequently cancelled a advertisement dated 27-11-1992 published and the petitioners had applied against that also. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it has been alleged that the petitioners contacted the Basic Shiksha Adhikari who told them that the candidates possessing B.T.C. correspondence certificate will not be allowed to appear in the interview and will not be considered for selection. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

2. In my opinion the respondents wrongly refused to consider the teachers who hold the B.T.C., training certificate (cid:147)Correspondence(cid:148), if the said certificate has been obtained from a recognized institute. Rule 8 does not made any distinction between two types of certificates one obtained from a regular course and other through a correspondence course. When the authorities have set up recognized training institute which give B.T.C., correspondence certificate, it is not understandable how these certificate can be ignored for the purpose of appointment as a teacher. The stand of the respondent will make the certificate useless.

3. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the purpose of providing 6 the correspondent course was untrained teachers who were already in service may get the necessary qualification.

4. In my opinion this cannot be a valid ground for ignoring the certificate acquired by the petitioners. Once the certificate is given by a regular institute it has to have some purpose. Correspondence course now a days are a well known method of giving degrees and certificates, particularly in view of the fact that the regular institutions already have too many students on their roll, and hence no reduce the correspondence course have been introduced in many institutions. There is no reason ignore in such correspondence certificates and as such in my opinion the stand of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The petition is allowed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners as having acquired the qualification under Rule 8 of the U.P. Basis Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and they should be considered for selection and appointment is accordance with merits. The petitioner is allowed, no order as to costs.(cid:148) In State of Maharastra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, 2006 A.I.R., SCW 2048, it has been held as under :- (cid:147)it thus clear the Central Government has considered the subject of Secondary Education and Higher Education at 7 the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires Parliament consider Teacher Education System (cid:145)throughout country(cid:146). NCTE, therefore in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges ore allowing increate intake capacity, keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated development of teacher-education system in the country.(cid:148) As will appear from the facts of the present case, petitioner having obtained the degree from Rohtak University, Haryana in the year 1992 i.e. before coming into force of the National Counsel for Teacher Education, he is entitled to be considered for special B.T.C. Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the National Council for Teacher Education has orally submitted that NCTE has been established under an Act of Parliament on 17th August, 1995 and has become empowered to recognize teacher education institutions from the session 1996-97 and therefore, the candidates, who have been awarded degree diploma certificate etc. prior to this date by University/State Government may be got verified from the concerned University/State Government or association of Indian University. Subject to the restrictions imposed by the National Counsel for Teacher Education Act, 1993, petitioner has obtained the degree before 1995 and is entitled to be considered for special BTC provided the recognition and verification is obtained from the concerned University / 8 State Govt. or the institution concerned regarding his concerned degree. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Rajesh Tandon, J.