Udham Singh Nagar. vs Secretary, Department of

Praveen Pant, S/o Sri B.D. Pant, R/o Village Shantipuri No. 2, Udham Singh Nagar. (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)Petitioner. Versus (1) State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. (2) Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. (3) Additional Director of Education, Kumaon Region, Nainital. (4) Additional Director of Education Garhwal Region, Pauri. (5) National Counsel for Teacher(cid:146)s Education through its Regional Director. (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133).Respondents. Sri Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioners. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4. Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 5. Hon(cid:146)ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the rejection of their candidature in recruitment (year 2006) for Assistant Teacher, LT Grade on the ground that they were not holding training degree from a recognised University. 3 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on their behalf. (3) Brief facts of the case are that Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, issued an advertisement on 7th August 2006, for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in LT Grade. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2007 (S/S) were the applicants, in pursuance to said advertisement, for the post of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade (Maths), while, the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2007 (S/S) was applicant for the post of Assistant Teacher (General). It appears that quality points were allotted to them as per the U.P. Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Rules, 2006. The candidature of the writ petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2007 (S/S) was rejected on the ground that the training degree course obtained by them was not as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement (copy of result published memorandum dated 26th July 2007, is annexure 9 to the writ petition). Similarly, the candidature of the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2007 (S/S) was rejected on the ground that the degree of training course was not recognised by National Council for Teacher(cid:146)s Education and also that the required degree was B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education), while the petitioner was holding B.Ed. with specialization in vocational education (copy of the information dated 13th October 2007, issued by Additional Director Education, 4 Nainital, is annexure 14 to the Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2007 (S/S)). Petitioners of both the writ petitions have obtained degree of Bachelor of Education from M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. The only difference is that the writ petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2007 (S/S) obtained the degree in the year 2006, while the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2007 (S/S) obtained the degree in the year

2005. As such, in both the writ petitions, the same question is involved whether the degree of Bachelor of Education is not the recognised degree as required under the conditions mentioned in the advertisement for recruitment of Assistant Teachers, LT Grade. (4) The copy of advertisement, which is annexed as Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2007 (S/S) in pursuance to which petitioners of both the writ petitions submitted their applications, shows following relevant condition for eligibility to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher:- (cid:147)(iii) vH;FkhZ )kjk foKfIr izdkf(cid:146)kr gksus dh frfFk ls iwoZ izLrj&5 esa mfYyf[kr ’kSf{kd ,oa izf(cid:146)k{k.k vgZrk,a izkIr dj yh x;h gksaA izf(cid:146)k{k.k ikB~;dze jk"V“h; v/;kid f(cid:146)k{kk ifj"kn~ …N.C.T.E‰ ls ekU;rk izkIr gksuk vfuok;Z gS] ftls jk"V“h; v/;kid f(cid:146)k{kk ifj"kn~ …N.C.T.E‰ dh osclkbV www.ncte-in.org ij ns[kk tk ldrk gSA(cid:148) 5 (5) As far as the educational qualifications are concerned, there is no objection from the side of the respondents that the petitioners did not fulfill the same. Counter affidavits (in both the writ petitions) filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 simply show that the petitioners were not having qualification of training as per the conditions of the advertisement for the reason that B.Ed. degree held by them was not recognised nor was it in the list of N.C.T.E.. (6) The abovementioned objection of the respondents no. 2 and 3 in both the writ petitions gets contradicted from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 separately in both the writ petitions, in which the respondent no. 5 (National Council for Teacher(cid:146)s Education through its Regional Director) has stated that the answering respondent has granted recognition to M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, for running the courses of B.Ed. with Specialisation in Education, B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education and B.Ed. with Specialisation in Educational Computing. It is further stated in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 that the recognition was given in the year 1999. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2007 (S/S), passed their B.Ed. examination in the year 2006, while the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2007 (S/S), passed his B.Ed. examination in the year 2005. As such, the stand taken by respondents no. 1 to 4 that the petitioners did not possess the requisite 6 qualification as per the advertisement is wrong, as the N.C.T.E. has its affidavit stating that the University from where the petitioners have obtained B.Ed. degree had recognition to issue such degree. (7) Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the recognition was not apparent on the website of N.C.T.E., as such it cannot be said that the candidature of the petitioners is wrongly rejected. However, I do not find force in the contention of learned Standing Counsel as it has been clarified in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2007) that earlier B.Ed. degree was issued by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education and now the same institution has been renamed as Faculty of Education and Allied Sciences. Annexure SA-1 supplementary affidavit shows that National Council for Teacher(cid:146)s Education (N.C.T.E.), Northern Regional Committee has issued the certificate that Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, has been given recognition vide letter dated 20th December 1999. The said certificate issued by N.C.T.E. further discloses that the institution has been renamed as (cid:145)Faculty of Education and Allied Sciences(cid:146). The said certificate issued by N.C.T.E. further makes it clear that change in nomenclature does not make change as far as N.C.T.E. recognition is concerned. 7 (8) In view of the above facts, this Court is of the clear opinion that the rejection of the petitioners(cid:146) candidature for the post of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade is illegal. This Court thinks it just and proper to observe here that a degree of Bachelor of Education, if passed with any additional subject like vocational education or special education or educational computing does not make the degree passed from recognised University de-recognised as the special subject is in addition to the subjects in which the degree is obtained and not in place of any compulsory subject. (9) For the reasons as discussed above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The rejection of the petitioners(cid:146) candidature for the post of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade, is set aside. The authority concerned is directed to process their candidature as per the Rules and shall consider their appointments, if anyone having lesser quality points to the petitioners is given appointment (provided that the petitioners are not otherwise disqualified), within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before such authority. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.01.09.2008 NS 8