Court No. - 10
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 537 of 2018 Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Rai And 2 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the order dated 30 November 2015 cancelling the selection as trainee teachers for the reason that they did not obtain the requisite marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test1 has led to the filing of this Special Appeal.
It transpires that an advertisement was published on 1 December 2011 for 72825 posts for Trainee Teachers in various Parishadiya Institutions of the State. The petitioners cleared the TET on 25 November 2011 securing 98, 103 and 104 marks respectively. It is stated that since the cut off marks for the unreserved category for Shiksha Mitra, to which the petitioners belong, was 97 marks, they were entitled to be selected and in fact their names appeared in the select list and appointment orders were also issued to them on 25 January 2015. Thereafter, as honorarium to the petitioners was stopped, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 46507 of 2015. In this petition, an interim order was passed directing the District Basic Education Officer to enquire as to whether the petitioners were eligible to participate in the TET Examination in the general category to which they belonged and whether the marks obtained by them were within the cut off marks. Pursuant to the order passed by the Court, an order dated 30 November 2015 was passed cancelling the selection of the petitioners on the ground that they had obtained less than 105 marks in TET.
1 TET The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioners did not obtain the requisite marks in the TET Examination.
Shri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgement rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014 (State of U.P. & Others Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Others) relating to a controversy arising out of the same advertisement. The relevant portion of the judgement on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is reproduced below:
"we are inclined to modify the order passed on 25th March, 2014, and direct that the State Government shall appoint the candidates, whose names have not been weeded out in the malpractice and who have obtained/secured seventy percent marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes and the physically handicapped persons, shall be appointed if they have obtained/secured sixty-five percent marks. If there is any policy of the State Government covering any other category for the purpose of reservation, it may be given effect to with the same percentage. It shall be mentioned in the appointment letter that their appointment shall be subject to the result of these appeals and they shall not claim any equity because of the appointment, for it is issued on the basis of the direction passed by this Court, the letters of appointment shall be issued within a period of six weeks"
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was a reservation in favour of the Shiksha Mitra to the extent of 10% and so this reservation should have also been taken into consideration by the Authority.
We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The observation was made with regard to the categories for which the reservation is provided. The number of marks fixed for the unreserved category was 70% marks but for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe/other backward classes and physical handicapped persons it was reduced to 65%. The advertisement was before the Supreme Court but no observation for reducing the marks in respect of Shiksha Mitra has been observed.
The petitioners, admittedly, have not obtained 105 marks which was the prescribed cut off marks. The appointments were, therefore, correctly cancelled.
The learned Judge, therefore, was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 A. V. Singh