Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15653 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ratanaker Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
By the impugned order dated 21.5.2018, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sri Chet Ram Singh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jainpura, Jalesar, Etah on 3.4.2012. Approval for the payment of salary to him has not been granted by the respondent no.4 on the ground that the petitioner has not passed TET. On this ground the impugned order, dated 21.5.2018, has been passed declining to grant approval for payment of salary to the petitioner. There is no dispute that TET is necessary qualification for appointment of Assistant Teacher in view of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. By the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act No. 24 of 2017) effective from 1.4.2015, a proviso to Section 23(2) of the Act has been added, which provides that every teacher appointed or in position as on 31.03.2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications, as laid down under sub-Section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017. Thus, those who do not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under the Act, have been permitted to acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the aforesaid Amendment Act, 2017. The case of the petitioner is that he passed TET in the year 2016. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent no.4 in the impugned order dated 21.5.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 states that this aspect of the matter and the effect of Amendment and acquiring of TET qualification shall be considered by the respondent no.4 and a fresh order in accordance with law shall be passed within a time bound period.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 21.5.2018 is quashed, The respondent no.4 is directed to pass an order afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the amended provisions (Act No.24 of 2017).
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018/vkg