Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9005 of 2018 Petitioner :- Yadav Pooja Kamala Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivasare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Bharat Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh appears for second and third respondent. Shri Bharat Pratap Singh has accepted notice for fourth respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner as Assistant Teacher on the basis of counselling held on 16.8.2016 and to permit the petitioner to function as Assistant Teacher and also to pay her regular monthly salary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 12.12.2017 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.47490 of 2017 (Km. Pallavi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and the similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 12.12.2017 is quoted as under:-
" Pursuant thereof, the first respondent, State Government has issued notification dated 27 November 2017, whereby, notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as "N.C.T.E.") on 23 August 2010, 29 July 2011, 12 November 2014 and 28 November 2014, prescribing qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Institutions of the State, has been incorporated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that the notification dated 27 November 2017, has been made applicable with immediate effect i.e. prospectively, therefore, would urge that the notifications issued by the N.C.T.E., prescribing qualification of the teachers, would not cover most of the candidates, though the NCTE notifications would have an overriding effect.
Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the apprehension is misconceived, qualifications prescribed by the N.C.T.E. would apply from the respective date of the notifications issued by the N.C.T.E., therefore, would contend that the candidature of all such candidates, who are before the Court, would be considered, if they fulfill the requisite qualifications prescribed therein.
I have perused the notification dated 27 November 2017 with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
The Full Bench of this Court, as well as, the Supreme Court, in the decisions referred to in the order dated 12 October 2017, leaves no room for doubt that the competent authority to determine the essential qualifications for appointment of teachers in primary schools throughout the country, is vested with the N.C.T.E. The notification dated 27 November 2017 merely incorporates what is otherwise mandated by law, therefore, the notifications issued by the N.C.T.E., would apply from the date, on which the qualification was notified by the N.C.T.E. and not from the date on which the N.C.T.E.
notifications was incorporated in the State Act or Rules governing appointment and selection of primary teachers.
The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the respondents undertake to follow the qualifications prescribed by the N.C.T.E., from time to time, however, the order, in the facts of the case be confined only to the petitioners who are before the Court in the present petition and the batch of writ petitions. In case, the order is made applicable to persons who have not approached the Court, as yet, it would be difficult for the second respondent, Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education, Allahabad, to consider their cases, for the reason that the process of selection and appointment has since been concluded.
In regard thereto, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in terms of the N.C.T.E. notifications, expeditiously, within two months from date, provided there is no other impediment.
No cost."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the first respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and in view of the judgment passed in Km. Pallavi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra) expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 SP/