Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10870 of 2018 Petitioner :- Yogesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
The controversy raised in the present matter stands answered in Writ Petition No. 41992 of 2016 alongwith connected petition vide order dated 18.1.2018, which is reproduced below:-
"Pursuant to the order passed on 11.1.2018, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Harsh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 703, as well as a recent decision of this Court in Km. Pallavi vs. State of U.P. and others, delivered in Writ Petition No.47490 of 2017, in order to contend that the qualification prescribed by the NCTE would hold the field and the mere fact that applicable rules have not been amended would not be material.
Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the NCTE places reliance upon Item 25 of concurrent list in order to contend that in case the qualification prescribed under Rules of 1981 is insisted upon, it could result in the State rules coming in conflict with the NCTE Regulations in which case NCTE Regulations would prevail by virtue of Article 254 of Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance upon a Government Order dated 27.11.2017, whereby in respect of subsequent vacancies advertised the State Government has provided that the qualification laid down by the NCTE would be binding. Contention is that once the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been enacted by the Parliament, whereafter rules have also been framed, the field is occupied. It is contended that the Central Government has otherwise constituted NCTE as the academic authority to lay down the qualification.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State as well as Sri A.K. Yadav and Sri M.P. Rai, appearing for respondents contends that the State Government is already ceased of the matter and the issue is being examined.
Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the process of appointment had commenced in the year 2016, after the Act of 2009 as well as rules framed thereunder came into being. NCTE had already been notified as the academic authority under the Act of 2009 and the qualification required for appointment as teacher in primary institution has been notified. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record a Government Order dated 5.6.2017 whereby the teaching qualification earlier known as 'Basic Teacher Certificate (BTC)' has been altered and rechristened as 'Diploma in Elementary Education', so as to bring it in conformity with the NCTE Regulations of 2014. That being the admitted position, it would be impermissible now to insist upon possessing of qualification for recruitment for the post of teacher in a primary institution, which is at variance with the NCTE Regulations. Petitioners assert that they have already obtained qualification of 'Diploma in Education' which is a two year course and has already been included in 'Diploma in Elementary Education' under the NCTE Regulations, 2010.
In view of the settled position of law, noticed above, the petitioners who possess qualification notified by the NCTE for being appointed as teacher in primary institution, their result pursuant to the counselling undertaken need not be detained any further.
Writ petition accordingly stands allowed with a direction upon the concerned authorities to declare result of the petitioners pursuant to their application made for appointment against the vacancies notified. It is, however, clarified that this protection would be available only to those petitioners who have obtained requisite qualification in terms of the NCTE Regulations after 23.8.2010, and not prior to it".
The facts being similar, this petition is also disposed of on same terms.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 n.u.