# District Basic Education Officer & Anr v. Mahendra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-01
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 698 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/district-basic-education-officer-anr-v-mahendra-ors-51758
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Service Law - Right to Education Act, 2009
- Section 23 - Teacher Eligibility Test
(T.E.T.) - Recruitment of Assistant Teacher in
Primary Schools - U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad -
Government Order dated 15.10.2013 - Clause
1.1 - Petitioner's candidature for Assistant
Teacher (Classes I to V) rejected for possessing
T.E.T. certificate in Sanskrit Language (Primary
Level) instead of T.E.T. for Primary Level
(Classes I to V). Government Order dated
17.04.2013 and NCTE guidelines (11.02.2011)
prescribe distinct T.E.T. categories, including
Primary Level (Classes I to V) and Language
Teacher-Primary Level; petitioner's T.E.T. in
Sanskrit lacked required testing in Hindi,
Mathematics,
and
Environmental
Studies,
rendering him ineligible for Primary Teacher
post. Single Judge's finding that Government
Order dated 15.10.2013 imposed no such
restriction erroneous, as Clause 1.1 mandates
T.E.T. for Classes I to VS Order of District Basic
Education
Officer
(19.08.2014)
rejecting
candidature upheld; Single Judge's judgment
(14.03.2023) allowing Writ-A No. 45784 of 2014
set aside. (Paras 11-23)
Special Appeal Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
this writ petition is allowed. Order dated
31.3.2021 is quashed. The District Basic
Education Officer, Etah is directed to allow
the petitioner to join on her post of
Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School
Mirzapur, Block Awagarh, District Etah
within four weeks from today and to pay
her current salary as and when it becomes
due.

31. It is further provided that
petitioner shall be entitled to get 25% of the
salary admissible to her for the period from
5.2.2021 till the date of her reinstatement in
service and the said amount shall be
calculated and paid to the petitioner within
four months from the date of service of
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 196
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Special Appeal No. 698 of 2023

District Basic Education Officer & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Mahendra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ms. Akansha Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla

Service Law - Right to Education Act, 2009
- Section 23 - Teacher Eligibility Test
(T.E.T.) - Recruitment of Assistant Teacher in
Primary Schools - U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad -
Government Order dated 15.10.2013 - Clause
1.1 - Petitioner's candidature for Assistant
Teacher (Classes I to V) rejected for possessing
T.E.T. certificate in Sanskrit Language (Primary
Level) instead of T.E.T. for Primary Level
(Classes I to V). Government Order dated
17.04.2013 and NCTE guidelines (11.02.2011)
prescribe distinct T.E.T. categories, including
Primary Level (Classes I to V) and Language
Teacher-Primary Level; petitioner's T.E.T. in
Sanskrit lacked required testing in Hindi,
Mathematics,
and
Environmental
Studies,
rendering him ineligible for Primary Teacher
post. Single Judge's finding that Government
Order dated 15.10.2013 imposed no such
restriction erroneous, as Clause 1.1 mandates
T.E.T. for Classes I to VS Order of District Basic
Education
Officer
(19.08.2014)
rejecting
candidature upheld; Single Judge's judgment
(14.03.2023) allowing Writ-A No. 45784 of 2014
set aside. (Paras 11-23)
Special Appeal Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Shiv Kumar Pathak Vs St. of U.P., (Division
Bench, Allahabad High Court) (Para 5)

2. St. of U.P. Vs Shiv Kumar Pathak, (Supreme
Court) (Para 20)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. The present intra-court appeal filed
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
Court is directed against the judgement and
order dated 14.03.2023 passed by learned
Single Judge allowing Writ-A No.45784 of
2014 filed by respondent no.1 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the petitioner'). In the writ
petition, the petitioner had challenged the
order dated 19.08.2014 passed by appellant
no.1 rejecting the candidature of the
petitioner for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools run
by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (appellant
no.2) on the ground that the petitioner had
passed T.E.T. Examination in Sanskrit
language and not T.E.T. meant for teaching
4 All. District Basic Education Officer & Anr. Vs. Mahendra & Ors.
197
primary level classes. He therefore did not
fulfill the eligibility prescribed for the post.
In reaching to the said conclusion, reliance
has been placed on the Government Order
dated 15.10.2013.

2. The learned Single Judge has held
that
the
Government
Order
dated
15.10.2013 does not place any such
restriction. It merely requires that the
candidate should have passed T.E.T.
Examination. As the petitioner had duly
cleared the T.E.T. Examination, though in
Sanskrit language, he was held eligible for
the post and accordingly, direction was
issued
to
the
appellants
to
issue
appointment letter to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the Government decided to
fill up 10,000 vacant posts of Assistant
Teachers in primary schools run by Basic
Shiksha Parishad. In furtherance, it issued a
Government Order dated 15.10.2013. It
stipulated that the educational qualification
required was graduation degree from a
recognised degree college, two years BTC
Course from authorised institution of the
State
Government
and
certificate
of
Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) meant for
classes 1 to 5 i.e. primary level. The
requirement of having T.E.T. certificate
was an essential condition in view of the
stipulations laid down in this behalf by the
National Council for Teacher Education in
exercise of its powers under Section 23 (1)
of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The
State Government, in accordance with the
guidelines framed by the NCTE, had issued
Government
Order
dated
17.04.2013
disclosing the manner in which T.E.T.
Examination would be held. According to
it, T.E.T. Examination was held for four
separate categories-

(i) Primary Level (Classes I to V)

(ii) Language Teacher- Primary
Level (Classes I to V)

(iii)
Upper
Primary
Level
(Classes VI to VIII)

(iv) Language Teacher- Upper
Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII)

4. In para 2 of the said Government
Order, the subjects in which candidates
would be tested for T.E.T. certificate in a
particular category, was specified. It
reveals that a candidate who passes T.E.T.
in any particular category can only teach
students of that category. The candidates
also had the option to appear in papers of
all categories. The Guidelines issued by the
State Government dated 17.04.2013 were
kept in mind while taking decision to fill up
10,000 vacancies of primary teachers. This
is evident from Clause 1.1 of the
Government Order dated 15.10.2013 which
specifically provided that the person should
have passed T.E.T. meant for teaching
Classes I to V. As such, the finding of
learned Single Judge that there was no bar
under the Government Order for a
candidate possessing T.E.T. in Sanskrit
language to be recruited for the post of
primary teacher is manifestly incorrect. In
other words, the submission of learned
counsel for the appellants is that as per
guidelines dated 17.04.2013 issued by the
Government
keeping
in
mind
the
notifications issued by NCTE from time to
time, a candidate to be recruited for
teaching primary classes from Standard I to
V had to possess T.E.T. certificate of
primary level and not the T.E.T. certificate
of any other category.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the
Government
Order
dated
15.10.2013
contains no such inhibition and the learned
Single Judge was right in holding that the
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner, who held T.E.T. certificate,
though in Sanskrit Language, was fully
qualified for teaching primary level classes
i.e. Standard I to V. The Division Bench of
this Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak and
Others vs. State of U.P. and Others1 has
held that NCTE Notifications prescribing
eligibility have overriding effect and the
same
merely
prescribes
T.E.T.
as
eligibility criteria, without making any
distinction between different types of
T.E.T. Certificates. Therefore, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.

6. The main question, which thus
arises for consideration, is whether the
petitioner, on the strength of T.E.T.
certificate in Sanskrit language, was
eligible for appointment as Assistant
Teacher in Primary School in pursuance
of advertisement issued in the year 2016
for filling up 10,000 vacancies. In other
words, whether the test passed by the
petitioner in Sanskrit language fulfilled
the requirements of Teacher Eligibility
Test prescribed for teachers for the
Primary Schools.

7. Indisputably, the vacancies
notified by advertisement issued in
different newspapers in October, 2013
were for filling up posts of Assistant
Teachers in Primary Schools imparting
elementary education (Standard I to V).
All the schools are covered within the
definition of Section 2(n) of the Right of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act').

8. Section 23 of the Act stipulates
that any person possessing such minimum
qualifications, as laid down by an
academic authority authorized by the
Central Government by notification, shall
be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
In exercise of powers under Section 23 of
the Act, the Central Government issued
notification
dated
31st
March,
2010
authorizing the NCTE as the academic
authority to lay down the minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher.

9. The NCTE issued a notification
dated
23.10.2010
laying
down
the
minimum qualifications for appointment as
a teacher in a school referred to in clause
(n) of Section 2 of the Act. The minimum
qualifications inter alia provided for a pass
certificate in the Teacher Eligibility Test to
be
conducted
by
the
appropriate
government
in
accordance
with
the
guidelines framed by the NCTE for the
purpose. A separate set of qualifications
was prescribed for teachers for Classes I to
V and Classes VI to VIII. The said
notification was amended by a notification
dated 29.07.2011 but the prescription
regarding T.E.T. test remained the same.

10. On 11.02.2011, NCTE framed
guidelines for Teacher Eligibility Test to be
conducted by the appropriate governments.
In pursuance of the said guidelines, the
State Government issued a Government
Order dated 17th April, 2013 addressed to
the Director, State Education Research and
Training
Board,
U.P.,
Lucknow
and
Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority, U.P., Allahabad emphasizing the
need for conducting Teacher Eligibility
Test. It refers to a previous Government
Order dated 25.09.2012 by which the State
Government had required the aforesaid two
Authorities to submit proposal for holding
T.E.T. Examination. The guidelines on
basis of which T.E.T. Examination was to
be conducted, was enclosed with the
Government Order dated 17th April, 2013.
4 All. District Basic Education Officer & Anr. Vs. Mahendra & Ors.
199

11. The guidelines stipulated holding
of T.E.T. Examination for four different
categories, namely, (i) Primary Level
(Classes I to V), (ii) Language Teacher-
Primary Level (Classes I to V), (iii) Upper
Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII), and
(iv) Language Teacher- Upper Primary
Level (Classes VI to VIII). The guidelines
provided for different course structure and
content of question papers for different
categories, however, liberty was given to
the candidates to appear in one or more
categories, so as to attain eligibility for
appointment as teacher in more than one
category.

12. The petitioner had passed U.P.
T.E.T., 2013 of Primary Level- Sanskrit
language. Now, it is to be seen whether the
said certificate fulfilled the pre-eligibility
prescribed for participating in the selection
for recruitment of Primary Teachers of
Classes I to V. The T.E.T. Certificate
possessed by the petitioner for Classes I to
V was awarded to him on basis of the test
held by Examination Regulatory Authority,
U.P., Allahabad in accordance with the
guidelines contained in Government Order
dated 17th April, 2013. The structure and
content of the said test as per Government
Order dated 17th April, 2013 was as
follows:

(i)
Child
Development
and
Pedagogy-
30 MCQs
30 Marks

(ii) Comprehension-
30 " 30"

(iii) Grammer-

 30 " 30 "

(iv) Language Expression- - 60 "

(MCQ is acronym for
Multiple Choice Question)

13. In clear distinction of the structure
and content of T.E.T. prescribed for teacher
of Primary Level- Language (Standard I to
V), the structure and content of T.E.T. for
Primary Teacher (Standard I to V) was as
follows:

(i)
Child
Development
and
Pedagogy-
 30 MCQs
30 Marks

(ii) Language I-

30 "

30 "

(iii) Language II-

30 "

30 "

(iv) Mathematics-

30 "

30 "

(v) Environmental Studies-

30 "
30 "

14. The guidelines prescribed by
NCTE for holding T.E.T. for Classes I to
V, in terms of the structure and content of
the test is exactly similar to that prescribed
by the State Government vide Government
Order dated 17th April, 2013.

15. The petitioner, who had passed
T.E.T. meant for Classes I to V-Sanskrit
language was, thus, not tested on the
structure and content prescribed for T.E.T.
for Classes I to V. The petitioner was not
tested for Hindi language in contrast to his
counter-parts, who appeared for T.E.T. I to
V and had to answer questions of thirty
marks in Hindi Language. Again, the
petitioner was not tested for Mathematics
nor for Environmental Studies, which was
essential part of the structure and content of
the test paper meant for students appearing
for T.E.T. for Classes I to V.

16. As is the own case of the
petitioner, the guidelines framed by NCTE
were binding on the States while holding
the T.E.T. The T.E.T. held by the State for
Classes I to V was in consonance with the
guidelines prescribed by NCTE in this
behalf. The NCTE guidelines as well as the
guidelines issued by the State Government
vide Government Order dated 17th April,
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2013 specifically gave an option to the
candidates to appear in a specified category
or in all the categories. However, the
petitioner did not avail the said option and
only qualified T.E.T. for Classes I to V in
Sanskrit language. He had the option to
appear in T.E.T. Primary (Classes I to V) as
well as T.E.T. for Upper Primary Level
(Classes VI to VIII) and Language- Upper
Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII).

17. It is pertinent to note that
Government Order dated 15th October, 2013
vide Clause 1.1 specifically provided that the
candidate should inter alia possess T.E.T.
Certificate for Classes I to V. The relevant
part of the said clause is reproduced below:

"1- आवेदन हेतु पात्रता

(i) शैसक्षक अहथता- सहायक अध्यापक
के पदोिं पर चयन / सनयुखक्त हेतु ऐसे अभ्यर्ी पात्र
होिंगें, जो भारत में सवसि द्वारा स्र्ासपत
सवश्वसवद्यालय से स्नातक की उपासि रखते होिं,
राज्य शैसक्षक अनुसिंिान एविं प्रसशक्षण पररर्द
उ0प्र0 द्वारा आयोसजत दो वर्ीय बी०टी०सी०
प्रसशक्षण, दो वर्ीय उदूथ प्रवीणता बी०टी०सी०
प्रसशक्षण,
सवसशष्ट
बी०टी०सी०
प्रसशक्षण
सफलतापूवथक उत्तीणथ सकए होिं, उ०प्र० सरकार
अर्वा भारत सरकार द्वारा आयोसजत कक्षा 1 से 5
हेतु अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा सफलतापूवथक
उत्तीणथ सकए होिं ।"
(Emphasis supplied)

18. Since all the posts advertised were
for Primary Teachers for teaching Classes I
to V and not teacher in Sanskrit language
only
and,
therefore,
the
aforesaid
stipulation was specifically embodied in
Clause 1.1 of the Government Order dated
15th October, 2013.

19. It is noticeable that the structure
and content of the tests were designed in a
manner so as to test the teaching ability of a
candidate to teach students of that category
or subject. Thus, a teacher passing T.E.T.
meant for Classes I to V was not tested nor
eligible for recruitment as a teacher for
Upper Primary Level i.e., Classes VI to
VIII nor as a teacher for any specific
language like Sanskrit, English or Urdu.
Likewise, a candidate passing T.E.T. in any
specific language would be eligible for
consideration for appointment as a teacher
of that language only.

20. The Division Bench judgement of
this Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra),
holding that the qualifications prescribed
by NCTE are binding, though, reversed in
appeal by the Supreme Court in State of
U.P. and Others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak
and Others2, still holds the field to the
extent it lays down the above legal
preposition. In fact, there is also no dispute
about the said legal proposition, as
arguments of both the sides rest on the said
premise,
though,
giving
a
different
interpretation to advance their respective
submissions.

21. As already noted above, if we go
by the stipulations prescribed by NCTE for
holding T.E.T., for a person to become
eligible for recruitment as Primary Teacher
for Classes I to V, the T.E.T. Certificate
possessed by the petitioner for Sanskrit
language did not meet the specified
requirements.

22. The learned Single Judge has
overlooked Clause 1.1 of Government
Order dated 15th October, 2013 in holding
that the said Government Order did not
prohibit a candidate seeking appointment
on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior
Basic School to possess T.E.T. Certificate
in Sanskrit language. In fact, when the said
4 All. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Renu & Ors.
201
stipulation in Clause 1 of Government
Order dated 15th October, 2013 is read
with the guidelines issued by the State
Government on 17th April, 2013 and the
guidelines
issued
by
NCTE
dated
11.02.2011, the distinction between the two
set of tests becomes amply clear.

23. In the result, the irresistible
conclusion is that the petitioner, who was
not having T.E.T. Certificate for teaching
Classes I to V but T.E.T. Certificate in
Sanskrit Language Primary Level, was not
eligible for selection on the post of Primary
Teacher in Junior Basic Schools in
pursuance of the advertisement.

24. We, thus, find no illegality in the
stand contained in the order of Basic
Shiksha Adhikari dated 19.08.2014, against
which the writ petition was filed.

25. Accordingly, the instant appeal is
allowed.

26. The impugned judgement and
order of the learned Single Judge is set
aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 201
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 781 of 2023

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
 ...Appellant
Versus
Renu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Nisheeth Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shantanu Khare, Sri Kauntey Singh, Sri
Ashok Khare (Senior Adv.)

Service Law - U.P. Subordinate Nursing
(Non-Gazetted)
Service
(Fourth
Amendment) Rules, 2016 - Rule 15 -
Recruitment of Staff Nurse
- Experience
Certificate - Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission (UPPSC) rejected candidature of
petitioner for Staff Nurse post due to an
erroneous experience certificate (09.11.2021)
mentioning 'Nurse Mentor' instead of 'Staff
Nurse', despite her having requisite experience
(01.04.2015
to
18.10.2019).
Corrected
certificate (24.08.2022) and issuing authority's
admission of mistake (30.08.2022) submitted
post-re-scrutiny, but not considered by UPPSC,
citing cut-off date for document submission
(18.11.2021, extended to 22.11.2021). Single
Judge allowed Writ-A No. 21430 of 2022, setting
aside UPPSC's rejection order (16.11.2022),
holding that procedural requirement of proof
submission
is
relaxable,
unlike
essential
qualifications. Distinction between possession of
qualification (mandatory by cut-off date) and
proof thereof (directory) upheld, supported by
Supreme Court precedents. No prejudice to
others, as 1,729 posts remained vacant. Single
Judge's view, being plausible, not interfered
with in intra-court appeal. (Paras 15-37)

Special Appeal Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of T.N. Vs G. Hemalathaa, (Supreme
Court) (Para 10)

2. Gaurav Sharma Vs St. of U.P., (Allahabad
High Court, Full Bench) (Para 10)

3. Rajendra Patel Vs St. of U.P., (Allahabad High
Court, Full Bench) (Para 10)

4. Charles K. Skaria Vs Dr. C. Mathew,
(Supreme Court) (Paras 11, 16, 18)

5. Dolly Chhanda Vs Chairman, JEE, (Supreme
Court) (Paras 11, 17, 24)