# Rajendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 811
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-01
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 441 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51995
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Basic Education Act,
1972 - Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory
Education
Act,
2009
-
Assistant teacher - Essential qualification
- Petitioner did not possess Teacher
Eligibility Test - Effect - After according
approval, the petitioner were appointed,
but
no
salary
was
paid
-
Validity
challenged - Held, TET was an essential
qualification with effect from the date of
notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by
NCTE. Admittedly, in the present case, the
recruitment process had commenced later
on and therefore, it was mandatory that
the
petitioners
must
possess
TET
qualification at the time of selection, which
they did not possess. (Para 14)

B. Service Law - Selection - Requisite
qualification - No date was fixed in the
advertisement, on which a candidate may
possess requisite qualification - Effect -
Held, uncertainty of the date may also lead
to a contrary consequence viz. even those
candidates
who
do
not
have
the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to
acquire them at an uncertain future date,
may apply for the posts thus swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse
consequence may follow, as it may leave
open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as
to entertain some applicants and reject
others, arbitrarily - In the absence of a
fixed
date
indicated
in
the
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications with reference to which the
requisite qualifications should be judged,
the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for
making the applications. (Para 17)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
811
of the sale deed since the limitation for filing
a suit for cancellation of the sale deed is
three years whereas in the present case, the
suit has been instituted after about 9 years
from the date of execution of sale deed.
From the pleading in the plaint, it is evident
that the suit is barred by limitation and the
question of limitation in the instant case is a
pure question of law and not a mixed
question of fact and law.

36. Therefore, this Court for the
aforesaid reason is also of the view that the
suit of the plaintiff is nothing but an abuse
of the process of law since the plaintiff knew
that it could not succeed in the suit being
barred by limitation if it prays for
cancellation of sale deed.

37. In such view of the fact, this court
is of the view that no substantial question of
law is involved in the present appeal which
needs to be answered by this Court.
Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/-
.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 811
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal No. 441 of 2024

Rajendra Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Aklank Kumar Jain, Arun Kumar Rana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Basic Education Act,
1972 - Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory
Education
Act,
2009
-
Assistant teacher - Essential qualification
- Petitioner did not possess Teacher
Eligibility Test - Effect - After according
approval, the petitioner were appointed,
but
no
salary
was
paid
-
Validity
challenged - Held, TET was an essential
qualification with effect from the date of
notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by
NCTE. Admittedly, in the present case, the
recruitment process had commenced later
on and therefore, it was mandatory that
the
petitioners
must
possess
TET
qualification at the time of selection, which
they did not possess. (Para 14)

B. Service Law - Selection - Requisite
qualification - No date was fixed in the
advertisement, on which a candidate may
possess requisite qualification - Effect -
Held, uncertainty of the date may also lead
to a contrary consequence viz. even those
candidates
who
do
not
have
the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to
acquire them at an uncertain future date,
may apply for the posts thus swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse
consequence may follow, as it may leave
open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as
to entertain some applicants and reject
others, arbitrarily - In the absence of a
fixed
date
indicated
in
the
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications with reference to which the
requisite qualifications should be judged,
the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for
making the applications. (Para 17)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Writ A No. 12908 of 2013; Shiv Kumar Sharma
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 31.05.2013
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of
Delhi; 2013 SCC Online SC 674

3. Dipitimayee Parida Vs St. of Orissa; 2008 (10)
SCC 687

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Aklank Kumar Jain,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellantspetitioners and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

2. Present Special Appeal has been
preferred assailing the validity of the
impugned judgment and order dated
12.03.2024 passed in Writ A No. 17951 of
2018 (Ratnesh Kumar and 3 others vs. State
of U.P. and 5 others).

3. It appears from the record that
"Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School,
Bhauti, Kanpur Nagar"1, is a recognised &
aided Junior High School. The institution is
governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic
Education Act, 19722; the rules framed
thereunder and the provisions of U.P. Junior
High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers
and other employees) Act, 19783. The
District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur
Nagar vide order dated 25.6.2011 had
accorded approval for filling up four vacant
posts of Assistant Teacher in the institution.
The meeting of Selection Committee, which
also consisted the nominee of District Basic
Education Officer, was held on 15.12.2011,
wherein appointment of petitioners was
recommended for approval. Finally, the
District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur
Nagar vide order dated 12/13.3.2012 had
accorded approval to the petitioners'
appointment. Accordingly, the appointment
letters were issued in favour of the
petitioners on 13.3.2012 and they joined
their services on 17.3.2012.

4. Once the petitioners were not paid
their
salary
then
they
moved
a
representation
before
the
respondent
authorities on 26.10.2012. Finally, the
District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur
Nagar vide order dated 12.07.2018 had
rejected the claim of the petitioners on the
ground that they did not possess the
Teachers Eligibility Test4, which is an
essential qualification under the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 20095. The petitioners had filed the
writ petition for quashing the aforesaid order
dated 12.07.2018 and after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge
vide impugned judgement and order dated
12.03.2024 has proceeded to dismiss the
writ petition with following observations:-

"13.
Learned
counsel
for
respondents
on
the
basis
of
above
conclusion submitted that TET was an
essential qualification w.e.f. from the date of
notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by
NCTE and admittedly in present case
recruitment process was commenced later
on, therefore, it was mandatory that
petitioners must possess TET qualification
at the time of selection, but admittedly they
did not.

14. In Sarvesh Kumar Yadav
(supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
not referred the above judgment passed by
Full Bench though it was prior to it. It
appears that it was not brought into the
notice of co-ordinate bench, therefore,
conclusion of it cannot be relied upon,
therefore, in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra), a
Full Bench has categorically held that TET
was an essential qualification in any
recruitment process commenced after date
5 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
813
of relevant notification i.e. 23.8.2010,
therefore, no benefit could be granted to
petitioners in regard to Clause 5 of
subsequent notification issued by NCTE
dated 29.7.2011.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances
argument of learned Senior Counsel are
unsustainable since they are contrary to the
decision of Full Bench in Shiv Kumar
Sharma (supra).

16. Accordingly, I do not find that
petitioners have any legally sustainable
claim as well as benefit of subsequent TET
Examination could also not be granted.

17. There is no illegality in the
impugned order.

18. Writ petition is accordingly
dismissed."

5. Learned counsel for the appellantspetitioners in this backdrop submits that the
selection of petitioners was held strictly in
accordance with the Rules and their
selection was also recommended for
approval by the Selection Committee, which
included the nominee of the District Basic
Education Officer. Finally, the District
Basic Education Officer vide order dated
12/13.3.2012 had accorded approval to the
selection of the petitioners. The appellants
were duly appointed on the post of Assistant
Teachers in the institution on 13.3.2012 and
they joined their services on 17.3.2012. At
the time of appointment of the petitioners,
the passing of TET as an essential
qualification was not included in the U.P.
Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers) Rules, 19786. The TET
was introduced by Notification dated
23.8.2010 issued by National Council for
Teachers Education7 in reference to Clause
(N) of Section 2 of Act, 2009 and the Act,
2009 was made effective only from 1st of
April, 2010.

6. It is submitted that the State of U.P.
had framed Rules under the Act, 2009 and
notified the same on 27th of July, 2011. The
Government Order dated 5th of December,
2012 provided that under the Act, 2009 and
Rules framed thereunder in 2011, the TET
has been prescribed as an essential
qualification for Teachers of Junior Basic
and Senior Basic Schools. Under Section 23
(1) of the Act, 2009 it has been provided that
all those Teachers, who did not possess the
requisite TET qualification, were to obtain
the said qualification within five years from
the appointed date as notified by the
Academic Authority i.e. N.C.T.E. The last
date for obtaining such qualification was
31.03.2015. In the Government order dated
07th of September, 2011 a mention has
merely been made that after the notification
of the Act, 2009 there is need for holding
TET. The standards for holding such tests
have
been
prescribed
and
the
U.P.
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad has been
given the responsibility for holding such
test.

7. It is the case of the petitioners also
that the NCTE was notified as Academic
Authority by the Central Government under
the Act, 2009 and it issued its first
notification
prescribing
the
minimum
eligibility qualification only on 23rd of
August, 2010 and the said notification dated
23rd of August, 2010 was further amended
on 29th of July, 2011 and guidelines for
conducting the TET were issued by the State
Government thereafter on 7th of September,
2011. It is also submitted that none of the
Government orders relied upon by the
District Basic Education Officer prohibited
the appointment of teachers under the
existing Rules. The Act, 2009 and the Rules
framed thereunder by the State Government
in the year 2011 could not have put the ban
on selection of teachers to be held by various
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Junior High Schools for the vacancies
arising in between the notification of the Act
in 2009 upto the notification of amended
Rules in 2011. As the teaching being an
essential service, hence the selections of
teachers could not be put on hold merely
because of notification of the Act of 2009. It
was, thus, clarified by the Government order
dated 5th of December, 2012 that relaxation
for
obtaining
the
minimum
TET
qualification was extended upto 31st of
March, 2015. Admittedly, the petitioner
nos.3 and 4 had qualified TET in 2013-2014
respectively. The amendment in relevant
Rules, 1978 prescribes TET as an essential
qualification, which was notified only on
5.12.2012
i.e.
subsequent
to
the
commencement of the recruitment process
of the petitioners and could not be given
retrospective effect. Therefore, they are
entitled for payment of their salary.

8. Per contra, Sri Devesh Vikram,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the State respondents has
vehemently opposed the appeal and submits
that the TET was an essential qualification
with effect from the date of notification
dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE.
Admittedly, in the present case the
recruitment process was commenced later
on and therefore, it was mandatory that the
petitioners must possess TET qualification
at the time of selection but admittedly they
did not possess the TET qualification. The
notification dated 23.08.2010 is reproduced
here under:-

"राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द्
अमधसूचना
नई मदल्ली, 23 अगस्त,2010

फा.सं. 61-03/2010/एनसीटीई (एन.एंड एस.)-
मनः शुल्क एवं अमनवायट बाल मशक्षा अमधमनयम,2009 (2009
का 35) की धारा 23 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शमक्तयों का
प्रयोग करते हुए और स्कूली मशक्षा और साक्षरता मवभाग, मानव
संसाधन मवकास मंत्ालय, भारत सरकार द्वारा जारी मदनांक 31 माचट,
2010 की अमधसूचना सं. का.आ. 750(अ) के अऩुसरण में
राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् एतद्द्वारा इस अमधसूचना की मतमथ से
मनःशुल्क और अमनवायट बाल मशक्षा अमधमनयम,2009 की धारा 2
के खण्ड (ढ) में संदमभटत स्कूलों में कक्षा I से VIII में अध्यापक के
रूप में मनयुमक्त की पात्ता हेतु मनम्नमलमखत न्यूनतम योग्यता मनधाटररत
करती है-

1. न्यूनतम योग्यता-

(1) कक्षा I-V

(क) न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उछचतर
माध्यममक (या इसके समकक्ष) एवं प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र में मद्ववर्ीय
मडप्लोमा (मजस नाम से भी जाना जाता हो)

या

न्यूनतम 45% अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक (या
इसके समकक्ष) एवं प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र में मद्ववर्ीय मडप्लोमा (मजस
नाम से भी जाना जाता हो) जो राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द्
(मान्यता, मानक और मियामवमध) मवमनमय, 2002 के अनुसार प्राप्त
मकया गया हो।

या

न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक (या
इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्ीय प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र स्नातक
(बी.एल.एड)

या

न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक (या
इसके समकक्ष) एवं मशक्षा शास्त्र

में मद्ववर्ीय मडप्लोमा (मवशेर् मशक्षा)
और

(ख) राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा मनरूमपत
मागटदशी मसद्धान्तों के अधीन उपयुक्त सरकारों द्वारा आयोमजत
(अध्यापक पात्ता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी.) में उत्तीणट।

(I) कक्षा VI-VIII

(क) बी.ए./ बी.एस.सी. और प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र
में मद्ववर्ीय मडप्लोमा (मजस नाम से भी जाना जाता हो)
या

न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ बी.ए./बीएस.सी. एवं
मशक्षा शास्त्र में एकवर्ीय स्नातक (बी.एड)
या

न्यूनतम 45% अंकों के साथ बी.ए/बी.एससी. एवं
मशक्षा शास्त्र में एकवर्ीय स्नातक (बी.एड.) जो इस संबंध में समय-
5 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
815
समय पर जारी राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् (मान्यता, मानक और
मियामवमध मवमनमय के अनुसार प्राप्त मकया गया हों
या

न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक (या
इसके समकक्ष) एवं वर्ीय प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र स्नातक
(बी.एल.एड.)
या

न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक (या
इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्ीय बी.ए./बी.एससी एड, या
बी.ए.एड./बी.एसी.सी.एड
या

न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ बी.ए/बी.एस.सी एवं
एक वर्ीय बी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा)
और

(ख) राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा मनरूमपत
मागटदशी मसद्धान्तों के अधीन उपयुक्त सरकारों द्वारा आयोमजत
[अध्यापक पात्ता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी) में उत्तीणट]।

2. अध्यापक शिक्षा में शिप्लोमा/शिग्री
पाठ्यक्रम- इस अमधसूचना के संदभट में केवल राष्रीय अध्यापक
मशक्षा पररर्द् (राअमशप) द्वारा मान्यता-प्राप्त अध्यापक मशक्षा शास्त्र में
मडप्लोमा/मडग्री पाठ्यिम मान्य होगा। मशक्षा शास्त्र में मडप्लोमा
(मवशेर् मशक्षा) और बी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा) के मलए केवल भारतीय
पुनवाटस पररर्द् (आरसीआई) द्वारा मान्यता-प्राप्त पाठ्यिम मान्य
होगा।

3. शििेष अशििायय प्रशिक्षण - वह व्यमक्त,.

(क) मजसके पास न्यूनतम 50% अंकों के साथ
बी.ए./बी.एससी और बी.एड. योग्यता है, कक्षा I से V में मनयुमक्त
के मलए 1 जनवरी, 2012 तक पात् होगा, बशते मक वह मनयुमक्त्त
के बाद प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र में राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा
मान्यता प्राप्त -6-माह का मवशेर् प्रमशक्षण प्राप्त कर ले।

(ख) मजसके पास डी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा) या बी.एड.
(मवशेर् मशक्षा) की योग्यता है, उसे मनयुमक्त के बाद प्रारंमभक मशक्षा
शास्त्र में राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त -6 - माह
का मवशेर् प्रमशक्षण प्राप्त करना आवश्यक होगा।

4. इस अशिसूचिा की शिशि से पहले शियुक्त
अध्यापक- इस अमधसूचना की मतमथ से पूवट कक्षा I से VIII के
मलए मनयुक्त मनम्नमलमखत श्रेणी के अध्यापकों को उपयुटक्त पैरा (1) में
मनधाटररत न्यूनतम योग्यता हामसल करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है :-

(क) राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् (स्कूलों में
अध्यापकों की भती के मलए न्यूनतम योग्यताओं का मनधाटरण)
मवमनयम, 2001 (समय-समय पर यथा संशोमधत) के अनुसार 3
मसतम्बर, 2001 अथवा उसके बाद मनयुक्त अध्यापक।

मकन्तु बी.एड. की योग्यता रखने वाले कक्षा I से V
के अध्यापकों या बी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा) या डी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा)
की योग्यता रखने वाले अध्यापकों को प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र में राष्रीय
अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6 माह का मवशेर् प्रमशक्षण
प्राप्त करना होगा।

(ख) कक्षा I से V के मशक्षा स्नातक (बी.एड)
योग्यताधारी अध्यापक मजसने पूवट में राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द्
द्वारा अनुमोमदत 6 माह का मवशेर् आधारभूत अध्यापक पाठ्यकम
(मवशेर् बी.टी.सी.) पूरा कर मलया है।

प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र में राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा
पररर्द् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6 माह का मवशेर् प्रमशक्षण प्राप्त कर ले ।

(ख) मजसके पास डी. एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा) या
बी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा) की योग्यता है, उसे मनयुमक्त्त के बाद प्रारंमभक
मशक्षा शास्त्र में राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6
माह का मवशेर् प्रमशक्षण प्राप्त करना आवश्यक होगा ।

4. इस अशिसूचिा की शिशि से पहले शियुक्त
अध्यापक :- इस अमधसूचना की मतमथ से पूवट कक्षाIसे VIII के
मलए मनयुक्त मनम्नमलमखत श्रेणी के अध्यापकों को उपयुटक्त पैरा (1) में
मनधाटररत न्यूनतम योग्यता हामसल करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है :-

(क) राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् (स्कूलों में
अध्यापकों की भती के मलए न्यूनतम योग्यताओं का मनधाटरण)
मवमनयम, 2001 (समय-समय पर यथा संशोमधत) के अनुसार 3
मसतम्बर, 2001 अथवा उसके बाद मनयुक्त अध्यापक।

मकन्तु बी.एड. की योग्यता रखने वाले कक्षा I से V
के अध्यापकों या बी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा) या डी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा)
की योग्यता रखने वाले अध्यापकों को प्रारंमभक मशक्षा शास्त्र में राष्रीय
अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त 6 माह का मवशेर् प्रमशक्षण
प्राप्त करना होगा।

(ख) कक्षा I से V के मशक्षा स्नातक (बी.एड)
योग्यताधारी अध्यापक मजसने पूवट में राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द्
द्वारा अनुमोमदत 6 माह का मवशेर् आधारभूत अध्यापक पाठ्यिम
(मवशेर् बी.टी.सी.) पूरा कर मलया है।

(ग) भती मनयमों के अनुसार 3 मसतम्बर, 2001 से
पहले मनयुक्त अध्यापक।

5. कुछ मामलों में इस अशिसूचिा की शिशि के
बाद शियुक्त अध्यापक - इस अमधसूचना की मतमथ से पूवट यमद
सरकारों अथवा स्थानीय प्रामधकाररयों अथवा मवद्यालयों द्वारा मवज्ञापन
जारी कर अध्यापकों की मनयुमक्त की प्रमिया आरम्भ कर दी गई है,
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ऐसी मस्थमत में मनयुमक्तयााँ, राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् (स्कूलों में
अध्यापकों की भती के मलए न्यूनतम योग्यताओं का मनधाटरण)
मवमनयम, 2001. (समय-समय पर यथासंशोमधत) के अनुसार की
जा सकती है।"

9. It is further submitted that while
dismissing the writ petition, learned Single
Judge vide impugned judgment dated
12.3.2024 has considered the Act, 2009 and
rightly held that the TET was an essential
qualification in any recruitment process
commenced after the date of relevant
notification i.e. 23.8.2010 and therefore, no
benefit could be granted to the petitioners in
regard to Clause 5 of subsequent notification
issued by the NCTE dated 29.7.2011. The
notification dated 29.07.2011 is reproduced
hereunder:-

"राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा पररषद्
अशिसूचिा
नई मदल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2011

फा. सं. 61-1/2011/राअमशप (मा.तथा मा.)-
मनःशुल्क एवं अमनवायट बाल मशक्षा अमधमनयम, 2009 (2009
का 35) के खण्ड 23 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शमक्तयों का,
प्रयोग करते हुए और स्कूली मशक्षा और साक्षरता मवभाग, मानव
संसाधन मवकास मंत्ालय, भारत सरकार द्वारा जारी मदनांक 31 माचट,
2010 की अमधसूचना संख्या का.आ. 750 (अ) के अनुसरण में,
राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् (राअमशप) एत‌द्वारा अध्यापक के रूप
में मनयुमक्त के मलए पात् होने के वास्ते न्यूनतम अहटताएं मनधाटररत करने
वाली मदनांक 23 अगस्त, 2010 की फा. संख्या 61-1/2010राअमशप (मा. तथा मा.) के रूप में भारत के राजपत्, असाधारण के
भाग III, खण्ड 4 में प्रकामशत संख्या 215 मदनांक 25
अगस्त,2010 की अमधसूचना में एत‌द्वारा मनम्न संशोधन करती है
(मजसका उल्लेख मूल अमधसूचना के रूप में मकया जाएगा)-

(I) मूल अमधसूचना के पैरा 1 के उप-पैरा (1) के
स्थान पर मनम्न प्रमतस्थामपत मकया जाएगा, नामतः :-

1. न्यूनतम अहटताएं:

(i) कक्षा I से V

(क) न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ उछचतर
माध्यममक (अथया इसके समकक्ष) तथा प्रारमम्भक मशक्षा में मद्ववर्ीय
मडप्लोमा (चाहे उसे कोई भी नाम मदया गया हो)
अथवा

न्यूनतम 45 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक
(अथवा इसके समकक्ष) एवं प्रारमम्भक मशक्षा शास्त्र में मद्ववर्ीय
मडप्लोमा चाहे मजस मकसी नाम से जाना जाता हो जो राष्रीय अध्यापक
मशया पररर्द् (मान्यता मानदण्ड और मियामवमध) मवमनयम, 2002
के अनुसार प्राप्त मकया गया हो।
अथवा

न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ उछचार माध्यममक
(अथवा इसके समकक्ष) तथा 4 वर्ीय प्रारमम्भक मशक्षा शास्त्र में
स्नातक (बी.एल.एड.)
अथवा

न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ उछतर माध्यममक
(अथवा इसके समकक्ष) तथा मशक्षा शास्त्र (मवशेर् मशक्षा) में मद्ववर्ीय
मदप्लोमा
अथवा

स्नातक तथा प्रारमम्भक मशक्षा में मद्ववर्ीय मडप्लोमा
(चाहे मजस मकसी नाम से जाना जाता हो)
तथा

(ख) राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा इस प्रयोजन
के मलए जारी मकए गए मागटदशी मसद्धान्तों के अनुसार उपयुक्त सरकार
की आयोमजत अध्यापक पात्ता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी.) में पास होना।

(II) मूल अमधसूचना के पैरा 1 के उप-पैरा (ii) के
स्थान पर मनम्न प्रमतस्थामपत मकया जाएगा, नामत:

1. (ii) कक्षा VI-VIII

(क) स्नातक और प्रारमम्भक मशक्षा में मद्ववर्ीय
मदप्लोमा (चाहे मजस मकसी नाम से जाना जाता हो)
अथवा

न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ स्नातक एवं मशक्षा
शास्त्र में एक वर्ीय स्नातक (बी.एड.)
अथवा

न्यूनतम 45 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ स्नातक एवं मशक्षा
शास्त्र में एक वर्ीय स्नातक (बी.एड.) जो इस सम्बन्ध में समय-समय
पर जारी मकए गए राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् मान्यता मानदण्ड
तथा मियामवमध) मवमनयमों के अनुसार प्राप्त मकया गया हो।
अथवा
5 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
817

न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक
(अथवा इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्ीय प्रारमम्भक मशक्षा शास्त्र में
स्नातक (बी. एल. एड.)
अथवा

न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ उछचतर माध्यममक
(या इसके समकक्ष) एवं 4 वर्ीय बी.ए./बी.एस.सी.एड. या
बी.ए.एड./बी.एस.सी.एड.
अथवा

न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों से साथ स्नातक तथा एक
वर्ीय बी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा)
तथा

(ख) राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा इस प्रयोजन
के मलए जारी मकए गए मागटदशी मसद्धान्तों के अधीन उपयुक्त सरकार
द्वारा आयोमजत अध्यापक पात्ता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी.) में उत्तीणट।

(III ) मूल अशिसूचिा के पैरा 3 के स्िाि पर
शिम्ि प्रशिस्िाशपि शकया जाएगा, िामिः

(1) प्राप्त शकया जािे िाला प्रशिक्षण- ऐसा व्यमक्त
भी-

(क) मजसने न्यूनतम 50 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ
स्नातक और बी.एड. अहटता अथवा इस सम्बन्ध में समय-समय पर
जारी मकए गए राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् (मान्यता मानदण्ड और
मियामवमध) मवमनयमों के अनुसार न्यूनतम 45 प्रमतशत अंकों के साथ
स्नातक तथा मशक्षा में एक वर्ीय स्नातक (बी.एड.) उत्तीणट मकया हो,
जनवरी 2012 तक कक्षा I से V तक के मलए मनयुक्त मकए जाने का
पात् होगा बशते मक मनयुमक्त के बाद वह प्रामम्भक मशक्षा में राष्रीय
अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा मान्यताप्रदत्त 6 महीने का मवशेर्
कायटिम पूरा कर ले।

(ख) वह व्यमक्त, मजसने डी.एड. (मवशेर् मशक्षा)
अथवा बीएड (मवशेर् मशक्षा) उत्तीणट की हो, मनयुमक्त के बाद प्रारमम्भक
मशक्षा में राष्रीय अध्यापक मशक्षा पररर्द् द्वारा प्रदत्त 6 महीने का
मवशेर् कायटिम पूरा करेगा।

(ग) आरक्षण नीमत: आरमक्षत श्रेमणयों जैसे मक
एस.सी./एस.टी.ओ.बी.सी.पी.एच. आमद के अभ्यमथटयों को अहटक
अंकों में 5 प्रमतशत तक की छूट दी माएगी।

(IV) मूल अशिसूचिा के पैरा 5 के स्िाि पर
शिम्ि प्रशिस्िाशपि शकया जाएगा, िामिः

5. (क) कुछ मामलों में इस अशिसूचिा की शिशि
के बाद शियुक्त अध्यापक- इस अशिसूचिा की शिशि से पूिय यशद
सरकारों अििा स्िािीय प्राशिकाररयों अििा शिद्यालयों द्वारा
शिज्ञापि जारी कर अध्यापकों की शियुशक्त की प्रशक्रया आरम्भ
कर दी गई है, ऐसी शस्िशि में शियुशक्त, राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा
पररषद् (स्कूलों में अध्यापकों की भिी के शलए न्यूििम
योग्यिाओं का शििायरण) शिशियम, 2001 (समय-समय पर
यिासंिोशिि के अिुसार की जा सकिी हैं।

(ख) इस अशिसूचिा में उशललशखि न्यूििम
योग्यिा मािदण्ि भाषा, सामाशजक अध्ययि, शिज्ञाि आशद के
अध्यापकों के मामले में लागू होिे हैं। िारीररक शिक्षा के
अध्यापकों के मामले में िारीररक शिक्षा अध्यापकों के शलए
उशललशखि न्यूििम योग्यिा मािदण्ि लागू होंगे। कला शिक्षा,
शिलप शिक्षा, गृह शिज्ञाि, कायय शिक्षा आशद के अध्यापकों के
मामले में राज्य सरकारों ििा अन्य स्कूल प्रबन्िक िगों द्वारा
शििायररि पात्रिा मािदण्ि िब िक लागू रहेंगे जब िक शक ऐसे
अध्यापकों के सम्बन्ि में राष्ट्रीय अध्यापक शिक्षा पररषद्
न्यूििम योग्यिाएं शििायररि िहीं कर देिी।

मविम सहाय, संयोजक

[ मवज्ञापनIII/4/13I/2011/सा.]

मटप्पणीः- मूल अमधसूचना मदनांक 23 अगस्त
2010 की फा.स.61-1/2011/राअमशप (मा. तथा मा.) के रूप
में भारत के राजपत् असाधारण के भाग III के खण्ड 4में प्रकामशत
हुई थी।"

10. We have carefully gone through
the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties as well as the records
and find that while passing the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.3.2024 the
learned Single Judge has proceeded to
consider the Full Bench judgement of this
Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. State of
U.P. and Ors8 alongwith other connected
cases, wherein, the Full Bench had framed
following questions for consideration:-

"(a)
What does
the
phrase
"minimum qualifications" occurring in
Section 23 (1) of the right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
(the Act) mean - whether passing the
'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification
for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and it
insistence by the NCTE in the Notification
dated 23.8.2010 is in consonance with the
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
powers delegated to the NCTE under
Section 23 (1) of the Act?

(b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the
Notifications
dated
23.8.2010
and
29.7.2011 issued by the NCTE under Section
23 (1) of the Act, permits persons coming
under the ambit of that clause to not
undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test',
before they are eligible for appointment as
Assistant Teachers? What is the significance
of the words "shall also be eligible for
appointment for Class-I to V upto 1st
January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after
appointment an NCTE recognized six
months special programme in elementary
education"?

(c) Whether the opinion expressed
by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?"

11. Finally, the Full Bench had
answered all the above three questions with
following observations:-

"The questions that have been
therefore framed by us are answered as
follows:-

1. The teacher eligibility test is an
essential qualification that has to be
possessed by every candidate who seeks
appointment as a teacher of elementary
education in Classes 1 to 5 as per the
notification
dated
23.8.2010
which
notification is within the powers of the
NCTE under Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act.

2. Clause 3(a) of the notification
dated 23.8.2010 is an integral part of the
notification and cannot be read in isolation
so as to exempt such candidates who are
described in the said clause to be possessed
of qualifications from the teacher eligibility
test.

3. We approve of the judgment of
the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's
case to the extent of laying down the
interpretation of the commencement of
recruitment process under Clause 5 of the
notification
dated
23.8.2010
but
we
disapprove and overrule the ratio of the said
decision in relation to grant of exemption
and relaxation from teacher eligibility test
to the candidates referred to in Clause 3 (a)
of the notification dated 23.8.2010, and
consequently,
hold
that
the
teacher
eligibility test is compulsory for all
candidates referred to in Clause 1 and
Clause 3 (a)."

12. We have also considered very
carefully the contents of the impugned
judgment and the case set up by the
appellants-writ petitioners in context of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Rakesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi9, wherein the
following observations have been made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paras 6, 16 and
17:-

"6. There can be no dispute to the
settled legal proposition that the selection
process commences on the date when
applications are invited. Any person
eligible on the last date of submission of the
application has a right to be considered
against the said vacancy provided he fulfils
the requisite qualification.

16. In the instant case, the
appellant did not possess the requisite
qualification on the last date of submission
of the application though he applied
representing that he possessed the same.
The letter of offer of appointment was issued
to
him
which
was
provisional
and
conditional subject to the verification of
educational qualification, i.e., eligibility,
character verification etc. Clause 11 of the
letter of offer of appointment dated
23.2.2009 made it clear that in case
5 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
819
character is not certified or he did not
possess the qualification, the services will be
terminated. The legal proposition that
emerges from the settled position of law as
enumerated above is that the result of the
examination does not relate back to the
date of examination. A person would
possess qualification only on the date of
declaration of the result. Thus, in view of
the above, no exception can be taken to the
judgment of the High Court.

17. It also needs to be noted that
like the present appellant there could be
large number of candidates who were not
eligible
as
per
the
requirement
of
rules/advertisement since they did not
possess the required eligibility on the last
date of submission of the application
forms. Granting any benefit to the
appellant would be violative of the doctrine
of equality, a backbone of the fundamental
rights under our Constitution. A large
number of such candidates may not have
applied considering themselves to be
ineligible adhering to the statutory rules
and the terms of the advertisement.

There is no obligation on the court
to
protect
an
illegal
appointment.
Extraordinary power of the court should be
used only in an appropriate case to advance
the cause of justice and not to defeat the
rights of others or create arbitrariness.
Usurpation of a post by an ineligible
candidate
in
any
circumstance
is
impermissible. The process of verification
and notice of termination in the instant case
followed within a very short proximity of the
appointment and was not delayed at all so
as to even remotely give rise to an
expectancy of continuance.

The appeal is devoid of any merit
and does not present special features
warranting any interference by this court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)

13. In the case of Dipitimayee Parida
Vs. State of Orissa10 Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-

"16. Even otherwise, ordinarily
the qualification or extra qualification laid
down for the recruitment should be
considered as on the last date for filing of
the application. This has been so held in
Rekha
Chaturvedi
v.
University
of
Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993
SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234]
stating: (SCC p. 175, para 10):

"10. The contention that the
required qualifications of the candidates
should be examined with reference to the
date of selection and not with reference to
the last date for making applications has
only to be stated to be rejected. The date of
selection is invariably uncertain. In the
absence of knowledge of such date the
candidates who apply for the posts would be
unable to state whether they are qualified
for the posts in question or not, if they are
yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the
advertisement mentions a fixed date with
reference to which the qualifications are to
be judged, whether the said date is of
selection or otherwise, it would not be
possible for the candidates who do not
possess the requisite qualifications in
praesenti even to make applications for the
posts. The uncertainty of the date may also
lead to a contrary consequence viz. even
those candidates who do not have the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to
acquire them at an uncertain future date,
may apply for the posts thus swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse
consequence may follow, in that it may leave
open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as
to entertain some applicants and reject
others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of
a
fixed
date
indicated
in
the
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications with reference to which the
requisite qualifications should be judged,
the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for
making
the
applications."
(Emphasis
supplied)

14. We find that the TET was an
essential qualification with effect from the
date of notification dated 23.8.2010 issued
by NCTE. Admittedly, in the present case,
the recruitment process had commenced
later on and therefore, it was mandatory that
the
petitioners
must
possess
TET
qualification at the time of selection, which
they did not possess. In Shiv Kumar
Sharma (supra), the Full Bench has
categorically held that TET was an essential
qualification in any recruitment process
commenced
after
date
of
relevant
notification i.e. 23.8.2010, therefore no
benefit could be granted to the petitioners in
regard
to
Clause-5
of
subsequent
notification issued by the NCTE dated
29.7.2011.

15. Learned Single Judge, while
considering the claim set-up by the
appellants-petitioners has considered that
TET was essential qualification with effect
from the date of notification dated
23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE. In the
present case, the recruitment process
commenced later on. Admittedly, at the time
of initiation of the recruitment process, even
on the last date of submission of the form,
the appellants-petitioners were not inhering
the
essential
qualification
of
TET.
Therefore, in such circumstances, by no
stretch of imagination, the said provision
can be relaxed, as it is already answered by
the Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma's
case (supra). Therefore, there is no infirmity
in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, which warrant any interference in
this intra court appeal.

16. In the case of Rakesh Kumar
Sharma (supra), the applicant did not
possess the requisite qualification on the last
date of submission of the application,
though he applied, representing himself that
he
possessed
the
same
and
the
provisional/conditional letter of offer of
appointment was issued to him. Clause 11 of
the letter of offer of appointment dated
23.2.2009 made it clear that in case
character is not certified or he did not
possess the qualification, the services will be
terminated. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the result of the examination does
not relate back to the date of examination.
Like the present appellant there could be
large number of candidates, who were not
eligible
as
per
the
requirement
of
rules/advertisement since they did not
possess the required eligibility on the last
date of submission of the application forms.
Granting any benefit to the appellant would
be violative of the doctrine of equality.

17. In Dipitimayee Parida (supra)
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless
the advertisement mentions a fixed date with
reference to which the qualifications are to
be judged, whether the said date is of
selection or otherwise, it would not be
possible for the candidates, who do not
possess the requisite qualifications in
praesenti even to make applications for the
posts. The uncertainty of the date may also
lead to a contrary consequence viz. even
those candidates who do not have the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to
acquire them at an uncertain future date,
may apply for the posts thus swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse
consequence may follow, as it may leave
open a scope for malpractices. The date of
5 All. Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
821
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as
to entertain some applicants and reject
others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of
a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/
notification
inviting
applications
with
reference
to
which
the
requisite
qualifications should be judged, the only
certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for
making the applications.

18. In view of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar
Sharma (supra) and Dipitimayee Parida
(supra), we find that the instant appeal lacks
merit and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 821
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ - A No. 3863 of 2018

Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aishwarya Kumar Singh, Anand Kumar
Yadav,
Rajesh
Kumar
Singh,
Rupesh
Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Arun Kumar, Chhaya Gupta

A. Service Law - UP Basic Education
Act,
1972
-
UP
Basic
Education
(Teacher)
Service
Rules,
1981
-
Payment
of
salary
-
Petitioner
discharged
the
duty
of
In-charge
Headmistress for more than 29 years,
but no salary of the same was paid -
Mandamus sought - Held, the petitioner
is entitled for higher salary even for adhoc basis on the post of Headmistress.
(Para 7 and 12)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs St. of U.P.;
2014 (3) SCC 1644

2. Smt. P. Grover Vs St. of Hary. & anr.; AIR 1983
SC 1060

3. Secy.- Cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs
Hari Om Sharma & ors.; AIR 1998 SC 2909

4. St. of Punj. & anr. Vs Dharam Pal; (2017) 9
SCC 395

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondents no.2 to 5 and learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has made the following prayer:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to provide the
salary to the petitioner to the post of Head
Mistress w.e.f. 17.02.1988 of the college in
question namely Zila Pachayat Kanya
Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mauaima
Allahabad, with all consequential benefits,
forthwith.

(ii) .....

(iii) ...."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
Zila Pachayat Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik
Vidyalaya situated at Mauaima, Allahabad
is a recognized institution under the
Provision of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education