इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने शिक्षा डिप्लोमाधारक याचियों को जूनियर स्कूल के सहायक अध्यापक चयन प्रक्रिया में शामिल करने का दिया निर्देश, कोर्ट की अनुमति के बाद ही मिल सकेगा नियुक्तिपत्र

⚫ सबसे नीचे कोर्ट आर्डर अपडेट किया गया है, देखें सबसे नीचे 

इलाहाबाद। इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने दो वर्षीय शिक्षा डिप्लोमाधारक याचियों को जूनियर बेसिक स्कूल के सहायक अध्यापक चयन प्रक्त्रिया में शामिल करने का निर्देश दिया है। कोर्ट ने कहा है कि नियुक्ति पर विचार किया जाए किन्तु बिना कोर्ट की अनुमति लिए याचियों को नियुक्ति पत्र जारी न किया जाए। कोर्ट ने राज्य सरकार से दो हफ्ते में जवाब मांगा है। याचिका की सुनवाई 30 जनवरी को होगी। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति मनोज कुमार गुप्ता ने इलाहाबाद के अजय कुमार व दो अन्य की याचिका पर दिया है। याचिका पर अधिवक्ता सत्येन्द्र चन्द्र त्रिपाठी ने बहस की। 

मालूम हो कि 23 दिसम्बर 16 को जूनियर बेसिक स्कूलों में सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती विज्ञापन निकाला गया। जिसमें शिक्षा में डिप्लोमा को शामिल नहीं किया गया। याची का कहना है कि एन.सी.टी.ई. के 23 अगस्त 10 व 29 जुलाई 22 की अधिसूचना से शिक्षा डिप्लोमा को मान्यता प्रदान की है। सीनियर सेकेण्ड्री स्कूल में 45 फीसदी अंक के साथ 2 वर्षीय एलिमेन्ट्री शिक्षा में डिप्लोमा को अर्ह माना गया है। जिसमें बीटीसी, जेबीटी, डीएड एवं डिप्लोमा इन एजुकेशन शामिल है। कोर्ट ने अन्तरिम आदेश से शिक्षा डिप्लोमा को भी अर्हता प्रदान करने का निर्देश दिया है। इसके बावजूद सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती में शिक्षा डिप्लोेमा धारकों के आवेदन स्वीकार नहीं किये जा रहे हैं। कोर्ट ने कहा कि यदि याचीगण योग्यता प्रमाण पत्र के साथ आवेदन देते हैं तो बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के सचिव उसे स्वीकार करें और 23 दिसम्बर 16 के विज्ञापन के तहत भर्ती में शामिल करने से शिक्षा डिप्लोमा के आधार पर इंकार न करें और उनके आवेदन पर विचार किया जाए।

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. - 17 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 263 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar And 2 Ors. 

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar, Rashmi Tripathi, Sanjay Chaturvedi 

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. 

By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the stipulation in the advertisement dated 23.12.2016 in so far as it does not include Diploma in Education (two years) as a valid qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 19811. 

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after issuance of notifications dated 23 August 2010 and 29 July 2011 by National Council for Teacher Education including the said qualification as a valid qualification for appointment of a person as an assistant teacher in a Junior Basic School, the impugned advertisement, in so far as it restricts the minimum qualification for appointment to those specified in Rule 8, is illegal. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No.130 of 2014 Harsh Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and others connected with Special Appeal No.131 of 2014, wherein it is held that the notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education will have an overriding effect over the Rules, 1981. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, this Court has entertained a writ petition in relation to an advertisement dated 25.6.2016 in which similar restriction was placed in regard to Diploma in Education (two years course). 

The order passed in one of such writ petitions, being Writ Petition No.30664 of 2016, is to the following effect:- 

"This petition has been filed for quashing the Advertisement dated 25.06.2016 in so far as it does not include Diploma in Education (Two Years) as one of the eligibility qualifications for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools against 16448 advertised vacancies. A further prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioners to fill up on-line application form for the advertised posts. 

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have passed U.P.-TET, 2015 and hold Diploma in Education (two years course) from Sri Radhakirshna College of Education, Bhopal, which is affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and the said institute is affiliated to Barkatullah University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (earlier known as Bhopal University) which was included in the list of universities maintained by UGC under Section 2(f) of UGC Act, 1956 and the said course is duly recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). It is the case of the petitioners that the Diploma in Education is not included as one of the alternative eligibility qualifications provided for seeking appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools, even though, the equal qualifications like BTC, etc., are in the advertisement as eligibility qualification. It is further the case of the petitioners that exercising delegated power under Section 23(1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the NCTE, which is the academic authority, vide Notification dated 28th November, 2014 has notified the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. Regulation 9 of the said Regulations provides that every institution offering the programmes shown in the table shall have to comply with the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes as specified in Appendix-1 to Appendix-15. The norms and standards for Elementary Teacher Education programme leading to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) has been provided in Appendix-2. It has been submitted that Clause 1.2 of Appendix-2 provides that the elementary teacher education programme carries different nomenclatures such as BTC, J.B.T., D.Ed and (Diploma in Education). It is provided therein that henceforth, the nomenclature of the programme shall be the same across all states and it shall be referred to as the 'Diploma in Elementary Education (D. El. Ed.). 

It has been submitted that Diploma in Education is nothing but equivalent to the BTC course, etc., which has been provided for as one of the eligibility qualifications and, therefore, the petitioners, who hold recognized qualification, as per the NCTE Norms, which bind the authorities as has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (6) ADJ 310 as also in another Full Bench decision in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others 2015 (8) ADJ 338 (FB), the State cannot alter the eligibility qualification and make it at variance with that provided by the NCTE. It has, accordingly, been submitted that the petitioners are entitled to submit their application form for consideration of their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher as advertised on 25.06.2016. 

The matter requires consideration. 

Sri A.K. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2. He prays for and is allowed four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week, thereafter. 

List this petition on 22.08.2016. In the meantime, it is provided that if an application is moved by the petitioners by annexing the relevant qualifications which the petitioners possess along with certified copy of this order before the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad by Monday i.e. 18.07.2016 with a prayer that the petitioners be allowed to fill up their application pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.06.2016, their application shall not be rejected merely because the petitioners hold a Diploma in Education (Two Years) and, in fact, they shall be allowed to apply for appointment, pursuant to the advertisement, if otherwise they are eligible, and their candidature for appointment on the posts concerned shall be considered, but no appointment letter shall be issued to them without the leave of the Court." 

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, Sri Awadhesh Kumar appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3, Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 and Ms. Rashmi Tripathi appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 do not dispute that Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) is prescribed as valid minimum qualification under the notification issued by NCTE dated 23 August 2010. It is also not disputed that under Appendix 2 of the Regulations dated 28.11.2014 made by NCTE it has been clarified that the elementary teacher education programme carries different nomenclatures such as B.T.C., J.B.T., D.Ed. and Diploma in Education. For removing the confusion, thenceforth, the nomenclature of the programme was changed to 'Diploma in Elementary Education' to be applicable uniformally to all states in the country. It has not been disputed before this Court that in similar circumstances, in Writ-A No.30664 of 2016, this Court while considering the issue relating to inclusion of Diploma in Education (two years) as a valid qualification for appointment on the post of assistant teachers in Junior Basic Schools, has granted an interim order to the effect quoted above. 

In the opinion of the Court, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for being granted similar interim protection. 

All the respondents are granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. 

List in the week commencing 30 January 2017. 

In view of the submissions made and having regard to the facts of the case, it is provided that if an application is moved by the petitioners by annexing the relevant qualifications which the petitioners possess along with certified copy of this order before the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad by Monday i.e. 9.01.2017 with a prayer that the petitioners be allowed to fill up their application pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.12.2016, their application shall not be rejected merely because the petitioners hold a Diploma in Education (Two Years) and, in fact, they shall be allowed to apply for appointment, pursuant to the advertisement, if otherwise they are eligible, and their candidature for appointment on the posts concerned shall be considered, but no appointment letter shall be issued to them without the leave of the Court. 

Copy of this order shall be made available to learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges today itself. 

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) 

Order Date :- 6.1.2017 

SL