Ram Kumar Patel & Ors. etc. v. State of U.P.
& Ors
1. The High court has quashed the U.P Basic Education (Teachers) Service (16th
amendment) Rules, 2012 on the ground that it was in conflict with the notification dated
11.02.2012 issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE). The appeal
has arisen from the judgement dated 01.12.2016 by the High Court of judicature
Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 657 of 2015.
2. The U.P Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 have been framed under
section. 19 of U.P Basic Education Act, 1972. Sec 19 of the Act lays down the rules to
determine the qualification for appointment of teachers and conditions of service of
teachers of basic School.
3. According to the rule 8 of the Rules, the qualification for appointment of teacher is Basic
Teacher’s Certificate (BTC), Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior’s Teacher’s
Certificate, Certificate of teaching and any other training course recognized by
Government as equivalent thereto
4. Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE
Act) also prescribes the qualification for the appointment of teachers. The NCTE
constituted under the National Councils for Teachers Education Act, 1993 has been
prescribed as an academic authority by the central Government to lay down the minimum
qualification for appointment of teachers. The Notification dated 23.08.2010 has been
issued by the NCTE for laying down the qualifications. Teacher eligibility test (TET) is
the essential qualification prescribed under the qualification. The Notification dated.
11.02.2011 provided that in the process of appointment of teachers, the preference has to
be given to the marks obtained in the TET exam.
5. The state of Uttar Pradesh amended 1981 Rules by 12 th amendment. This done to cope up
with the notification dated. 11.02.2011. However, this was subsequently amended. Some
of them were challenged before the court on the ground that it was repugnant to
notification dated. 11.02.2011. The Allahabad High court had taken conflicting views. In
Prabhakar Singh versus State of U.P, the court held that the weightage of marks taken in
TET exam was not mandatory. The judgement was doubted and referred to the full bench.
In Shiv Kumar Sharma versus State of U.P, it was held that, In case of repugnancy on a
subject of concurrent list, the state rule was required to comply with the disposition in the
central legislation. The same view was taken in Shiv Kumar Pathak versus State of U.P
and held that the fifteenth amendment to the rules was held to be in conflict with the
NCTE notification dated 11.02.2011. On this basis, the impugned judgement struck down
the sixteenth amendment.
MATTER IN ISSUE’
Whether the U.P Basic Education (Teachers) Service (16th amendment) Rules, 2012 is
in conflict with the notification dated 11.02.2012 issued by the National Council for
Teachers Education (NCTE)?
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
The state of U.P contended that there was no conflict between the notification and the
amendment in rules and submitted that the jurisdiction of NCTE under section 23(1)
was limited to laying down of qualification as a condition and the power stipulated
under the section didn’t stipulate the selection process.
The NCTE contended that the notification suggesting weightage of TET marks was
not mandatory. However, the petitioner submitted that since the issue is covered by
Entry 25 List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, any standard laid down
by the Central Government will bind the State and any conflicting decision of the State
will be unconstitutional
JUDGEMENT.
The Court didn’t find any conflict between the notification issued and the amendment to
the state rules because the notification suggesting the weightage of TET marks as a mere
guideline. The court already dealt with the matter in Civil Appeal No. 4347-4375 of 2014
entitled the State of U.P. and ors. Versus Shiv Kumar Pathak and Ors, and held that
weightage of TET marks was not mandatory and cannot be declared void on the ground of
repugnancy.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133968842/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57760362/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31803044/
