UPTET-HC says-ongoing selection process should remain suspended till 11.02.2013(stay on uptet prt selection process & counselling)
?Court No. - 33
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2013 Petitioner :- Navin Srivastava And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sujeet Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Shailendra
����������������������������������� And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 152 of 2013
Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sadanand Mishra,Seemant Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
����������������������������������� And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 2013
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 161 of 2013
Petitioner :- Alok Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastasva
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
������� In this bunch of similar appeals, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Connect these appeals and list them together as a bunch on 11.02.2013.
������ All candidates have cleared the TET. One of the basic questions that arises in these cases is that if the criteria for selection is the TET merit, then whether the selection had taken place before the training, or after the training, the result would have been the same. Clause No. 10 of the Advertisement says that after successful completion of training (approved by the NCTE) the substantive appointments would be made as per 1981 Rules and Twelfth amendment 2011. While deciding a case we have to go by the substance. By way of example if the selected candidates had not been called 'apprentice teachers', but had been selected on merits merely for 'training with scholarships equivalent to salary', and after successful completion of training again subjected to selection as per their merit in TET (which at that time was the prescribed criteria), the result in substance would have been the same as obtaining today. And in such case the ground that there was no post of 'apprentice teachers' would not be available.
������� The basis for cancellation of the earlier selection process as mentioned in the order dated 26.07.2012 consists of two kind of grounds. The first ground says that some alleged irregularities were found in conducting of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET for short). It appears that some High Powered Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary gave a report. On the basis of that report, the entire selection process, wherein the merit of the TET was the determining�criteria, was canceled.
������� The learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order that if some irregularities were found at some places, the good part of the TET should have been attempted to be separated from the bad or vitiated part, but the entire selection should not have been canceled.
����� �� So far as there is nothing to show from the side of the State that the good part that is to say places where there was no irregularity in the TET could or could not be separated from the bad part that is from places or areas where irregularities had taken place.
�������� As prayed by the learned Additional Advocate General, the report of the High Powered Committee may be placed on record by means of a counter-affidavit, which will also indicate with cogent reasons, on the basis of that report or other previous records, whether it was, or was not, possible to separate the good part from the bad part.
����� � The second kind of ground of the order dated 26.07.2012 indicates that it was felt that the criteria for determining the merit for selection on the basis of merit in the TET should be replaced by the criteria of determining the merit on the basis of quality point marks as calculated on the basis of past academic record, ignoring the merit of TET. This substituted criteria was believed to be better by way of some after-thought. Accordingly Rules were amended.
������� The learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order that such change of criteria can only be prospective and cannot affect the previous selections.
������� Moreover, we are also prima facie of the opinion that this change of thought namely that the previous criteria could be replaced by seemingly better criteria for determining merit cannot be a ground for canceling the entire selection process. If that kind of ground urged by the State is accepted, it is equally possible that tomorrow some other Government or some other official may think that perhaps the new suggested criteria (of quality point marks) could be replaced by what he believes to be a still better criteria, could again form the basis of scrapping the fresh selection process which is ongoing.
������� In the fresh selection process, there is an extremely large number of candidates whose counseling is said to have started from today.
�������� Obviously, the counseling will take time, and we intend, with the consent of the parties, to finally dispose of all these appeals at the admission stage, for which we have fixed 11.02.2013. Therefore, we are of the opinion that so many candidates should not be put to the trouble of counseling, which may, if these appeals are ultimately allowed, be reduced to a futile exercise. Therefore, keeping in view the larger overall interest of all parties involved, including the interest of those candidates who are not parties before us, we are of the opinion that the ongoing selection process should remain suspended till 11.02.2013. Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.2.2013
Sunil Kr Tiwari
(Manoj Misra,J.) (Sushil Harkauli,J.)
?Court No. - 33
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2013 Petitioner :- Navin Srivastava And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sujeet Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Shailendra
����������������������������������� And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 152 of 2013
Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sadanand Mishra,Seemant Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
����������������������������������� And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 2013
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 161 of 2013
Petitioner :- Alok Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Srivastasva
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
������� In this bunch of similar appeals, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Connect these appeals and list them together as a bunch on 11.02.2013.
������ All candidates have cleared the TET. One of the basic questions that arises in these cases is that if the criteria for selection is the TET merit, then whether the selection had taken place before the training, or after the training, the result would have been the same. Clause No. 10 of the Advertisement says that after successful completion of training (approved by the NCTE) the substantive appointments would be made as per 1981 Rules and Twelfth amendment 2011. While deciding a case we have to go by the substance. By way of example if the selected candidates had not been called 'apprentice teachers', but had been selected on merits merely for 'training with scholarships equivalent to salary', and after successful completion of training again subjected to selection as per their merit in TET (which at that time was the prescribed criteria), the result in substance would have been the same as obtaining today. And in such case the ground that there was no post of 'apprentice teachers' would not be available.
������� The basis for cancellation of the earlier selection process as mentioned in the order dated 26.07.2012 consists of two kind of grounds. The first ground says that some alleged irregularities were found in conducting of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET for short). It appears that some High Powered Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary gave a report. On the basis of that report, the entire selection process, wherein the merit of the TET was the determining�criteria, was canceled.
������� The learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order that if some irregularities were found at some places, the good part of the TET should have been attempted to be separated from the bad or vitiated part, but the entire selection should not have been canceled.
����� �� So far as there is nothing to show from the side of the State that the good part that is to say places where there was no irregularity in the TET could or could not be separated from the bad part that is from places or areas where irregularities had taken place.
�������� As prayed by the learned Additional Advocate General, the report of the High Powered Committee may be placed on record by means of a counter-affidavit, which will also indicate with cogent reasons, on the basis of that report or other previous records, whether it was, or was not, possible to separate the good part from the bad part.
����� � The second kind of ground of the order dated 26.07.2012 indicates that it was felt that the criteria for determining the merit for selection on the basis of merit in the TET should be replaced by the criteria of determining the merit on the basis of quality point marks as calculated on the basis of past academic record, ignoring the merit of TET. This substituted criteria was believed to be better by way of some after-thought. Accordingly Rules were amended.
������� The learned Single Judge has held in the impugned order that such change of criteria can only be prospective and cannot affect the previous selections.
������� Moreover, we are also prima facie of the opinion that this change of thought namely that the previous criteria could be replaced by seemingly better criteria for determining merit cannot be a ground for canceling the entire selection process. If that kind of ground urged by the State is accepted, it is equally possible that tomorrow some other Government or some other official may think that perhaps the new suggested criteria (of quality point marks) could be replaced by what he believes to be a still better criteria, could again form the basis of scrapping the fresh selection process which is ongoing.
������� In the fresh selection process, there is an extremely large number of candidates whose counseling is said to have started from today.
�������� Obviously, the counseling will take time, and we intend, with the consent of the parties, to finally dispose of all these appeals at the admission stage, for which we have fixed 11.02.2013. Therefore, we are of the opinion that so many candidates should not be put to the trouble of counseling, which may, if these appeals are ultimately allowed, be reduced to a futile exercise. Therefore, keeping in view the larger overall interest of all parties involved, including the interest of those candidates who are not parties before us, we are of the opinion that the ongoing selection process should remain suspended till 11.02.2013. Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.2.2013
Sunil Kr Tiwari
(Manoj Misra,J.) (Sushil Harkauli,J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment