The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petitions against not considering Nursery Training Certificate equivalent to BTC for appointment of assistant teachers in primary schools of the state.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Mala Yadav and 10 Others.
Petitioners before the Court have passed Certificate in Nursery Training Examination-2013 conducted by Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh (Authority) and their respective certificates are part of record.
Petitioners have also passed Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test, 2013 (TET) and thereafter participated in counselling for appointment of Assistant Teachers but they were not appointed purportedly on a ground that they have not possessed essential qualification in terms of notification/ advertisement dated 17.10.2013 i.e they have not qualified 2 years BTC Course/2 years Urdu BTC Course or Special BTC Course and that “Nursery Training Certificate” would not be equivalent to said essential qualification.
Essentially, the case of the petitioners is that the Nursery Training Certificate is equivalent to Diploma in Elementary Education in terms of notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) as such it would be equivalent to BTC Course.
It is further case of the petitioners that after enforcement of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and thereafter enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, and whereby subsequent to notification issued by NCTE (competent authority) which provided minimum qualification for appointment of Assistant Teacher in primary school and promotion of Assistant Teacher in State of UP have to be in terms of Notification dated 23.08.2010 and amended Notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by NCTE.
Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Himanshu Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi and Ajay Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently referred and placed reliance upon notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by NCTE that minimum qualification for teachers of class I to V is Senior Secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and two years Diploma in Elementary Education and that since the petitioners have Nursery Training Certificates which is equivalent to Diploma in Elementary Education though known by said terminology and is also equivalent to Basic Training Certificate i.e BTC, therefore, they possessed minimum eligibility.
Senior Advocate also urged that minimum qualification prescribed in terms of aforesaid notification dated 23.08.2010 has not been completely followed by respondents and despite petitioners were duly eligible having minimum educational qualification were wrongly denied from their appointment despite they participated in counselling and they would have definitely in merit list if their result were declared.
Senior Advocate also submitted that above referred mandamus was not honoured and despite petitioners’ case was squarely covered with above referred judgment in Harsh Kumar (supra), still they were not selected.
In a bunch of cases, an interim order was passed on 25.09.2024 that the result of petitioners be declared and in case their aggregate was above the cut off merit, appointment letters be issued to them. The interim order was challenged by the State in Special Appeal. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the Special Appeal by a judgment dated 01.02.2019.
Per contra, Archana Singh, counsel for the respondent, Shivendra Singh Bhadauriya, counsel for the respondent no 5 and R.N Pandey, Shashi Prakash Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Shruti Malviya and Survesh Srivastava, Standing Counsel for the State respondents have submitted that petitioners’ act were not bonafide. In online form, it was declared that they have passed the BTC course and filled in an imaginary maximum number and imaginary number they got, knowingly they have never passed BTC.
Counsel for respondents have referred to a copy of forms submitted by petitioners online, being part of a supplementary counter affidavit filed on 24.05.2019 and they have submitted that petitioners have played fraud.
The Court observed that,
The issue before the Court for consideration is that whether “Nursery Training Certificate” is equivalent to “Diploma in Elementary Education” (by whatever name known) (as mentioned in NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended on 29.07.2011) and subsequent notification dated 12.09.2014 and whether it is also equivalent to “Basic Teachers Training Certificate” for purpose of minimum qualification for post of Assistant Teacher in primary school (class I to V) run by Basic Education Board?
The crux of argument of petitioners is that once NCTE, the appropriate Authority under National Council for Teachers Education (Amendment) Act, 2011, by a notification has provided minimum qualification in terms of Act of 2009, the same will govern irrespective of any minimum qualification prescribed for appointment on post of Assistant Teacher by of any State.
In order to substantiate the argument, Senior Advocate has referred to various provisions of above referred Act, Rules and Circulars which do not require to elaborate since they have been considered by Division Bench of the Court in Harsh Kumar (supra), a judgment relied upon by petitioner.
The above mandamus was that the essential qualification given in Notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended by Notification dated 27.08.2011 be applied in selection process in question subject to verification whether candidate possesses qualification in terms of notification, therefore, there was no occasion for Division Bench to consider whether “Nursery Training Certificate” would be a minimum qualification equivalent to BTC Course?
The above issue was later on considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra) wherein Harsh Kumar (supra) as well as a subsequent notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by NCTE was also considered. As well as the stand of NCTE was also heard.
“The Court has undertaken the above exercise as Harsh Kumar (supra) has also granted liberty to verify whether the course of a candidate would be same in terms of notification issued by NCTE, otherwise, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra) is completely against the petitioners.
A bare consideration of standards of course material of Certificate Training (Shishu Shiksha) and Basic Teacher Certificate are sufficient to observe that course material of Basic Training Certificate is proposed for purpose of teaching upto Class-V, whereas course material of CT (Shishu Shiksha) would be limited to pre-school i.e. up to class-II only.
In view of aforesaid observations, not only U.P Basic Shiksha Parishad (supra) is against the petitioners but above consideration of course material of CT (Shishu Shiksha) is not equivalent to course material of minimum qualification i.e B.T.C for appointment of Assistant Teachers”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petitions.