WRIT, DISMISSED, UPTET : टीईटी 2011 (UPTET 2011) की वैधता बढ़ाने को लेकर पड़ी याचिका मुख्य न्यायाधीश की बेंच ने की खारिज, क्लिक कर देखें ।

WRIT, UPTET : टीईटी 2011 की वैधता बढ़ाने को लेकर पड़ी याचिका मुख्य न्यायाधीश की बेंच ने की खारिज

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46857 of 2017

Petitioner :- Anupama Dwivedi And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh Bishen
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rashmi Tripathi

Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Mr. Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Som Narayan Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Rashmi Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Petitioners primarily challenge Clause 11 of the Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 11 February 2011 whereunder it is provided that the appropriate Government shall conduct a TET at least once every year. It further provides that the validity period of TET qualifying certificate for appointment will be decided by the appropriate Government subject to a maximum of seven years for all categories, but there will be no restriction on the number of attempts a person can take for acquiring a TET certificate. It further provides that a person, who has qualified TET, may also appear again for improving his/her score. Counsel for the petitioners submits that once having acquired the TET certificate, the State Government cannot fix validity period of TET qualifying certificate for appointment and appointment can be made on the basis of TET certificate even after the maximum period prescribed under Clause 11 of the Guidelines.
We do not find any merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The requirement of TET certificate is not the qualification for appointment as primary teachers but it is only an eligibility test one has to clear, before he seeks appointment as a teacher, and even if the appointment is not made within a period of five years, he is required to once again clear the said test for enabling him to make further attempts for getting appointment as primary teacher. We do not find any irrationality in prescribing such conditions in the guidelines. The object is to ensure that a candidate, with passage of time, has not forgotten the subject which he had studied at the qualifying examination and at the time of his seeking appointment as a teacher, he still has adequate command over the subject which he would be required to teach.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition. Petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.10.2017
AHA
(Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)

(M K Gupta, J)