Arjun Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

An advertisement was issued on 1st February, 2014, by the Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand, whereby, applications were invited from the eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers, Primary Schools.

Primarily, the issue, with which, we are concerned in the present case is in relation to as to what interpretation is to be given to Clause (1) of the said advertisement dated 01.02.2014, which relates to the qualification required by the candidate, which as per the advertisement, reads as under :-

""(1) शैक्षिक एवं प्रशिक्षण अर्हता :-

राष्ट्रीय अघ्यापक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा निर्धारित मानकों के अनुसार शैक्षिक एवं प्रशिक्षण अर्हतायें निम्नवत् है :-

(i) भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित महाविघालय /विश्वविघालय, जो विश्व विघालय अनुदान आयोग से मान्यता प्राप्त हो, से स्नातक की उपाधि तथा राष्ट्रीय अघ्यापक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त संस्थान से बी0एड0/ बी0एड0 (विशेष शिक्षा) / डी0एड0 (विशेष शिक्षा) अर्हता प्राप्त की हो।

(ii) उत्तराखंड सरकार अथवा केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा कक्षा-1 से 5 के शिक्षकों हेतु आयोजित अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा (टी.ई.टी.) उत्तीर्ण।"

The said provision aforesaid provides that in order to make a candidate eligible to participate in the process of selection for the recruitment as an Assistant Teacher, Primary School, he or she ought to be graduation as well as should have B.Ed. degree issued from an institution which has been established in accordance with the prevalent Indian Law and simultaneously, it should be a qualification given by an institution, which is duly recognized by NCTE as well as by the UGC.

On a composite reading of this Clause, when the two qualifications have been made essential and as to be the basis for eligibility to enable the candidate to participate in the selection, it has had to be a qualification which is imparted by the Institution, which has been established by Law as applicable in India.

Admittedly, as per the pleadings and records placed by the petitioner before this Court, shows that he had completed his B.Ed. qualification from an Institution called as "College of Education, Kathmandu, Nepal", from where, he has been awarded the degree of B.Ed., which has been issued to him from the University called as "Tribhuwan University, Kathmandu, Nepal".

The petitioner was not considered and granted appointment on the ground that the qualification which he posseses in relation to the B.Ed. qualification, since being a qualification which was imparted to him by an Institution established as per the laws applicable in Nepal, the same cannot be treated as to be an equivalent qualification as provided under Clause (1) of the advertisement dated 1st February, 2014, and his B.Ed., which he has completed from the Tribhuwan University, Kathmandu, Napal, cannot be said to be a University, which is established as per the laws applicable in India. On this premise, his candidature cannot be treated as to be an eligible candidate entitling him for his participation in the process of selection or consequent thereto for the grant of appointment on selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 1st February, 2014.

Agitating his claim for appointment, the petitioner had approached earlier before this Court by filing a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 2335 of 2015 (S/S), which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim raised by the petitioner for appointment by way of filing of a representation.

The same was disposed of by this Court by the judgment dated 10th April, 2017, with the direction to take a final decision on the representation in view of Annexure No. 8 dated 11th February, 2010, and the following order was passed :

"Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision in view of Annexure No.8 dated 11th February, 2010 read in conjunction with Annexure No. 13 dated 21.10.2014 within a period of eight weeks from today."

On considering the aforesaid claim in the light of the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 10th April, 2017, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and had rejected the same by the impugned order dated 24th May, 2017, which is under challenge before this Court.

After having gone through the reasoning which has been assigned in the impugned order, this Court is in agreement with the reasoning given therein. Because the provisions pertaining to the qualifications, as provided in the advertisement which contemplates a graduation as well as B.Ed., to be essential qualification for appointment as a Primary School Assistant Teacher, it has had to be read that both the qualifications of graduation and B.Ed. ought to have been acquired by the candidate from the Institution or the University, which is duly established in accordance with the law as applicable in the country.

Admittedly, the University from where the petitioner has completed his B.Ed., since cannot be treated to be established in accordance with the Indian Laws, the qualification acquired by the petitioner from the said University cannot be treated as to be an equivalent qualification to have been imparted by the institution established under the Indian Laws.

Hence, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.