HIMANSHU DABAS & ORS vs CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1.Vide the present petition, the petitioners who claim to be holders of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) /Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.),

have sought a direction to the respondents to hold the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) as expeditiously as possible. Â

2.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though all the petitioners are holding the requisite educational qualifications for being appointed

as Primary Teachers/Trained Graduate Teachers, they are not able to apply for the same against the vacancies being advertised by various employers

including Government of NCT of Delhi, only on account of not possessing the CTET which, under the provisions of The Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is mandatory qualification for being appointed as Primary Teachers/T.G.T. in the Schools. Â

3.The petitioners have arrayed not only the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), which has been authorised to conduct the aforesaid

examination but also the National Council for Teacher Education; Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, Government of

NCT of Delhi as also Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, as respondents.

4.Upon notice being issued in the matter, on the last date Mr.Amit Bansal, learned counsel for CBSE, had taken a stand that the CBSE was only

authorised to conduct the examination but the same is done only upon receipt of instructions for conducting the said examination       Â

from the respondent no.2/National Council for Teacher Education. He had further submitted that since respondent no.2 had not directed the

respondent no.1/CBSE to conduct any exam in 2017, the said examination could not be held in the year 2017. In these circumstances, the Court had

directed the concerned officers of respondent nos.2 & 4, to remain present today, who are present in Court.

5.Today, Ms.Arumita Dwivedi, standing counsel for respondent no.2, submits that in terms of the guidelines for conducting T.E.T (Teachers Eligibility

Test) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said guidelines’), the respondent no.2 has already authorised respondent no.1/CBSE to conduct the

examination in accordance with the said guidelines atleast once a year. She has handed over a copy of the letter dated 11th February, 2011, written

by respondent no.2 to all Secretaries/Commissioners of Education of State

Governments/Union Territories, a copy whereof has also been addressed to the Chairman of respondent no.1/CBSE. She draws my attention to

Paras 4 & 11 of the said Guidelines to contend that it was for respondent no.1 to conduct CTET on a regular basis as instructions in this regard have

already been issued to respondent no.1. Paras 4 & 11 of the said Guidelines reads as under :-

4.The TET examination may be conducted by a suitable professional body designated by the appropriate Government for the purpose. It will be

conducted in accordance with the Guidelines hereunder.â€​

Frequency of conduct of TET and validity period of TET certificate

11.The appropriate Government should conduct a TET at least once every year. 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. A person who has qualified TET may also appear again for improving

his/her score.â€​

6.Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further submits that the aforesaid letter, was followed by a specific letter dated 28th February, 2011 written to

respondent no.1 requesting it to hold the CTET and, therefore, urges that it was the duty of the respondent no.1/CBSE to conduct the CTET

Examination at least once a year in terms of Para 11 of the Guidelines.

7.Ms.Seema Dolo, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1/CBSE, submits that the guidelines refer to only the appropriate Government

authorities and not to the CBSE. However, she submits that in case respondent no.2 wishes to authorise respondent no.1 to continue to conduct the

said examination ever year, the respondent no.1 will have no objection to the holding of CTET Examination subject to respondent no.2 giving the

updated syllabus to the respondent no.1. Â

8.This Court notices with anguish that due to lack of effective communication between the respondents, the eligible candidates are suffering and are

unable to join any public employment despite possessing the academic qualification despite there being availability of vacancies. However, since the

respondent no.2 has taken a stand that they have already authorised respondent no.1 to continue to conduct the said examination from time to time,

instead of dragging the issue any further, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1 to expeditiously hold the next CTET

Examination within four months from today.

9.Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 upon instructions, undertakes to write a letter in this regard to respondent no.1 within one week from today

along with any change in the syllabus. Â

10.The Chairman of respondent no.1 and Member Secretary of respondent no.2, shall personally ensure that the said examination is held within the

next four months

11.The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

DASTI under signatures of Court Master. Â