Remove percentage bar in JBT-TET eligibility conditions -Appeal to HP Board by Vijay Kumar Heer
To
Honorable Secretary,
H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala.
Subject: Remove percentage bar in JBT-TET eligibility conditions with reference to verdict of Uttarakhand High Court
Honble. Sir,
With regards, myself want to attract your kind attention in the case of minimum qualification criterias fixed for HP JBT-TET which are having paradoxical eligibility conditions in context of old R&P Rules 2008 for JBT recruitment. It is worthy to mention that the minimum eligibility percentage fixed for the JBT batch 2008-10 was either graduation with 45% marks or 10+2 with minimum 50% marks while JBTs of batch 2005-06 in Private Colleges had been recruited by fixing only 10+2 pass condition which makes them ineligible to appear in TET.
In light of the above facts, it is clear enough that the variation in the R&P rules must be kept in mind while issuing the roll numbers to theses candidates. 10+2 with minimum 50% marks may not be implemented in context of R&P rules, otherwise it will be against the fundamental right of equality. If any person had taken admission in JBT on the basis of 45%marks in graduation, he must be considered on the same basis as the rule for entrance test was followed by HP Board for CET. Hence, I appeal you to make necessary corrigendum please.A decision attached with this email given by Uttarakhand High Court ,Nainital is worthy to note which has some important lines as below:-
On
Writ Petition No. 1582 (SS) of 2011
Himanshu Upadhyay and others …Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
And other 321 petitions clubbed in the Honorable High Court Nainital, uttarakhand in the TET case
Important lines of verdict
Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 (Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) was decided by an order dated 20.8.2011, holding the validity of TET and rejecting the claim of the petitioners regarding holding of such examination. At the same time, this Court also held that fixing the minimum percentage of marks in graduation for this examination has actually no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and therefore, the writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions. It was held that such a restriction (of having minimum percentage in graduation) is both unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court declared such a condition of asking a minimum percentage of marks in graduation from candidates having B.Ed. qualification was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court directed the respondent to permit the petitioners to appear in TET, Examination treating them to be qualified.
In view of this, this inaction on the part of the respondents is highly unreasonable and has caused undue hardship to the petitioners. The judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 was a judgment of the candidates having judgment in rem and not a judgment in persona.
Counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad has filed a letter dated 23.11.2011, which is taken on record, which has been received through Secretary, “Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksah Parishad” in which the respondents state that to a certain extent the Board has accepted its mistake and clarified its position now and on a mere representation by the petitioners the result of such candidates (like the present petitioners) is liable to be declared. However, there should be no such need for any such formality being asked from the petitioners, in case the petitioners had a recognized B.Ed. qualification, they shall be treated to be qualified irrespective of the marks they had obtained in their graduation provided they are graduates from a duly recognized University. Nothing, further needs to be stated by this Court.
Sudhanshu Dhulia ,J. on 25-11-2011 at Nainital High Court , Uttarakhand
In light of the above directions in the historical verdict, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution has been ignored due to the condition of 50% marks in the graduation. As the minimum qualification for TGT must be Graduation with B.Ed. passed from any recognized university than passing same with 50% marks. Hence, the verdict also symbolizes that minimum qualification for TET as prescribed here is desired minimum passing marks based Graduation/10+2 etc. This is really worthy to note that almost 25000 graduates with B.Ed. have not the 50% or 45% marks in graduation. Sameway, 2005-06 batch of pvt. Colleges for JBT course have also not got 50% marks in 10+2 because minimum qualification for JBT was only pass in 10+2.Due to that, they have not been able to appear in TET to be conducted for JBTs next month under HP Board of School Education, Dharamshala. It is injustice which can be undone by taking note of the judgement given by Uttarakhand High Court which has not been challenged by NCTE too.
Please act immediately and allow the persons having less than 50% marks in 10+2 to sit in the examination because same has been verdicted by Uttarakhand High Court and if HPBSE honors theold R&P Rules of the HP Govt. NCTE had issued some guidelines but the decision of a High Court may also not be ignored in this matter.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1582 (SS) of 2011
Himanshu Upadhyay and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1586 (SS) of 2011
Bharti Bisht and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1590 (SS) of 2011
Neeraj Kumar Pal & others .. .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deep Chand Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1593 (SS) of 2011
Chandan Ram and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Mukund Ballabh Pandey and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1595 (SS) of 2011
Uma Pandey & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1597 (SS) of 2011
Rajesh Pandey & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1598 (SS) of 2011
Kripal Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. H.S. Rawal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Himanshu Kumar Bhaisora & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1602 (SS) of 2011
Vijay Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1603 (SS) of 2011
Murari Lal & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Jaivardhan Kandpal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1604 (SS) of 2011
Suraj Singh Dasila & .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Manoj Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1607 (SS) of 2011
Sanjay Kumar Sandoya & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1608 (SS) of 2011
Vikram Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1609 (SS) of 2011
Smt. Meena Mahar .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Arvind Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1612 (SS) of 2011
Mahipal Chand and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1615 (SS) of 2011
Suresh Chandra Singh & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1617 (SS) of 2011
Bishan Singh & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Neelam & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1619 (SS) of 2011
Pushpa and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1621 (SS) of 2011
Suresh Chandra & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1623 (SS) of 2011
Rajeev Rawat & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Sompal Singh Bavaria & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1628 (SS) of 2011
Jaywant Singh & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1629 (SS) of 2011
Harish Kumar and & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepa Arya, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1630 (SS) of 2011
Mukesh Chandra Upadhyay & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Rajiv Rawat & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1632 (SS) of 2011
Chandra Shekhar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1633 (SS) of 2011
Pranil Kumar Joshi & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1637 (SS) of 2011
Bishan Ram & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Bhupendra Mohan Pant & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1642 (SS) of 2011
Manoj Pant & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1643 (SS) of 2011
Jagdamba Khanduri & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1646 (SS) of 2011
Dalveer Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Ravi Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1648 (SS) of 2011
Vinod Khulbe & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Swapnil Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1651 (SS) of 2011
Neeraj Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1652 (SS) of 2011
Rajendra Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Ragini Joshi .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1656 (SS) of 2011
Om Prakash & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1658 (SS) of 2011
Rajesh Chandra & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1659 (SS) of 2011
Rakesh Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Pradeep Chandra Pandey & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1662 (SS) of 2011
Pushpa Kumar & another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1664 (SS) of 2011
Gaurav Kumar .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1667 (SS) of 2011
Sundar Singh .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Kailash Chandra Gwasikoti & another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1670 (SS) of 2011
Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Narain Dutt, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1671 (SS) of 2011
Usha Rani .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Narain Dutt, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1672 (SS) of 2011
Sikha Gupta and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. H.S. Rawal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Bitina Kumar and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1675 (SS) of 2011
Rajeev Kandpal .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1676 (SS) of 2011
Manish Bagdwal and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
(SS) of 2011
.Petitioners
With
Writ Petition No. 1679
Rajesh Nautiyal and others
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
And
Writ Petition No. 1680 (SS) of 2011
Berendra Singh Chauhan and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, and Ms. Seema Sah, Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, respectively for "Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad" as well as Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate present for National Council for Teacher Education.
2. In all these connected writ petitions a common question is involved and the respective counsels appearing for the "Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad", namely, Ms. Seema Sah, Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocates, which is the necessary party in the present writ petitions fairly submit that the writ petitions be disposed of at the admission stage itself for the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Although all the writ petitions are being disposed of by the present orders, the facts of the case which has been mentioned are of Writ Petition No. 1582 (SS) of 2011, only for the sake of convenience.
4. All the petitioners before this Court are the candidates for an examination known as Teachers
Eligibility Test (hereafter referred to as "TET"). This
examination was conducted under the directions of a
Central Body known as National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as "NCTE") by which the State Government was to conduct such an examination, which is known as Uttarakhand Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "UTET"). A candidate who is desirous to become a teacher in an elementary school must qualify with at least 60% of marks (for General Category candidates), and for the reserved category candidates they must qualify this examination with a minimum 50% marks. This would be one of the eligibilities for a teacher in elementary schools, in the State of Uttarakhand. This has been done after the Right to Education being incorporated in Constitution of India under Article 21-A vide Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment Act) and consequently, the Parliament enacting an Act known as "Right to Education Act, 2009" whereby, inter alia, it has been stipulated that it is the Right of a child not only to get an elementary education but a "meaningful elementary education." Pursuant to the direction of NCTE the State of Uttarakhand invited the applications from eligible candidates to appear in "TET" examination. One of the conditions imposed by the State Government in the examination (under the direction of NCTE) is that a candidate who possesses B.Ed. qualification will only be eligible to appear in the present examination, if he has at least 50% in graduation, for general category candidates and 45% for reserved category candidates.
5. Thereafter, a large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging both the authority of the NCTE as well as the State Government to conduct such an examination (i.e. TET), and more particularly the imposition of a condition of having a minimum percentage of marks in graduation a candidate having
B.Ed. qualification. These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners in which leading case was Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 (Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) was decided by an order dated 20.8.2011, holding the validity of TET and rejecting the claim of the petitioners regarding holding of such examination. At the same time, this Court also held that fixing the minimum percentage of marks in graduation for this examination has actually no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and therefore, the writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions. It was held that such a restriction (of having minimum percentage in graduation) is both unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court declared such a condition of asking a minimum percentage of marks in graduation from candidates having B.Ed. qualification was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court directed the respondent to permit the petitioners to appear in TET, Examination treating them to be qualified.
6. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that Board, NCTE and consequently, the State Government had also during the pendency of the above writ petitions had reduced the percentage of marks from 50% to 45% for general category candidates and from 45% to 40% for the reserved category candidates.
7. This Court has also been informed that State Government as well as NCTE has not filed any special appeal against this judgment before this Court nor any petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the above referred judgment has attained a finality. As such, candidates are held to be eligible to appear in the examination and there is no reason to withhold the result of such candidates merely because the petitioners were not party in the above writ petitions. This Court has been informed that such candidates who have appeared in the examination are either being treated to be disqualified or their results have been withheld who have less than minimum prescribed percentage in their graduation. It has further been submitted before this Court that all these candidates are being compelled to obtain orders from this Court, hence these writ petitions.
8. In view of this, this inaction on the part of the respondents is highly unreasonable and has caused undue hardship to the petitioners. The judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 was a judgment of the candidates having judgment in rem and not a judgment in persona.
9. Counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad has filed a letter dated 23.11.2011, which is taken on record, which has been received through Secretary, "Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksah Parishad" in which the respondents state that to a certain extent the Board has accepted its mistake and clarified its position now and on a mere representation by the petitioners the result of such candidates (like the present petitioners) is liable to be declared. However, there should be no such need for any such formality being asked from the petitioners, in case the petitioners had a recognized B.Ed. qualification, they shall be treated to be qualified irrespective of the marks they had obtained in their graduation provided they are graduates from a duly recognized University. Nothing, further needs to be stated by this Court.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions are allowed.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Certified copy of this order be issued today itself.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 25.11.2011
As I hope that you will act on the said judgement and will provide every 10+2 , D.Ed./ETT/JBT and every graduate with B.Ed. from recognized Boards/Universities (as applicable) and will remove the condition of minimum 50% scoring in the concerned classes.The matter is related to Right of Equal Opportnity, I hope for justice.
Thanking with regards,
Dated: 20-07-2012 Yours sincerely: Vijay Kumar Heer,State President
(Himachal Shikshak Kranti Manch, H.P.)
V.P.O. Chakmoh, Tehsil Barsar,Distt. Hamirpur (HP) 176039
.
Honorable Secretary,
H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala.
Subject: Remove percentage bar in JBT-TET eligibility conditions with reference to verdict of Uttarakhand High Court
Honble. Sir,
With regards, myself want to attract your kind attention in the case of minimum qualification criterias fixed for HP JBT-TET which are having paradoxical eligibility conditions in context of old R&P Rules 2008 for JBT recruitment. It is worthy to mention that the minimum eligibility percentage fixed for the JBT batch 2008-10 was either graduation with 45% marks or 10+2 with minimum 50% marks while JBTs of batch 2005-06 in Private Colleges had been recruited by fixing only 10+2 pass condition which makes them ineligible to appear in TET.
In light of the above facts, it is clear enough that the variation in the R&P rules must be kept in mind while issuing the roll numbers to theses candidates. 10+2 with minimum 50% marks may not be implemented in context of R&P rules, otherwise it will be against the fundamental right of equality. If any person had taken admission in JBT on the basis of 45%marks in graduation, he must be considered on the same basis as the rule for entrance test was followed by HP Board for CET. Hence, I appeal you to make necessary corrigendum please.A decision attached with this email given by Uttarakhand High Court ,Nainital is worthy to note which has some important lines as below:-
On
Writ Petition No. 1582 (SS) of 2011
Himanshu Upadhyay and others …Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
And other 321 petitions clubbed in the Honorable High Court Nainital, uttarakhand in the TET case
Important lines of verdict
Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 (Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) was decided by an order dated 20.8.2011, holding the validity of TET and rejecting the claim of the petitioners regarding holding of such examination. At the same time, this Court also held that fixing the minimum percentage of marks in graduation for this examination has actually no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and therefore, the writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions. It was held that such a restriction (of having minimum percentage in graduation) is both unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court declared such a condition of asking a minimum percentage of marks in graduation from candidates having B.Ed. qualification was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court directed the respondent to permit the petitioners to appear in TET, Examination treating them to be qualified.
In view of this, this inaction on the part of the respondents is highly unreasonable and has caused undue hardship to the petitioners. The judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 was a judgment of the candidates having judgment in rem and not a judgment in persona.
Counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad has filed a letter dated 23.11.2011, which is taken on record, which has been received through Secretary, “Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksah Parishad” in which the respondents state that to a certain extent the Board has accepted its mistake and clarified its position now and on a mere representation by the petitioners the result of such candidates (like the present petitioners) is liable to be declared. However, there should be no such need for any such formality being asked from the petitioners, in case the petitioners had a recognized B.Ed. qualification, they shall be treated to be qualified irrespective of the marks they had obtained in their graduation provided they are graduates from a duly recognized University. Nothing, further needs to be stated by this Court.
Sudhanshu Dhulia ,J. on 25-11-2011 at Nainital High Court , Uttarakhand
In light of the above directions in the historical verdict, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution has been ignored due to the condition of 50% marks in the graduation. As the minimum qualification for TGT must be Graduation with B.Ed. passed from any recognized university than passing same with 50% marks. Hence, the verdict also symbolizes that minimum qualification for TET as prescribed here is desired minimum passing marks based Graduation/10+2 etc. This is really worthy to note that almost 25000 graduates with B.Ed. have not the 50% or 45% marks in graduation. Sameway, 2005-06 batch of pvt. Colleges for JBT course have also not got 50% marks in 10+2 because minimum qualification for JBT was only pass in 10+2.Due to that, they have not been able to appear in TET to be conducted for JBTs next month under HP Board of School Education, Dharamshala. It is injustice which can be undone by taking note of the judgement given by Uttarakhand High Court which has not been challenged by NCTE too.
Please act immediately and allow the persons having less than 50% marks in 10+2 to sit in the examination because same has been verdicted by Uttarakhand High Court and if HPBSE honors theold R&P Rules of the HP Govt. NCTE had issued some guidelines but the decision of a High Court may also not be ignored in this matter.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1582 (SS) of 2011
Himanshu Upadhyay and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1586 (SS) of 2011
Bharti Bisht and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1590 (SS) of 2011
Neeraj Kumar Pal & others .. .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deep Chand Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1593 (SS) of 2011
Chandan Ram and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Mukund Ballabh Pandey and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1595 (SS) of 2011
Uma Pandey & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1597 (SS) of 2011
Rajesh Pandey & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1598 (SS) of 2011
Kripal Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. H.S. Rawal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Himanshu Kumar Bhaisora & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1602 (SS) of 2011
Vijay Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1603 (SS) of 2011
Murari Lal & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Jaivardhan Kandpal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1604 (SS) of 2011
Suraj Singh Dasila & .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Manoj Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1607 (SS) of 2011
Sanjay Kumar Sandoya & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1608 (SS) of 2011
Vikram Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1609 (SS) of 2011
Smt. Meena Mahar .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Arvind Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1612 (SS) of 2011
Mahipal Chand and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1615 (SS) of 2011
Suresh Chandra Singh & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1617 (SS) of 2011
Bishan Singh & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Neelam & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1619 (SS) of 2011
Pushpa and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1621 (SS) of 2011
Suresh Chandra & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1623 (SS) of 2011
Rajeev Rawat & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Sompal Singh Bavaria & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1628 (SS) of 2011
Jaywant Singh & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1629 (SS) of 2011
Harish Kumar and & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepa Arya, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1630 (SS) of 2011
Mukesh Chandra Upadhyay & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Rajiv Rawat & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1632 (SS) of 2011
Chandra Shekhar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1633 (SS) of 2011
Pranil Kumar Joshi & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1637 (SS) of 2011
Bishan Ram & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Bhupendra Mohan Pant & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1642 (SS) of 2011
Manoj Pant & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1643 (SS) of 2011
Jagdamba Khanduri & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1646 (SS) of 2011
Dalveer Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Ravi Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1648 (SS) of 2011
Vinod Khulbe & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Swapnil Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1651 (SS) of 2011
Neeraj Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1652 (SS) of 2011
Rajendra Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Ragini Joshi .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1656 (SS) of 2011
Om Prakash & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1658 (SS) of 2011
Rajesh Chandra & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1659 (SS) of 2011
Rakesh Kumar & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Pradeep Chandra Pandey & others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1662 (SS) of 2011
Pushpa Kumar & another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1664 (SS) of 2011
Gaurav Kumar .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1667 (SS) of 2011
Sundar Singh .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Kailash Chandra Gwasikoti & another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1670 (SS) of 2011
Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Narain Dutt, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1671 (SS) of 2011
Usha Rani .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Narain Dutt, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1672 (SS) of 2011
Sikha Gupta and another .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. H.S. Rawal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Bitina Kumar and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1675 (SS) of 2011
Rajeev Kandpal .Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
With
Writ Petition No. 1676 (SS) of 2011
Manish Bagdwal and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
(SS) of 2011
.Petitioners
With
Writ Petition No. 1679
Rajesh Nautiyal and others
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
And
Writ Petition No. 1680 (SS) of 2011
Berendra Singh Chauhan and others .Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .Respondents
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Seema Sah, with Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the
Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for National Council for Teacher Education.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, and Ms. Seema Sah, Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, respectively for "Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad" as well as Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate present for National Council for Teacher Education.
2. In all these connected writ petitions a common question is involved and the respective counsels appearing for the "Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad", namely, Ms. Seema Sah, Ms. Geeta Parihar, and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocates, which is the necessary party in the present writ petitions fairly submit that the writ petitions be disposed of at the admission stage itself for the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Although all the writ petitions are being disposed of by the present orders, the facts of the case which has been mentioned are of Writ Petition No. 1582 (SS) of 2011, only for the sake of convenience.
4. All the petitioners before this Court are the candidates for an examination known as Teachers
Eligibility Test (hereafter referred to as "TET"). This
examination was conducted under the directions of a
Central Body known as National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as "NCTE") by which the State Government was to conduct such an examination, which is known as Uttarakhand Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "UTET"). A candidate who is desirous to become a teacher in an elementary school must qualify with at least 60% of marks (for General Category candidates), and for the reserved category candidates they must qualify this examination with a minimum 50% marks. This would be one of the eligibilities for a teacher in elementary schools, in the State of Uttarakhand. This has been done after the Right to Education being incorporated in Constitution of India under Article 21-A vide Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment Act) and consequently, the Parliament enacting an Act known as "Right to Education Act, 2009" whereby, inter alia, it has been stipulated that it is the Right of a child not only to get an elementary education but a "meaningful elementary education." Pursuant to the direction of NCTE the State of Uttarakhand invited the applications from eligible candidates to appear in "TET" examination. One of the conditions imposed by the State Government in the examination (under the direction of NCTE) is that a candidate who possesses B.Ed. qualification will only be eligible to appear in the present examination, if he has at least 50% in graduation, for general category candidates and 45% for reserved category candidates.
5. Thereafter, a large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging both the authority of the NCTE as well as the State Government to conduct such an examination (i.e. TET), and more particularly the imposition of a condition of having a minimum percentage of marks in graduation a candidate having
B.Ed. qualification. These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners in which leading case was Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 (Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) was decided by an order dated 20.8.2011, holding the validity of TET and rejecting the claim of the petitioners regarding holding of such examination. At the same time, this Court also held that fixing the minimum percentage of marks in graduation for this examination has actually no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and therefore, the writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions. It was held that such a restriction (of having minimum percentage in graduation) is both unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court declared such a condition of asking a minimum percentage of marks in graduation from candidates having B.Ed. qualification was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court directed the respondent to permit the petitioners to appear in TET, Examination treating them to be qualified.
6. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that Board, NCTE and consequently, the State Government had also during the pendency of the above writ petitions had reduced the percentage of marks from 50% to 45% for general category candidates and from 45% to 40% for the reserved category candidates.
7. This Court has also been informed that State Government as well as NCTE has not filed any special appeal against this judgment before this Court nor any petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the above referred judgment has attained a finality. As such, candidates are held to be eligible to appear in the examination and there is no reason to withhold the result of such candidates merely because the petitioners were not party in the above writ petitions. This Court has been informed that such candidates who have appeared in the examination are either being treated to be disqualified or their results have been withheld who have less than minimum prescribed percentage in their graduation. It has further been submitted before this Court that all these candidates are being compelled to obtain orders from this Court, hence these writ petitions.
8. In view of this, this inaction on the part of the respondents is highly unreasonable and has caused undue hardship to the petitioners. The judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 772 (SS) of 2011 was a judgment of the candidates having judgment in rem and not a judgment in persona.
9. Counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksha Parishad has filed a letter dated 23.11.2011, which is taken on record, which has been received through Secretary, "Uttarakhand Vidyalayi Shiksah Parishad" in which the respondents state that to a certain extent the Board has accepted its mistake and clarified its position now and on a mere representation by the petitioners the result of such candidates (like the present petitioners) is liable to be declared. However, there should be no such need for any such formality being asked from the petitioners, in case the petitioners had a recognized B.Ed. qualification, they shall be treated to be qualified irrespective of the marks they had obtained in their graduation provided they are graduates from a duly recognized University. Nothing, further needs to be stated by this Court.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions are allowed.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Certified copy of this order be issued today itself.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 25.11.2011
As I hope that you will act on the said judgement and will provide every 10+2 , D.Ed./ETT/JBT and every graduate with B.Ed. from recognized Boards/Universities (as applicable) and will remove the condition of minimum 50% scoring in the concerned classes.The matter is related to Right of Equal Opportnity, I hope for justice.
Thanking with regards,
Dated: 20-07-2012 Yours sincerely: Vijay Kumar Heer,State President
(Himachal Shikshak Kranti Manch, H.P.)
V.P.O. Chakmoh, Tehsil Barsar,Distt. Hamirpur (HP) 176039
.
Comments
Post a Comment