Case :-
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2013
Petitioner :-
Navin Srivastava And Others
Respondent :-
State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :-
Abhishek Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :-
C.S.C.
And
Case :-
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2013
Petitioner :-
Sujeet Singh And Others
Respondent :-
State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :-
Navin Kumar Sharma,Shailendra
And
Case :-
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 152 of 2013
Petitioner :-
Rajeev Kumar Yadav
Respondent :-
State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :-
Sadanand Mishra,Seemant Singh
Respondent Counsel :-
C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
And
Case :-
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 2013
Petitioner :-
Anil Kumar And Others
Respondent :-
State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :-
Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :-
C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav
And
Case :-
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 161 of 2013
Petitioner :-
Alok Singh And Others
Respondent :-
State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :-
Abhishek Srivastasva
Respondent Counsel :-
C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,R.A. Akhtar
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
In this bunch of similar appeals, we
have heard learned
counsel for the appellants and the
learned Additional Advocate
General for the State. Connect these
appeals and list them together
All candidates have cleared the TET.
One of the basic
questions that arises in these cases
is that if the criteria for
selection is the TET merit, then
whether the selection had taken
place before the training, or after
the training, the result would
have been the same. Clause No. 10 of
the Advertisement says that
after successful completion of
training (approved by the NCTE)
the substantive appointments would
be made as per 1981 Rules
and Twelfth amendment 2011. While
deciding a case we have to
go by the substance. By way of
example if the selected candidates
had not been called 'apprentice
teachers', but had been selected on
merits merely for 'training with
scholarships equivalent to salary',
and after successful completion of
training again subjected to
selection as per their merit in TET
(which at that time was the
prescribed criteria), the result in
substance would have been the
same as obtaining today. And in such
case the ground that there
was no post of 'apprentice teachers'
would not be available.
The basis for cancellation of the
earlier selection process as
mentioned in the order dated
26.07.2012 consists of two kind of
grounds. The first ground says that
some alleged irregularities
were found in conducting of the
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET for
short). It appears that some High
Powered Committee under the
Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary
gave a report. On the basis of
that report, the entire selection
process, wherein the merit of the
TET was the determining criteria,
was canceled.
The learned Single Judge has held in
the impugned order that
if some irregularities were found at
some places, the good part of
the TET should have been attempted
to be separated from the bad
or vitiated part, but the entire
selection should not have been
canceled.
So far as there is nothing to show
from the side of the State
that the good part that is to say
places where there was no
irregularity in the TET could or
could not be separated from the
bad part that is from places or
areas where irregularities had taken
place.
As prayed by the learned Additional
Advocate General, the
report of the High Powered Committee
may be placed on record
by means of a counter-affidavit,
which will also indicate with
cogent reasons, on the basis of that
report or other previous
records, whether it was, or was not,
possible to separate the good
part from the bad part.
The second kind of ground of the
order dated 26.07.2012
indicates that it was felt that the
criteria for determining the merit
for selection on the basis of merit
in the TET should be replaced
by the criteria of determining the
merit on the basis of quality
point marks as calculated on the
basis of past academic record,
ignoring the merit of TET. This
substituted criteria was believed to
be better by way of some
after-thought. Accordingly Rules were
amended.
The learned Single Judge has held in
the impugned order that
such change of criteria can only be
prospective and cannot affect
the previous selections.
Moreover, we are also prima facie of
the opinion that this
change of thought namely that the
previous criteria could be
replaced by seemingly better
criteria for determining merit cannot
be a ground for canceling the entire
selection process. If that kind
of ground urged by the State is
accepted, it is equally possible that
tomorrow some other Government or
some other official may
think that perhaps the new suggested
criteria (of quality point
marks) could be replaced by what he
believes to be a still better
criteria, could again form the basis
of scrapping the fresh selection
process which is ongoing.
In the fresh selection process,
there is an extremely large
number of candidates whose
counseling is said to have started
from today.
Obviously, the counseling will take
time, and we intend, with
the consent of the parties, to
finally dispose of all these appeals at
the admission stage, for which we
have fixed 11.02.2013.
Therefore, we are of the opinion
that so many candidates should
not be put to the trouble of
counseling, which may, if these appeals
are ultimately allowed, be reduced
to a futile exercise. Therefore,
keeping in view the larger overall
interest of all parties involved,
including the interest of those
candidates who are not parties
before us, we are of the opinion
that the ongoing selection process
should remain suspended till
11.02.2013. Order accordingly.
Order Date :-
4.2.2013
Sunil Kr Tiwari
(Manoj Misra,J.) (Sushil
Harkauli,J.)