TET certificate holders in Sanskrit language are not eligible for primary teacher selection: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, while setting aside the order of the single Judge, said that TET certificate holders in Sanskrit language are not eligible for primary teacher selection.

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh passed this order while hearing an special appeal filed by District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad and Another.

The intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court is directed against the judgement and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Single Judge allowing writ petition  filed by respondent no1 (the petitioner).

In the petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by appellant no1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools run by U.P Basic Shiksha Parishad (appellant no 2) on the ground that the petitioner had passed T.E.T Examination in Sanskrit language and not T.E.T meant for teaching primary level classes. He therefore did not fulfill the eligibility prescribed for the post. In reaching the said conclusion, reliance has been placed on the Government Order dated 15.10.2013.

The Single Judge has held that the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 does not place any such restriction. It merely requires that the candidate should have passed the T.E.T Examination. As the petitioner had duly cleared the T.E.T Examination, though in Sanskrit language, he was held eligible for the post and accordingly, direction was issued to the appellants to issue appointment letter to the petitioner.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Government decided to fill up 10,000 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in primary schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. In furtherance, it issued a Government Order dated 15.10.2013. It stipulated that the educational qualification required was graduation degree from a recognised degree college, two years BTC Course from an authorised institution of the State Government and certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T) meant for classes 1 to 5 i.e primary level. The requirement of having T.E.T certificate was an essential condition in view of the stipulations laid down in this behalf by the National Council for Teacher Education in exercise of its powers under Section 23 (1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The State Government, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE, had issued a Government Order dated 17.04.2013 disclosing the manner in which T.E.T Examination would be held.

On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Order dated 15.10.2013 contains no such inhibition and the Single Judge was right in holding that the petitioner, who held T.E.T certificate, though in Sanskrit Language, was fully qualified for teaching primary level classes i.e Standard I to V. The Division Bench of the Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak and Others vs State of U.P and Others has held that NCTE Notifications prescribing eligibility have overriding effect and the same merely prescribes T.E.T as eligibility criteria, without making any distinction between different types of T.E.T Certificates. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The Court said that the main question, which thus arises for consideration, is whether the petitioner, on the strength of T.E.T certificate in Sanskrit language, was eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary School in pursuance of advertisement issued in the year 2016 for filling up 10,000 vacancies. In other words, whether the test passed by the petitioner in Sanskrit language fulfilled the requirements of Teacher Eligibility Test prescribed for teachers for the Primary Schools.

The Court noted that,

Indisputably, the vacancies notified by advertisement issued in different newspapers in October, 2013 were for filling up posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools imparting elementary education (Standard I to V). All the schools are covered within the definition of Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Section 23 of the Act stipulates that any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. In exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Act, the Central Government issued notification dated 31st March, 2010 authorizing the NCTE as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

The NCTE issued a notification dated 23.10.2010 laying down the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act. The minimum qualifications inter alia provided for a pass certificate in the Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. A separate set of qualifications was prescribed for teachers for Classes I to V and Classes VI to VIII. The said notification was amended by a notification dated 29.07.2011 but the prescription regarding T.E.T test remained the same.

The Court observed that,

As is the own case of the petitioner, the guidelines framed by NCTE were binding on the States while holding the T.E.T The T.E.T held by the State for Classes I to V was in consonance with the guidelines prescribed by NCTE in this behalf. The NCTE guidelines as well as the guidelines issued by the State Government vide Government Order dated 17th April, 2013 specifically gave an option to the candidates to appear in a specified category or in all the categories. However, the petitioner did not avail the said option and only qualified T.E.T for Classes I to V in Sanskrit language. He had the option to appear in T.E.T Primary (Classes I to V) as well as T.E.T for Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII) and Language- Upper Primary Level (Classes VI to VIII).

It is noticeable that the structure and content of the tests were designed in a manner so as to test the teaching ability of a candidate to teach students of that category or subject. Thus, a teacher passing T.E.T meant for Classes I to V was not tested nor eligible for recruitment as a teacher for Upper Primary Level i.e, Classes VI to VIII nor as a teacher for any specific language like Sanskrit, English or Urdu. Likewise, a candidate passing T.E.T in any specific language would be eligible for consideration for appointment as a teacher of that language only.

As already noted above, if we go by the stipulations prescribed by NCTE for holding T.E.T, for a person to become eligible for recruitment as Primary Teacher for Classes I to V, the T.E.T Certificate possessed by the petitioner for Sanskrit language did not meet the specified requirements.

“The Single Judge has overlooked Clause 1.1 of Government Order dated 15th October, 2013 in holding that the said Government Order did not prohibit a candidate seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School to possess T.E.T Certificate in Sanskrit language. In fact, when the said stipulation in Clause 1 of Government Order dated 15th October, 2013 is read with the guidelines issued by the State Government on 17th April, 2013 and the guidelines issued by NCTE dated 11.02.2011, the distinction between the two sets of tests becomes amply clear.

In the result, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner, who was not having T.E.T Certificate for teaching Classes I to V but T.E.T Certificate in Sanskrit Language Primary Level, was not eligible for selection on the post of Primary Teacher in Junior Basic Schools in pursuance of the advertisement.

We, thus, find no illegality in the stand contained in the order of Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 19.08.2014, against which the writ petition was filed”, the Court further observed while allowing the appeal.

Leave a Reply