The selection process for Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh has seen a significant development with the Supreme Court of India issuing its final judgment. This landmark decision will have far-reaching implications on teacher appointments in the state. Stay tuned to learn more about the court’s ruling and the outcomes for the education sector in Uttar Pradesh.
Facts
- State constituted a high powered committee on 10 April, 2012, which gave its report on 1 May, 2012.
- 12,091 candidates were found eligible for appointment subject to verification of antecedents.
- Advertisement for appointment of trainee teachers in primary schools was issued on 30 November, 2011.
- Irregularities in the selection process were raised by the Contempt Petitioners.
- Recommendation to prohibit candidates involved in irregularities/criminal activity from selection.
- Rules were amended to bring them in line with NCTE guidelines.
- Cancellation of previous advertisements and issuance of fresh ones due to alleged money influence in results.
- Out of 12,091 candidates, only 391 got appointed due to various reasons.
- Opportunities given to candidates for counseling and grievance redressal.
- TET held on 13 November, 2011, with result declared on 25 November, 2011.
- Challenges to amendments citing inconsistency with NCTE guidelines.
- RTE Act lays down qualifications and terms for teachers.
- Illustration provided highlighting anomalies in selection process based on age and marks criteria.
- Adjournment of the matter for further investigation into similar cases.
- State Government incorrectly calculated the figure of 66,655 for teacher appointments.
- 12,091 candidates were found eligible for appointment but not all were appointed.
- Candidates who scored above 70% in General Category and 65% in Reserved Category were to be appointed as per court orders.
- State was given liberty to fill remaining vacancies after issuing a fresh advertisement.
- Weightage to TET marks was not mandatory as per NCTE guidelines.
- 66,655 teachers were already appointed based on interim orders and appointments were not to be disturbed.
- State directed to appoint candidates without malpractices and with 70% marks in TET.
- Direction given to appoint candidates meeting specific criteria within six weeks.
- Appeals allowed by Division Bench against previous judgment.
- State to conclude selection process as per advertisement dated November 30, 2011.
Issue
- Fresh appointments were made after October, 2016.
- The State Government is called upon to provide details through an affidavit by a competent person.
- The details required include district-wise break-up of candidates appointed by October, 2016 and any appointments made to candidates who did not meet the requirements set by the Court.
- An affidavit of compliance was filed by Ms. Renuka Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of U.P.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Arguments
- Mr. Pallav Sishodia, senior advocate for the State, mentioned that the affidavit dated 01.10.2016 was not contested by any candidates
- No grievances were raised by the candidates at that time
- Mr. Sishodia noted that the grievance was brought up over a year after the matter was disposed of in July 2017
- The number of candidates appointed would be 58135 plus the number drawn from the list of 12091 candidates.
- As of 2.11.2015, 43777 candidates were already appointed and 15058 were undergoing training.
- This would mean that by 2.11.2015, 58135 candidates were appointed or undergoing training.
- The initial vacancy projection of 14640 on 2.11.2015 was refined to 12091 eligible candidates.
- Out of the 12091 eligible candidates, only 391 were appointed.
- The State Government could not have stated that 64257 persons were appointed if only 391 candidates were appointed.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Analysis
- Selection process for Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh highlighted
- Ad-hoc appointments made to fill vacancies
- Concerns raised about candidates not meeting court’s requirements
- Total vacancies, appointments, and ongoing processes mentioned
- District-wise data provided for transparency
- Timeline of selection process and court orders discussed
- Emphasis on fulfilling vacancies to benefit student community
- Criteria for TET marks and appointments outlined
- Issue of unfilled vacancies addressed
- Grievances raised and timings of complaints noted
- The State Government’s process, in compliance with interim orders and final judgment, was deemed appropriate by the court.
- Reasons for non-selection of candidates were made clear in the record since October 2016.
- The State’s response was found to be clear and satisfactory.
- Despite the response and review, no significant violations of court orders were found.
- The court concluded that none of the orders passed were violated by the State, as claimed in the contempt petitions.
Decision
- State authorities can check every illustration and see if candidates fall in the selection zone
- Comprehensive report to be submitted
- No case shall continue after this
- Contempt petitions to be closed without interference
- Report to be presented in the Court
- Parties to remain present on the next hearing date
Case Title: SANJAI KUMAR Vs. DR. PRABHAT KUMAR
Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-001332-001360 / 2018
