HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1337 of 2012
Petitioner :- Satya Pal Singh & Others Respondent :- Union Of India & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajjan Lal
Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. (2012/277)
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Learned counsel for petitioner, despite repeated query could not clarify as to why he has filed this writ petition and in what manner he intend to challenge the notification dated 7.9.2011 issued by Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow(Annexure 2 to writ petition). He contended that Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by Board of Secondary Education has not been conducted in accordance with guidelines laid down by National Council of Teachers Education along with its letter dated 11.2.2011 and drew my attention to para 2 thereof which reads as under:
?2. In accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has laid down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII, vide its Notification dated August 23, 2010. A copy of the Notification is attached as Annexure 1. One of the essential qualifications for a person to beeligible for appointment as a teacher in any of the Schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act is thathe/she should pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) which will be conducted by the appropriate Government.?
2. On repeated query made from him as to how the said guidelines were not followed, he contended that the direction contained therein that it shall be ensured that the persons recruited as teachers posses the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level has not been observed in conducting the aforesaid examination and the examining body is guilty of unfair means and unsuitable selections have been made illegally. However, he could not show any thing specifically despite repeated query but in a generalized and vague manner said that all the persons who have passed the examination are neither qualified nor suitable candidates. This is clearly a derogatory remark not only against the examining body but also against lacs of people who participated in the examination and passed the same. The statement is made in a most careless and reckless manner which, in my view, clearly amounts to abuse of process of laws and, therefore, the writ petition must be dismissed with exemplary cost.
3. Dismissed.
4. Since petitioner is not only guilty of making unfounded aspersions against examining body, but also against the persons who have passed the examination, he must pay exemplary cost. I quantify the cost to Rs. 4.5 lacs.
5. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by petitioner to respondent no. 3 who, after receiving the amount, shall distribute the same amongst all the candidate who have passed the examination finally paying Rs. 1/- to each successful candidate.
Dt. 12.1.2012
