STET पास के लिए ख़ुशी की खबर है l
जी हाँ, हाईकोर्ट ने 2 मई 2017 को STET की वैलिडिटी के मामले में जिन सैंकड़ों कैसो की सुनवाई की थी उसका फैंसला आज हाईकोर्ट की साईट पर अपलोड हो गया है l
फैंसले के मुख्य बिंदु इस प्रकार हैं :-
1. सरकार ने 21 अप्रैल 2017 को STET की वैलिडिटी के बारे में स्पष्ट किया था और 20 जुलाई 2016 तक STET की वैलिडिटी मान ली थी l
2. केसों की सुनवाई के समय याचिकाकर्ताओं के वकीलो ने भी 20 जुलाई 2016 तक STET की वैलिडिटी को
सही मान लिया था क्योंकि इससे सभी याचिकाकर्ता वर्तमान में चल रही भर्ती के लिए योग्य हो गए हैं l
3. इसी के आधार पर हाईकोर्ट ने फैंसला दिया है कि सिर्फ याचिकाकर्ताओं को ही योग्य नही मानना
है बल्कि उन उम्मीदवारों को भी योग्य मानना है जो STET पास हैं और जिनकी लिखित परीक्षा पास हो चुकी है l
4. कोर्ट ने निर्देश दिए हैं Respondent (भर्ती बोर्ड) एक पब्लिक नोटिस द्वारा ऐसे सभी उम्मीदवारों को सूचित करेगा जो कोर्ट नही गए हैं और इस फैंसले के अनुसार योग्य हैं l
पढ़िए हाईकोर्ट का फैंसला :-
CWP-2129-2017(O&M) 26
Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana with Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion in CWP Nos. 9004-2017 and CWP-9067- 2017.
On the asking of the Court, Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertake to supply a copy
of each paper book to the learned Assistant Advocate General during the course of the day.
By this group of petitions the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in declaring them ineligible for various teaching
posts in the school cadre of the Haryana State.
The argument raised is that originally there was a School Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as 'STET') which had been
introduced in the year 2008 and which was a necessary pre-condition for being considered for appointment as a school teacher in Haryana. All the petitioners had cleared that test. The petitioners were also applicants for Government Teaching Jobs in the school cadre of Haryana pursuant to advertisement of the year 2015. However, when the Right to Education Act came into force then the State of Haryana introduced the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to a 'HTET') vide notifications dated 15.7.2011 and 21.07.2011. In the Rules prescribing the HTET it was provided that the result would be valid for a period of 5 years. It was further mentioned that even for those persons who cleared the STET (prior
to the introduction of the HTET) the period of 5 years validity would be reckoned from the date they had passed the test. Thus those candidates who had passed the test in the year 2008 would become ineligible after 5 years i.e. in 2013. The primary contention raised in the present writ petition is that by this action retrospective effect has been given to the 5 years limit. As per the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the applicability of the limit of 5 years could only have been made with prospective effect and the petitioners have been severely prejudiced by this precipitate action of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have further argued that on the previous dates when the matter had come up, I had indicated to the
learned State counsel that it would be difficult for this Court to permit this kind of retrospectivity and had called upon the State to reconsider the matter and had granted interim orders to all such petitioners and directed respondents to provisionally consider the petitioners for the post they have applied.
It is gratifying to note that with the intervention of the Advocate General the State has realized the precarious position it had found
itself in by making the 5 years limit retrospective in operation. Learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record clarification dated 21.4.2017 which is taken on record and marked as Mark 'A' wherein it has been decided by Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department that the offending clauses of the notifications dated 15.7.2011 and 21.7.2011 shall be construed to be having prospective effect, meaning thereby that the validity of all STET certificates shall be up
to 20.7.2016.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners who are all present here have accorded their satisfaction with this clarification because now they
have become eligible.
In view of the aforesaid clarification, all the petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous.
Before parting with the judgment, it is clarified that this order cannot be held to benefit only those persons who had approached this Court, but it would also have to go to all those other candidates who had applied for the posts but have not approached this Court. Consequently, the respondents are directed to issue a public notice informing all such applicants who had passed the STET examination and had cleared the written test for the posts in question and had not approached this Court, but are otherwise similarly situated as petitioners, that they are now considered to be eligible and then consider their claims also.
Since the main cases have been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
May 02, 2017
जी हाँ, हाईकोर्ट ने 2 मई 2017 को STET की वैलिडिटी के मामले में जिन सैंकड़ों कैसो की सुनवाई की थी उसका फैंसला आज हाईकोर्ट की साईट पर अपलोड हो गया है l
फैंसले के मुख्य बिंदु इस प्रकार हैं :-
1. सरकार ने 21 अप्रैल 2017 को STET की वैलिडिटी के बारे में स्पष्ट किया था और 20 जुलाई 2016 तक STET की वैलिडिटी मान ली थी l
2. केसों की सुनवाई के समय याचिकाकर्ताओं के वकीलो ने भी 20 जुलाई 2016 तक STET की वैलिडिटी को
सही मान लिया था क्योंकि इससे सभी याचिकाकर्ता वर्तमान में चल रही भर्ती के लिए योग्य हो गए हैं l
3. इसी के आधार पर हाईकोर्ट ने फैंसला दिया है कि सिर्फ याचिकाकर्ताओं को ही योग्य नही मानना
है बल्कि उन उम्मीदवारों को भी योग्य मानना है जो STET पास हैं और जिनकी लिखित परीक्षा पास हो चुकी है l
4. कोर्ट ने निर्देश दिए हैं Respondent (भर्ती बोर्ड) एक पब्लिक नोटिस द्वारा ऐसे सभी उम्मीदवारों को सूचित करेगा जो कोर्ट नही गए हैं और इस फैंसले के अनुसार योग्य हैं l
पढ़िए हाईकोर्ट का फैंसला :-
CWP-2129-2017(O&M) 26
Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana with Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion in CWP Nos. 9004-2017 and CWP-9067- 2017.
On the asking of the Court, Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertake to supply a copy
of each paper book to the learned Assistant Advocate General during the course of the day.
By this group of petitions the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in declaring them ineligible for various teaching
posts in the school cadre of the Haryana State.
The argument raised is that originally there was a School Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as 'STET') which had been
introduced in the year 2008 and which was a necessary pre-condition for being considered for appointment as a school teacher in Haryana. All the petitioners had cleared that test. The petitioners were also applicants for Government Teaching Jobs in the school cadre of Haryana pursuant to advertisement of the year 2015. However, when the Right to Education Act came into force then the State of Haryana introduced the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to a 'HTET') vide notifications dated 15.7.2011 and 21.07.2011. In the Rules prescribing the HTET it was provided that the result would be valid for a period of 5 years. It was further mentioned that even for those persons who cleared the STET (prior
to the introduction of the HTET) the period of 5 years validity would be reckoned from the date they had passed the test. Thus those candidates who had passed the test in the year 2008 would become ineligible after 5 years i.e. in 2013. The primary contention raised in the present writ petition is that by this action retrospective effect has been given to the 5 years limit. As per the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the applicability of the limit of 5 years could only have been made with prospective effect and the petitioners have been severely prejudiced by this precipitate action of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have further argued that on the previous dates when the matter had come up, I had indicated to the
learned State counsel that it would be difficult for this Court to permit this kind of retrospectivity and had called upon the State to reconsider the matter and had granted interim orders to all such petitioners and directed respondents to provisionally consider the petitioners for the post they have applied.
It is gratifying to note that with the intervention of the Advocate General the State has realized the precarious position it had found
itself in by making the 5 years limit retrospective in operation. Learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record clarification dated 21.4.2017 which is taken on record and marked as Mark 'A' wherein it has been decided by Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department that the offending clauses of the notifications dated 15.7.2011 and 21.7.2011 shall be construed to be having prospective effect, meaning thereby that the validity of all STET certificates shall be up
to 20.7.2016.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners who are all present here have accorded their satisfaction with this clarification because now they
have become eligible.
In view of the aforesaid clarification, all the petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous.
Before parting with the judgment, it is clarified that this order cannot be held to benefit only those persons who had approached this Court, but it would also have to go to all those other candidates who had applied for the posts but have not approached this Court. Consequently, the respondents are directed to issue a public notice informing all such applicants who had passed the STET examination and had cleared the written test for the posts in question and had not approached this Court, but are otherwise similarly situated as petitioners, that they are now considered to be eligible and then consider their claims also.
Since the main cases have been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
May 02, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment