9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the consideration of limiting the appointment of Basic Teachers to candidates possessing B.T.C. qualification alone and the validity of Government Orders restricting consideration of candidates with Bachelor of Education qualification to certain districts only. Issue 1: Academic Qualifications for Teacher Appointments The judgment discusses the relevant provisions of law u/s Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rule, 1981, which require specific academic qualifications for the appointment of teachers in Basic Schools. It mentions the amendments made to Rule 8 and the qualifications needed, including B.T.C., Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, and others recognized by the State Government. Issue 2: Equivalence of B.Ed. and B.T.C. Qualifications The judgment analyzes the Government Orders and policies regarding the equivalence of B.Ed. and B.T.C. qualifications for teacher appointments, specifically in the hill districts. It cites previous cases and the distinction made between B.Ed. and B.T.C. qualifications, emphasizing that B.Ed. is not considered higher or lower than B.T.C. Issue 3: District-Wise Consideration of Candidates The judgment scrutinizes the Government's district-wise policies for considering candidates with different training qualifications, such as B.Ed. and L.T., in specific regions due to the lack of B.T.C. candidates. It highlights the need for uniformity in applying such policies throughout the State, ensuring fair treatment of candidates based on qualification availability. Final Decision The judgment concludes by directing the Respondents to consistently apply the principle of considering candidates with B.Ed. or L.T. qualifications only when there is a shortage of B.T.C. qualified candidates in selection processes. It emphasizes the importance of following a uniform policy statewide and clarifies that B.Ed. or L.T. qualifications should not be automatically considered equivalent to B.T.C. unless specific conditions are met.
|
