Residents Who Cleared CTET & TET Exams From Neighboring States Allowed To Apply For Teacher Appointment Process In Jharkhand: High Court
In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has granted permission to residents of Jharkhand who had successfully cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) and Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) from neighboring states to participate in the recruitment examination for Assistant Teacher positions in Jharkhand.The Court passed such a direction upon noting that Jharkhand had not...
In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has granted permission to residents of Jharkhand who had successfully cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) and Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) from neighboring states to participate in the recruitment examination for Assistant Teacher positions in Jharkhand.
The Court passed such a direction upon noting that Jharkhand had not held CTET or TET exams in many years, and further directed the State to conduct such exams every year.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Justice Anand Sen observed, “Since the law provides that every year, there should be a TET examination and for the last so many years, there has been no examination for testing the eligibility of the aspirants to be appointed as teachers, we are of the opinion that not only those candidates, who have CTET certificate and residents of Jharkhand, but also those residents of Jharkhand, having other qualification and having State TET examination certificate of any of the neighboring States should also be given a chance to appear in the examination with certain stipulations which we propose to lay down in the following paragraphs.”
The above ruling came in a plea by a collective of certain persons, who were qualified to be appointed as Primary Teachers, with a prayer to direct the State to conduct the Eligibility Test, which had not been held for the last eight years.
Notably, the last examination was held in the year 2016.
The grievance of the petitioners was that a large number of candidates from Jharkhand who had acquired all other requisite qualifications for participating in the process for recruitment were unable to do so because they didn't have a TET qualification, which was due to latches on part of the State, who neither conducted their own examination, nor recognized the CTET exam for eligibility.
It was argued that almost 3-4 lakh candidates were facing uncertainty, and risked missing out altogether if they exceeded the age limit to apply.
The Court's attention was drawn to clause 10 of the Guidelines for conducting TET wherein, it has been provided at Sub Clause (b) that the eligibility of a candidate who has obtained a TET Certificate awarded by another State/UT with legislature, may be considered.
In case a State Government/UT with legislature decides not to conduct a TET, a School at (i) and (ii) in that State/UT would consider the TET conducted by the Central Government, the Regulation states.
The Court, thus advised the State to consider residents having CTET or TET qualifications from neighboring states for teaching positions in Jharkhand and called for an affidavit.
Upon filing the affidavit, the main concern raised by the Advocate General was that certain languages, were spoken only in the State of Jharkhand, and unless those were included in the curriculum of the examination for determining the eligibility of the candidates for being appointed as teachers in the State, the purpose of recruitment of teachers may be defeated.
However, the Court was of the opinion that these objections could be taken care of by making certain stipulations in the order it would pass.
The Advocate General also submitted that he received oral instructions that the State was willing to relax the criteria for eligibility as far as the candidates having CTET examination certificates, with a stipulation that they would have to clear the State TET examination in future and must be the residents of Jharkhand.
The Court thus held, “In view of the proposal made by the learned Advocate General and also having considered the matter to a great anxiety, we, hereby, dispose of the writ petitions and the W.P.(PIL) directing the State Government to conduct the TET examination every year, henceforth.”
“We further direct that those residents of the State of Jharkhand, who are otherwise eligible to appear in the examination and hold a CTET certificate or a certificate issued by the neighboring States having resident of Jharkhand shall be allowed to appear in the ongoing process with a further stipulation that the State shall ensure that the examination, if not held within a year, is held at least within next three years and the candidates who have participated in the selection process and have been appointed have to clear that STET examination within a period of three years by giving one chance. They shall pass it within three years and in one first available chance,” the Court further held.
The Court also stipulated that the State Government shall not conduct the examination at least for the next three months so that the candidates should get some time to get ready or prepare for the exam.
It further stated that if the State Government failed to conduct the examination within three years, then the stipulation will not take its full effect and those candidates who have cleared the examination process and were otherwise qualified shall not be removed from service.
Appearance :
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikalp Gupta, Advocate Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate Mr. Piyush, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C.(L&C)-I) Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G-II Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C to S.C.(L&C)-I)
For the JAC: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate Mrs. Pinky Shaw, Advocate Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate
For the NCTE: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the UOI: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC
Case Title: Jharkhandi CTET Utteern Abhiyarthi Sangh vs. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
Case No.: W.P. (PIL) No. 2785 of 2023