Disposed

Vikash Jain and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2012CW/5253/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash notifications regarding RTET 2011 eligibility criteria after noting that relief was already granted by a Division Bench in a connected matter and the NCTE amended criteria.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent Board to declare the results of petitioners who appeared provisionally.

Vikash Jain and Ors. Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B.CI VIL WRIT PETITION NO.5253/ 2011 Vikas Jain and others Versus The State of Rajasthan and others

¶5

DATE OF ORDER --- APRIL 06, 2012

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA

¶8

Mr. Akhil Simlote, for the petitioners Mr.V.K.Gupta, for the respondent No.2 Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶9

BY THE COURT

¶10

(1) By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned notification dated 23.8.2010 (Anx.2) and guidelines dated 11.2.2011 (Anx.3).

¶11

(2) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief claimed by the petitioners, with regard to the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for RTET, 2011, has already been granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Sompura & Ors. V. State (Education) and others (DB Civil Writ Petition No.3964/ 2011 and other connected matters) decided on 20^th May, 2011, the relevant portion of which is as under:

¶12

“The respondents shall not insist on the qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the bachelor's degree or master's degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, in case incumbents have obtained admission in the requisite courses such as B.A., B.Com., B.Sc., B.Ed., B.El.Ed, Senior Secondary etc. prior to prescription of the minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009. It is made clear that the incumbents, who have obtained the B.Ed. etc. before the minimum qualifications were prescribed vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009, shall be allowed to appear in

¶13

¶14

the TET Examination. The incumbents, who have passed out B.Ed. Course from Jammu & Kashmir, have to be dealt with on similar yard sticks in case the qualification is otherwise recognised. Let NCTE specify categories of teachers under para 4 of Notification dated 23.8.2010. As prayed by NCTE, let amended notification be issued within one month covering aforesaid aspects.”

¶15

(3) Counsel for the respondent submits that in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, the N.C.T.E. has amended the eligibility criteria of minimum marks in graduation for general category to appear in RTET, 2011, therefore, no further relief is required to be granted. However, their rights shall be governed by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment dated 20.5.2011 in pursuance to which amendment has been issued by the National Council for Teachers Education.

¶16

(4) Since the petitioners appeared in the R.T.E.T. provisionally pursuant to the interim order dated 31.5.2011 and the N.C.T.E. has amended the eligibility criteria, their result may now be declared by the respondent Board.

¶17

(5) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

(6) In view of the above, Application No.14973 dated 2.4.2012 for withdrawal of the writ petition by the petitioner No.8 Asif son of late Abdul Salim Khan, stands disposed of.

¶19

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed.

¶20

गोpa ल PS

Vikash Jain and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Jain and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sampatram Meena and Ors. Vs State Education Departmentors

Sushila Kumari Vs State Education Departmentors

Anita Kumari Bijarnia Vs State Education Departmentors

Dhanna Lal Jat Vs State Education Departmentors

Surjeet Singh Vs State Education Departmentors

Narsi Ram Yadav Vs State Education Departmentors