Allowed

Champa Dey Debnath v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC31 Aug 2017WP(C)/524/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that cancelling the petitioner's candidature for teacher appointment due to a one-year diploma obtained in the 2004-2005 session was arbitrary. The court directed respondents to issue a certificate and consider her appointment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to issue a certificate of eligibility and consider the petitioner's appointment as a UGT teacher within three months.

Champa Dey Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A

¶2

W.P.(C) No.524 of 2017

¶3

	Smt. Champa Dey (Debnath), wife of Ashit Debnath, East Shibnagar, Sukanta Palli, P.O. Agartala College, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799004 .....Petitioner V e r s u s
1.	The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of School Education, Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, P.O. Secretariat Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
2.	National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE), Government of India, represented by its Chairperson, Hans Bhawan, Wing 2, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002
3.	The State Council of Teacher Education, SCERT, Government of Tripura, Department of School Education, represented by its Director, Kumaritila, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
4.	The Director, Department of School Education, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura
5.	The Chairman, Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Department of School Education, Govt. of Tripura, SCERT Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
6.	The Member Secretary, Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Department of School Education, Govt. of Tripura, SCERT Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
7.	The Controller of Examination, Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Department of School Education, Govt. of Tripura, SCERT Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura …….. Respondents

¶4

[2]

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶7

For the petitioner	:Mr. D.	Sarkar, Advocate
For the respondent No.1,3 & 4 to	7:Mr. B.	Datta, Advocate
For the respondents No.2	:Mr. S.	Sinha, Advocate
Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order	: 31.08 Yes	.2017 No
Whether fit for reporting	:	√

¶8

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶9

Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1,3,4,5,6 & 7 and Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶10

[2] The petitioner who is a bachelor of arts from Tripura University appeared in the Examination called Tripura Teachers Eligibility Test [T-TET in short] in the year 2015 against her Roll No.1104150039, as would be evident from the admit card issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It has been asserted by the petitioner that she had cleared the said examination. The petitioner has further asserted that after declaration of the result of the T-TET, 2015, at the time of verification of the documents, her candidature was cancelled on the ground that she had passed one year diploma course in Primary Teachers Education in the academic session 2004-2005 but not before 2005 (calendar year). The petitioner raised protest against the said action of the respondents and she submitted her representation to the Chairman, Tripura Teachers Recruitment Board [TTRB in short] for recalling the said action, but no action had

¶11

W.P.(C) No.524 of 2017 Page 2 of 5

¶12

[3]

¶13

surfaced. However, as consequence thereof, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition.

¶14

[3] Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1,3,4,5,6 & 7 has submitted that since the petitioner did not complete her one year diploma course in Primary Teacher Education (UGT Course) before 2005, her candidature was not considered as after the year 2005, only two years diploma course in Primary Teachers Education is unacceptable in terms of the National Council for Teachers Education [NCTE in short] notification.

¶15

[4] In response to the representation dated 11.03.2006 as submitted by the petitioner, the Member-Secretary, Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Tripura has replied in the following terms:

¶16

“I am directed to bring to you notice the clarification given by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), New Delhi regarding one year diploma in education, NCTE vide letter F.No.62-3/2012/NCTE/N&S/16190 dated 26^th October, 2015 has clarified that „one year diploma in education is not equivalent to two years diploma in elementary education. However, the candidates who have obtained one year diploma in education from NCTE recognised institution prior to year 2005 are eligible to be appointed‟. The Board has only complied the guidelines of NCTE.” [Emphasis added]

¶17

According to those respondents, the Board has complied

¶18

the guidelines of NCTE. From this interpretation, the controversy has raged. Consequently, the petitioner has been excluded from consideration of appointment in the post of under Graduate Teacher [UGT].

¶19

[5] The NCTE, the respondent No.2 has filed the reply and clearly stating that the diploma of one year obtained by the petitioner on prosecuting the academic session 2004-2005 is

¶20

W.P.(C) No.524 of 2017 Page 3 of 5

¶21

[4]

¶22

considered to be valid. In this regard, the reference has been made by the NCTE to their order dated 08.06.2004, Annexure-A to the reply filed on 16.08.2017.

¶23

[6] Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this court has already decided the similar issue in Smt. Mallika Datta vs. the State of Tripura and others by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2017 delivered in W.P(C) No.673 of 2015 in the following terms:

¶24

“There is a distance in the content of the order dated 08.06.2004 as referred and the entry in the communication dated 26.08.2015, if read without any conjunction. Those would mean that who could not acquire the one year diploma course from a NCTE recognized institution prior to 2005, would not be allowed to appear in the T-TET or in the further process of the recruitment of the teachers. But to dispel this confusion, the respondent No. 5, the NCTE filed an affidavit and has categorically asserted as under:

¶25

„8. That the answering deponent begs to state that the para 3(c) of the ERC order dated 08.06.2004 it is also provided that the duration of 1 year diploma of Under Graduate Training (UGT) course will be changed to 2 years duration from the academic session 2005-2006 as per NCTE norms. The answering deponent further begs to submit that after 2005 this diploma was for duration of 2 years as per the NCTE Regulation 2001.

¶26

9. That under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the deponent humbly submits that the stand taken by the writ petitioner is considered tenable in view of the NCTE, ERC Order No. ERC/745.5.3/2004/1758 passed on 08.06.2004. Thus, the candidate who had entered in the course in 2004, in the academic session of 2004-2005 is considered as eligible otherwise not.‟ ”

¶27

[Emphasis added]

¶28

[7] The petitioner’s case is also set up in the similar circumstances and as such, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1,3,4,5,6 & 7 has submitted that the petitioner be treated as eligible for appointment as the teacher in the undergraduate establishment.

¶29

W.P.(C) No.524 of 2017 Page 4 of 5

¶30

[5]

¶31

Sujay

¶32

[8] Having observed thus, this court is of the view that nonacceptance of the candidature of the petitioner for having one year diploma in Primary Teacher Education [on prosecuting the academic session 2004-2005] is wholly arbitrary and even not authorised by the NCET. Hence, such action of the respondents is unsustainable. The respondents No.1,3,4,5,6 & 7 are directed to issue the certificate in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner has passed the TET examination. The said respondents shall consider the appointment of the petitioner as the teacher in the under-gradate establishment on the basis of the said one year diploma. Such exercise shall be completed within 3(three) months from today.

¶33

With this observation and direction, this writ petition

¶34

stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶35

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

W.P.(C) No.524 of 2017 Page 5 of 5

Champa Dey Debnath v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Champa Dey Debnath v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Montu Lal Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rahul Chakraborty Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bapi Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Khokan Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Kalachand Chakma Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Gopes Sarkar Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.