Friends- happy republic day all of u, as u all know that we have got the govt S.L.P copy although there slp is in three volume and the pages is more than 700 but relevant page is only 15 and after reading govt S.L.P I must say that their slp will not stand in supreme court more than 5 minutes in the S.L.P govt in one hand begging before supreme court and on the other hand they are trying to misguide supreme court here are some points which they raise in supreme court u also study and give some ideas: Questions of Law: A. Whether, the Hon’ble High Court was justified in directing the appointment beyond the purview of statutory Rules, 1981 and also beyond the notification of the NCTE dated 11.02.2011 (Clause 9B) issued as per the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Central Act No. 35 of 2009? B. Whether, the Hon’ble High Court can declare Rule-14(3) as per 15th Amendment, 2012 made in Rules, 1981 as Ultra-vires to Article 14 of the Constitution without considering and deciding the fate of the candidates who have already been appointed as per same Rule -14(3)? C. Whether, the Hon’ble High Court can direct the appointment as per notification dated 30.11.2011 without considering and deciding that the post of Trainee Teacher was not even inserted in Rules., 1981 till 30.11.2011? D. Whether, the Hon’ble High Court can direct the appointment on the post of Trainee Teacher on the score of TET examination, firstly which is only qualifying examination under the guidelines of NCTE and also under the statutory Rules; secondly the same is based on total malpractice and has got no sanctity as decided by the High Power Committee through its decision dated 10.04.2012 and also the consequential decision of the Cabinet dated 26.07.2012 and the Government Order dated 26.07.2012, which are still unchallenged in any of the writ petitions or Special Appeals? E. Weather, the Hon’ble High Court can direct the appointment of the candidates who have already received/returned back the due fees of their application forms and on the basis of the same, whose application forms have been destroyed and are not available with the Government/Department? F. Whether, the Hon’ble High Court is justified in directing the appointment without considering the candidature of the candidates who have appeared and passed UP TET, 2013? G. Whether, the Hon’ble High Court was justified in directing the appointment on the basis of scores of the TET Examination, the merit of which was already sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court itself? GROUNDS: The petitioners are filing the instant Special Leave Petition on the following amongst other grounds: A. Because, the impugned judgment is illegal, bad and based on non-existing facts and law both. B. Because, the impugned judgment, an eligibility qualification for appointment on the post in question has been indirectly prescribed beyond the purview of the statutory said Rules, 1981 and 2011 and also the guidelines issued by the Central authority and the provisions of Central Act No. 35 of 2009 and as such, is without jurisdiction and in violation of Article 309 of The Constitution of India. C. Because, the Hon’ble High Court has committed illegality in direction the appointment beyond the purview of statutory Rules, 1981 and also beyond the notification of the NCTE dated 11.02.2011 (Clause 9B) issued as per the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Central Act No. 35 of 2009. D. Because, the Hon’ble High Court has committed grave illegality in declaring Rule-14(3) as per 15th Amendment, 2012 made is Rules, 1981 as ultra-virus to Article 14 of the Constitution without considering and deciding the fate of the candidates who have already been appointed as per same Rule-14(3). E. Because, the Hon’ble High Court could not legally direct the appointment as per notification dated 30.11.2011, without considering and deciding that the post of Trainee Teacher was not even inserted in Rules, 1981 till 30.11.2011. F. Because, the Hon’ble High Court manifestly erred in direct the appointment on the basis of score of TET examination, firstly which is only qualifying examination under the guidelines of NCTE and also under the statutory Rules; secondly the same is based on total malpractice and has got no sanctity as decided by the High Power Committee through its decision dated 10.04.2012 and also the consequential decision of the Cabinet dated 26.07.2012 and the Government Order dated 26.07.2012, which are still unchallenged in any of the writ petitions of Special Appeals. G. Because, the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the mere selection in an examination does not give an indefeasible right of appointment to a candidate and that too beyond the provision of Central Act and consequential guideline Central Academic body. H. Because, the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case merely the selection process was changed without altering the criteria of selection, which is wholly permissible in law. I. Because, the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that an appointment can be made only as per applicable rule on the date of the appointment. J. Because the Division Bench of the High Court has wrongly interpreted the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and held that the appointments to be made thereby were not of Trainee Teachers but in the existing cadre of the Assistant Teachers of 1981 Rules. The Division Bench has failed to that the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was for selection of Trainee Teachers, which cadre was non-existent in 1981 Rules, and not for Assistant Teachers envisaged by the said Rules and therefore the decision of the learned Single Judge that, the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 was bad, was correct. K. Because the Division Bench of the High Court has failed to appreciate that Clause 9(b) of guidelines dated 11.02.2011 merely prescribed for giving weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process and not to be the sole criteria for appointment of Teachers, rather the Clause 9(b) itself prescribes that, “qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/ employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria of appointment and therefore the State Government had not committed an error is issuing 15th amendment rules and prescribing TET only as one of the essential qualification and reverting to the earlier criteria of Quality Points based on the entire academic record of the candidate. For the same reasons, the high court has committed an error in holding rule 14 (3) of the 15th amendment Rules to be arbitrary and unreasonable and strike down the same on the ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. L. Because the High Court has committed an error in holding that there was no sufficient material before the State Government to cancel the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 and 20.12.2011. The High Powered Committee had considered the entire material regarding the malpractices and irregularities, which was sufficient in nature to recommend the cancellation of the said advertisement and TET Examination -2011. The said recommendations and the Government decision dated 26.07.2012 accepting and reiteration the recommendations of the High Powered Committee were not challenged before any Court. The Division Bench has therefore committed an error in holding that the full effect ought to have been given to the result of TET Examination -2011, including the marks obtained by candidates. The Court has failed to appreciate the following decisions of this Hon’ble Court and power of the State Government to cancel the selection process, if the irregularities are discovered therein: (A) Union of India Vs. O. Chakradhar –(2002)3 SCC 146. (B) All India Railway Recruitment Board Vs. K. Shyam Sundar –(2010) 6 SCC 614. (C) Madhyamic Siksha Mandal, M.P. Vs. Abhilash Siksha Prasar Samity – (1998) 9 SCC 236. (D) The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhash Chandra Sinha- (1970) 1 SCC 648. M. Because the High Court has committed an error in holding that the criteria of selection was arbitrarily changed during the process of selection. The High Court has failed to appreciate that it is within the power of the State to amend Rules even if process of selection has begun. The petitioners rely upon the following decisions of this Hon’ble Court: (a) State of M.P. Vs. Raghuvir singh Yadav –(1994) 6 SCC 151. (b) Yogesh Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi –(2003) 3 SCC 548. (c) Union of India Vs. Pushpa–(2008) 9 SCC 242. N. Because the High Court has failed to appreciate that in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. – (2013) 4 SCC 540 this Hon’ble Court has referred to the larger bench the question as to whether the procedure for selection can be changed by the State. 6. Grounds for Interim Relief: The petitioners have set out all the relevant facts in detail in the accompanying List of Dates and they shall crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the same as incorporated herein verbatim for the sake of brevity. The petitioners submit that they have a good case on merits and are likely to succeed before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, it is desirable in the interest of justice that during the pendency of proceedings before this Hon’ble Court, the interim relief as prayed for herein be granted, else the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Posted on: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:47:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015