UPTET Allahabad HighCourt : Petitioner Claiming No Age Limit for TET Exam then Why Maximum Age Limit for VBTC/PRT Training, Dismissed

UPTET Allahabad HighCourt : Petitioner Claiming No Age Limit for TET Exam then Why Maximum Age Limit for VBTC/PRT Training, Dismissed

See Case Details : -

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7180 of 2012

Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Varshney & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shailendra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. The petitioners are challenging advertisement dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) whereby maximum age for Special Training meant for Trainee Teachers selection in primary schools provided is 40 years as on 01.07.2011 which is relaxable to certain categories not applicable to petitioners. 2. It is contended that for appearing in Teachers Eligibility Test there was no age restriction and further that under 3rd proviso to Rule 6 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "1981 Rules") the benefit of the period to which a person has remain unemployed is provided, hence aforesaid restriction of age is illegal.


3. The submission, in my view, is thoroughly misconceived. So far as Rule 6 is concerned it applies for recruitment in service when an advertisement is made under Section 14 of 1981 Rules for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The present advertisement relates to training of such persons. 4. Even if I apply Rule 6, 3rd proviso thereof reads as under:
"Provided also that where after successful completion of a course of training prescribed for teachers of basic schools, a candidiate could not get appointment due to non-availability of vacancy in the district, the period he has remained unappointed shall not be counted for the calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment:" 5. A bare perusal of 3rd proviso shows that it talks of training prescribed for teachers of basic schools and if a candidiate after completion thereof could not get appointment due to non availability of vacancy in the district than the period to which he has remained unemployed shall not be counted for calculation of his age if he has not attained the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy that aforesaid proviso is applicable to petitioners in as much as it talks of training prescribed to teachers of basic schools and also that the appointment could not be made due to non availability of vacancy. The petitioners claim that after completion of B.Ed, B.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. they remain unemployed but that is not a qualification prescribed as training qualification in basic schools. Such qualification was considered for admission in Special B.T.C. course for some time after the approval was granted by N.C.T.E. but it was/is not the training qualification meant for appointment in primary schools, hence said period would not apply. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that petitioners were not given appointment due to non availability of vacancy. The 3rd proviso will have to apply only when conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. It could not be shown by learned counsel for the petitioners that advertisement prescribing age limit of 40 years is otherwise contrary to any statutory provision etc. Therefore, in my view, no interference is called for at this stage.
6. Dismissed. Order Date :- 8.2.2012
AK
Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1686967