LexRAM KUMAR PATEL & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 6 S.C.R. 430 RAM KUMAR PATEL & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 9546 of2017) JULY25,2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: C Amendment of l 981 Rules - By Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (161h Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Propriety of - High Court quashed the 20 l 2 amendment on the ground that the amendment by the State was in conflict with the Notification dated l l'h February, 201 l issued by the Central Government - On appeal, held: There is no conflict in the D Notification issued by the Central Government and the amendment to the Sta_te Rules since weightage to the Teachers Eligibility Test marks in the process of appointment of teachers, was not mandatory and was merely a guideline - Therefore, State Rule cannot be held to be void on the ground of repugnancy - Appeals allowed - E Constitution of India - Schedule VII, List III, Entry 25. F G H Shiv Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. 2017 (7) JT 352 : 2017 (8) SCALE 202 - relied on. Prabhakar Singh v. State of U.P. (2013) 1 ADJ 651 - approved. Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 ADJ 310 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2017 (7) JT 352 relied on Para2 (2013) 1 ADJ 651 approved Para7 (2013) 6 ADJ 310 referred to Para 7 430 RAM KUMAR PATEL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 431 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9546 A of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 26952of2016 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 9547, 9548, 9549, 9551, 9550, 9706, 9710, 9554, 9715, 9716, 9718; 9719 and 9720 of2017 · Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 900 and 107 of2016 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 167 of2015. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sr.Adv.(AAG,UP), R. S. Suri, K.T.S. Tulsi, Salman Khurshid, Dinesh Dwivedi, Colin Gonsalves, V. Shekhar, Nidesh Gupta, Mahabir Singh, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Pallav Sisodia, R. Venkataramani, Ranji Thomas, Nagendra Rai, Rakesh Khanna, B c Sr. Advs., R. K. Singh, Kumar Gaurav, B.N. Dubey, Ms. Neeraj Singh, Tom Joseph, Ms. PriyankaAggarwal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Nishant D Singh, Krishnan Mishra, Yasharth Kant, V. K. Mishra, Ms. Radhika Dwivedi, Ms. Lubna Naaz, Ms. Kunika, Ms. Tehsina Wasim, Ms. Sanchita, Kundan Kumar Lal, Ms. Robin Khokhar, P. Dayal, Sajith P., Swarupama Chaturvedi, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Ms. Madhu Bala, Pradeep Kr. Tiwari, Pyush Pandey, Dr. Vi nod Kumar Tewari, Dr. B.K. Jauhari, Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Deepak Anand, Ms. Parul Shukla, Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms. Anannya Ghosh, E.C. Agrawala, Dheeraj Dubey, Mrs. Shally Bhasin, Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Ms. Nazish Fatima, Nachiketa Joshi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Vivek Tewari, Pankaj Singh, Anupam Dwivedi, Satyam Pandey, Amit Pawan, Dhananjay Garg, Pratham Kant, Nirmal Singh B. Sanjay Singh, Raj Kishor Chaudhary, Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Alka Singh, M. R. Shamshad, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Pitamber Dutt Nautiyal, Sanoth Rebello, Rakesh Mishra, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Rakesh Mishra, Prashant Shukla, T.D. Bhaskar, Satyajeet Kumar, Dinesh Kr. Tiwari, Mrs. Rajmala Dohare, Ra1111esh Thakur, Swami Nath, Bishnu Prasad Tiwari, Sal'ttosh Kr. Tripathi, Amit Pawan, Abhishek Asmritanshu, Anand Nandan, Akshat Srivastav, G Gaurav Singh, Hassan Zubhair Waris, Akshay Sinha, Suryodaya Prakash Tiwari, Rahul Kumar Tripathi, Harish Pandey, Rakesh Mishra, Ankit Mishra, Sujeet Kumar, P. Gautam, Ms. Reena Patel, Mehul M. Gupta, R. P.Gupta, Anupam Mishra, Shashank Mishra, Ms. Dwarka Sawale, Ms. Manju Jetley, Advs. for the appearing parties. E F H • 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. I. Leave granted. This batch of appeals has arisen from the judgment dated I" December, 2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.657 of 2015 1 and batch of the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad. The High . B Court has quashed the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service (I 61h Amendment) Rules, 2012 on the ground that the said amendment was in conflict with the Notification dated 11 •h February, 2011 issued by the National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE). 2. It is not necessary to discuss the issue in detail as in the c impugned judgment the High Court has followed its earlier judgment in Shiv Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P.2 wherein the issue of validi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.