Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1638 (MAD)

Mohanraj, K. & Others v. Union of India & Others

2006-07-04

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, K.SUGUNA

body2006
Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Recruitment Rules, 1997 for the post of Drawing Teachers of the first respondent insofar as the portion viz. ‘Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree of the Pondicherry University or any other recognised University’ is concerned and consequent order dated 29.9.2005 of the third respondent passed in O.A.No.940 of 2004 and quash the same.) Elipe Dharma Rao, J. All the petitioners have passed S.S.L.C. and Technical Teachers Certificate (Higher Grade) in Drawing (hereinafter referred to as TTC) and according to them, they are eligible to be appointed for the post of Drawing Teacher, as per the Recruitment Rules for Drawing Teachers framed for the first time by the Government of Pondicherry in G.O.Ms.No.188/78-Edn./SO(E), dated 22.9.1978, which prescribed the qualification for the post of Drawing Teacher as "1. S.S.L.C. (eligible) or equivalent and 2. Technical Teacher’s Certificate (Higher Grade) in drawing." 2. The petitioners further state that the above said Recruitment Rules were in vogue till September, 1997 and even though there were 17 vacancies of Drawing Teachers, no recruitment was made from 1989 and thus, they remained unemployed. The petitioners further state that in the year 1997, the Recruitment Rules were revised by way of G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 22.10.1997 and column No.7 of the Schedule to the said Recruitment Rules for the appointment of Drawing Teachers was amended as follows: "Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree of the Pondicherry University or of any other recognised University or Technical Teachers Certificate (Higher Grade) in drawing of a recognised institution; and working knowledge in any of the regional languages." Consequent upon the amendment of the Recruitment Rules, the respondents have issued a notification dated 2.9.1999 for filling up of 17 Drawing Teacher posts and all the petitioners have submitted their applications, but till date, the respondents have not taken any step to recruit the required number of candidates. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted a petition on 9.8.2001 to the Director of Education, praying to appoint them as Drawing Teachers on the basis of seniority list of employment exchange as has been in practice in Tamilnadu, but since the same had not evoked any response, the sixth petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.17448 of 2001 before this Court praying to issue a ‘Writ of Mandamus directing the Union Territory of Pondicherry to fix 75% quota for the recruitment of drawing teachers under the respondent, recruit the drawing teachers on the basis of employment exchange seniority by raising the age limit as 45 years from among the Technical Teachers Certificate (Drawing) for the post of Drawing Teachers under the respondent’ on ground that in the Bachelor of Fine Arts, there is no teachers training and it is a general qualification whereas Technical Teachers Certificate is a special certificate having the curriculum of teaching and is tailor made for teaching young minds and psychology is also one of the subjects whereas in Bachelor of Fine Arts, no such education has been imparted to them. 3. It is further contended in the said Writ Petition that because of the Bachelor Degree, the persons possessing Bachelor of Fine Arts are joining various departments and employment opportunity for them is very high and the course is a newly offered one, but, on the other hand, the Technical Teachers Certificate holders are not having any opportunity at all to get employment other than Drawing Teachers under the respondent. The respondent has resisted the claim of the petitioner, by filing a counter affidavit and a Division Bench of this Court, by the order dated 15.6.2004 has disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following observations: "Learned senior counsel and Special Government Pleader for Union Territory of Pondicherry assures that the representation made by the petitioner for the creation of quota in favour of the Drawing Teachers who have passed the Technical Teachers Certificate (TTC) Examination conducted by the Department of Government Examinations (Education) shall be considered by the respondent. This shall be done, according to the learned senior counsel, within three months from today. On this assurance, the Writ Petition is disposed of." 4. This shall be done, according to the learned senior counsel, within three months from today. On this assurance, the Writ Petition is disposed of." 4. Pursuant to the said direction by the Division Bench of this Court, the representation of the sixth petitioner herein and 18 others dated 21.8.2001 was disposed of by the second respondent herein by the order dated 15.9.2004 in his proceedings No.435/DSE/Estt/A6/2004, thereby rejecting the request of the petitioners for a share of 75% of seats, for age relaxation and to fill up the posts of Drawing Teachers by confining the recruitment to seniority by Employment Exchange. Aggrieved by the said rejection of their representation, all the petitioners along with one K.Puviyarasu, have filed O.A.No.940 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to "(i) To quash the Recruitment Rules 1997 for the post of Drawing Teacher insofar as the portion viz. ‘Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree of the Pondicherry University or any other recognised University’ found against Column 7 of the said Recruitment Rules is concerned. (ii) Consequently to direct the respondents to fill up all the existing vacant posts of Drawing Teachers from the candidates who are in possession of Technical Teachers Certificate Higher Grade in Drawing and who had submitted their applications in pursuance of the notification dated 2.9.1999 by relaxing their age upto 45 years. (iii) Alternatively to direct the respondents to appoint all the applicants herein as Drawing Teachers in the Education Department, Government of Pondicherry irrespective of age and other things" 5. The Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A. on ground that the Government is well within their right to modify the existing rules to make new rules and that the Government have taken a policy decision that the degree holders are also equally qualified for being appointed as Drawing Teachers. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has reiterated his contentions raised before the Tribunal that as the Division Bench of this Court had directed the Government of Pondicherry, in the earlier round of litigation, to consider the representation of the petitioners, the respondents should have considered the representation of the petitioners positively and fixed the quota for the TTC holders. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the O.A. by simply holding that the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree is a higher qualification than that of TTC (Higher Grade) in Drawing Certificate without considering the relevance of the subject learnt in Bachelor of Fine Arts and the syllabus to be taught to the students in the schools prescribed by the Education department, so as to hold whether the Bachelor of Fine Art is degree is appropriate or inappropriate to teach the students of the schools. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the TTC is a special training to teach the school students, whereas it is lacking in respect of the degree holders of Bachelor of Fine Arts and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT USWATHUN HASANA ORIENTAL (ARABIC) GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALLAPATTI, KARUR DISTRICT vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 AND OTHERS reported in 2002 Writ L.R.173. In the said judgment, the petitioners therein, who are B.Ed. Graduates were appointed in the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies in Pre-primary, Primary and Middle schools run by private managements. When the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.559 dated 11.7.1995 directing the educational authorities not to approve such appointment of B.Ed. Teachers in the vacancies of Secondary Grade Teachers, the same was challenged before this Court wherein the Government has taken a stand that the Secondary Grade Teachers are given special training in child study, to enable them to teach pupils upto VIII standard and the training given to B.Ed. is different. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering ‘whether the qualification of B.Ed. is a requisite qualification to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher for teaching the students upto VIII standard for which the qualification is S.S.L.C. & T.S.L.C. of Secondary Grade or its equivalent?’ and having perused all the concerned G.Os. and considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, has ultimately held as follows: "Both the B.Ed. and Secondary Grade Teacher Training qualifications operate in separate and distinct fields. There is no question of one qualification being higher than the other. and considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, has ultimately held as follows: "Both the B.Ed. and Secondary Grade Teacher Training qualifications operate in separate and distinct fields. There is no question of one qualification being higher than the other. We have already held that the syllabus of Secondary Grade Teachers are different from the syllabus of B.Ed. Teachers .... and we hold further that the B.Ed. Teachers do not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed in the vacancy of Secondary Grade Teachers to teach upto VIII Standard." 8. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Division Bench of this Court, has also relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court delivered in JAYASHREE SUNIL CHAVAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA (AIR 2000 BOMBAY 394), wherein it has been held that the Secondary Grade Teacher Training is different from B.Ed. The extract of the relevant passage of the said decision is as follows: "26. The position has to be accepted as well settled that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a Constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the Society depends in line with this principle, the State has enacted statutes and framed Rules and Regulation to control and regulate establishments running private schools at different levels. The State Government provides grants recognition and/or permission to run private schools with a view to exercise control over the institutions and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer for want of academic control. It needs no emphasis that appointment of qualified and efficient teacher is a sine qua non of maintaining high standard of teaching in educational institutions. In order to achieve, maintain, high and proper standard of education at the entry point i.e., at the stage of primary education, if the State has formulated its policy only to appoint the teacher with requisite professional qualifications, no fault, in our opinion, can be found. The said obligation of the State stands reflected in Section 16 of the Act which mandates the State to prescribe minimum qualifications for recruitment of teacher in private schools. The said obligation of the State stands reflected in Section 16 of the Act which mandates the State to prescribe minimum qualifications for recruitment of teacher in private schools. The policy of the State reflects through Rule 6 which prescribes qualifications of primary teachers as mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ part I, whereas qualifications for secondary teachers are mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ Part II of the rules. Schedule ‘B’, Part I prescribes D.Ed., as the requisite qualification for primary teachers, whereas Schedule B, Part II prescribes B.Ed., as a requisite qualification for higher secondary teachers. Based on the aforesaid provisions, it is to be noticed that B.Ed. is not requisite qualification for primary teachers. The syllabus for B.Ed. is entirely different. The syllabus for D.Ed. is better suited for imparting education to the students taking education in primary school only whereas syllabus for B.Ed. is entirely distinct and better suited for the students taking education in higher standards...." 9. In P.M.LATHA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2003 SCC (L&S) 339), the Supreme Court has held as follows: "There is no force in the argument that B.Ed. Qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore the B.Ed. Candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of the appellants it is pointed out that Trained Teacher''s Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed. Degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B.Ed. Degree-holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools." 10. In YOGESH KUMAR AND OTHERS vs. GOVT.OF NCT, DELHI AND OTHERS (2003 SCC (L&s) 346) also, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "B.Ed. Qualification, although a well-recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education, being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. Teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. Course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. Degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. Teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. Course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. Degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification, the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with B.Ed. Degree qualification and the latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former. The nature of the training imparted for grant of certificate and for degree is totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever." 11. Applying the above said observations of the Division Bench of this Court, Full Bench of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, since the syllabus for Bachelor of Fine Arts is different from that of the TTC, it is to be held that the syllabus prescribed for Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree do not cope with the syllabus of Teaching of Drawing in schools and had no relevance to the teaching of drawing in the School and thus, the persons who are holding TTC are only eligible to teach the drawing in schools. Therefore, it is to be held that the inclusion of the qualification of Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree for the appointment of Drawing Teachers in the Schools, where only the candidates with Technical Teachers Certificate (Higher Grade) in drawing could be appointed, is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, we set aside that part of the Recruitment Rules, 1997 and the consequential notifications dated 2.9.1999 and 22.7.2005 and direct the respondents to go on with the selection for the post of Drawing Teachers to teach drawing upto VIIIth standard only from out of the candidates of Technical Teacher Certificate (Higher Grade) in drawing. So far as the selection for the other posts, as per the two notifications, there is no objection for the Government. 12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that no drawing teachers are appointed in the schools for the last 16 years. So far as the selection for the other posts, as per the two notifications, there is no objection for the Government. 12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that no drawing teachers are appointed in the schools for the last 16 years. Thus, the schools in the Pondicherry are not having Drawing Teachers and the students who studied in those schools for the last 16 years have lost the opportunity of learning the art of drawing. It is unfortunate that the respondents have not carried on with the selection process, even though there is no order of stay from this Court restraining them from going on with the selection as per the notifications. We record our dissatisfaction towards the attitude of the Government of Pondicherry in not providing the Drawing Teachers to the Schools in the Pondicherry for the last 16 years. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to go on with the selection of Drawing Teachers, as per the two Notifications dated 2.9.1999 and 22.7.2005, subject to the above observations of this Court, and complete the selection process within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the order of the Tribunal, to the extent mentioned supra. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.44534 and 44535 of 2005 are closed.