Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1483 (RAJ)

Aruna Varma v. State of Rajasthan.

2014-08-21

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Mr. Aruna Varma who in response to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 published by Respondent No. 2 applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III Special Education Level (I) Primary. The petitioner has passed Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2000 with second division. The petitioner then took admission in the Diploma Course in the Special Education Mental Retardation and she was given admission by National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped, Jaipur. She on securing 64.2% marks was declared pass. Copy of the diploma certificate has been placed on record by the petitioner. According to the aforesaid advertisement minimum eligibility for Teacher Grade III Special Education Level (I) Primary was that one should be having qualification of Senior Secondary with 50% marks and Two years Diploma in Special Education. However, in Clause 7(4) of the advertisement it was mentioned that the only such diploma would be valid which is recognised by Rehabilitation Council of India as per their letter dated 11.01.2012. The petitioner contends that not only her diploma course is recognised by Rehabilitation Council of India which is on record as Annexure-6, but also Rehabilitation Council of India in its reply to writ petition has admitted that diploma held by the petitioner is duly recognised. Rehabilitation Council of India in fact place on record copy of letter dated 13.04.2012 which was addressed by it to all the State Governments contending that diploma in special education of one year and also of two years duration in various disability specializations approved by RCI are equivalent qualifications provided the candidate has valid registration with Rehabilitation Council of India. It is contended that the petitioner immediately after obtaining diploma applied for registration with Rehabilitation Council of India as per Section 19 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. Registration Certificate issued in her favour by Rehabilitation Council of India is on record as Annexure-3. It is contended that the petitioner despite appearing sufficiently high in merit i.e. 4th place in OBC category has not been considered for appointment. It is contended that at the time when she undertook Diploma Course there was only one year Diploma available and two years Diploma had not yet started. 2. It is contended that the petitioner despite appearing sufficiently high in merit i.e. 4th place in OBC category has not been considered for appointment. It is contended that at the time when she undertook Diploma Course there was only one year Diploma available and two years Diploma had not yet started. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 in their reply have disputed the claim of the petitioner contending that the qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III has been prescribed by NCTE and for Special Education one should possess diploma or degree recognised by RCI, but it should be of two years as per NCTE regulations. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have also relied upon Notification dated 23.08.2010 contending that according to it a candidate for appointment on the post Special Education Teacher has to possess Senior Secondary(or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two years Diploma in Education(Special Education). According to Clause 2 of the said notification, for the of purpose of Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education(NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education(Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education) a course recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 has also contended in the reply that as per amended Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the qualification as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education(NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009(hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 2009') from time to time shall be applicable. It is, therefore, contended that in so far as general qualification is concerned it is to be recognised as per the recommendations made by NCTE simultaneously for Special Education recongnised by RCI would be valid, but the mandate of Section 3 of the Act of 2009 has not been deleted nor diluted. 3. Section 3(1) of the Act of 2009 inter alia provides that every child of the age of 6 to 14 years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education. 3. Section 3(1) of the Act of 2009 inter alia provides that every child of the age of 6 to 14 years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education. Section 3(2) of the Act of 2009 provides that for the purpose of sub-section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her pursuing and completing the elementary education. Proviso thereto stipulates that a child suffering from disability, as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1996'), shall have the right to pursue free and compulsory elementary education in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the said Act. 4. Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009 provides that any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009 further provides that where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of the Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. 5. It is thus evident that in so far as education in general is concerned, National Council for Teacher Education is authorised to laid down the qualification as per provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009 but in regard to special education required for educating the children suffering from various kinds of disabilities, power has been vested with Rehabilitation Council of India to make prescription for such qualification. This is the case of the parties before this Court. 6. The advertisement which the respondents issued itself in Para 7.4 provides that in so far as special education is concerned, the only such diploma of special education or B.Ed. This is the case of the parties before this Court. 6. The advertisement which the respondents issued itself in Para 7.4 provides that in so far as special education is concerned, the only such diploma of special education or B.Ed. of special education shall be valid which is recognised by Rehabilitation Council of India as per their letter dated 11.01.2012. Copy of letter dated 11.01.2012 has been placed on record as Annexure-6. Annexure-I appended to that letter deals with the Elementary (Primary/Upper Primary Level of Teachers). At Serial No.1 in that category it is provided that minimum educational qualification for that post is XIIIth passed and two years D.Ed. Special Education in any of the category of disability whereas at Serial No. 2 of that category minimum qualification is XIIth passed and one year Diploma in Special Education(DSE) in any of the category of disability. Eight more such prescriptions have been made but the case of the petitioner is covered by second entry as her Diploma is Special Education is of the duration of one year which has further been reinforced by reply to writ petition filed by Respondent No. 3, the Rehabilitation Council of India wherein it is contended that Diploma in Special Education of one year and two year duration in various disability specializations approved by RCI are equivalent qualifications as intimated to all the State Governments by them vide their letter dated 13.04.2012. Copy of this letter has also placed on record by Respondent No. 3 along with its reply as Annexure-A1. Said letter dated 13.04.2012 is reproduced as under: "7-91/RCI-2011 13th April, 2012Speed Post Secretary, Department of Education, All States/UT's Project Director(SSA), All States/UT's Subject: Equivalence of one year duration Diploma in Special Education with two years duration Diploma in Special Education. Madam/Sir, This is to inform you that Diploma in Special Education of one year and two year duration in various disability specializations approved by RCI are equivalent qualifications. However, the applicant with approved qualification must have valid registration with RCI. In view of the above you are requested to consider such candidates for recruitment through CTET/State TET. A Circular for minimum requirement of qualification for Special Education Teacher dated 11th January, 2012 has already been sent to all concerned and the copy of same is available on RCI website. Thanking you. Yours sincerely,Sd/-Maj. Gen.(Retd.) Ian Cardozo, AVSM, SMChairman." 7. In view of the above you are requested to consider such candidates for recruitment through CTET/State TET. A Circular for minimum requirement of qualification for Special Education Teacher dated 11th January, 2012 has already been sent to all concerned and the copy of same is available on RCI website. Thanking you. Yours sincerely,Sd/-Maj. Gen.(Retd.) Ian Cardozo, AVSM, SMChairman." 7. In view of above, there can be no doubt that the qualification as held by the petitioner recognised by Rehabilitation Council of India is valid for the purpose for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III Special Education Level (I) Primary. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the Diploma of the petitioner as valid for the purpose of appointment and pass appropriate order of appointment of the petitioner if she is found suitable within two moths from the date copy of this order is produced before them. Her appointment would relate to the date of appointment of candidate as per the selection in question. However, for the intervening period she shall be entitled for notional benefits only. 9. Stay application stands disposed of.Writ petition allowed. *******