Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 596 (HP)

Atma Ram v. State of H. P.

2014-05-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner has claimed the following substantive relief(s):-- (i) That the impugned correspondence dated 7.12.2013 and 9.12.2013 Annexure P-12 may be quashed and set aside. Further, the provisions of the impugned order may be held not applicable to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to complete the training, which the petitioner is already undergoing from DIET Nahan, by conducting final examination. The case of the petitioner is that for the purpose of employing teachers in the Primary Schools, the respondent-department has been resorting to different modes of appointment. Initially in the year 1982, the department started the process for appointment of voluntary teachers in the department. The voluntary teachers were appointed under the policy of 1982, thereafter the appointments were also made in the year 1984 and then in the year, 1992. The said voluntary teachers were directed to undergo J.B.T. training course and thereafter the services of the said voluntary teachers were regularized. 2. In the year 2001, the State Government formulated a scheme for appointment of Gram Vidya Upasaks (GVU's). As per the said Scheme, the basic educational qualification for appointment as GVU was 10+2. Vide notification dated 23.08.2003, the Scheme for appointment of GVUs was repealed and provision was made for appointment of Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) wherein the basic qualification for the appointment was retained as 10+2. The Junior Basic Teacher (for short JBT) was being imparted through the DIETs which are affiliated and recognized by the H.P. Board of School Education and the said DIETs are established in every Districts. 3. The petitioner had applied for the post of PAT and was called upon to appear in the interview vide Notification dated 4.9.2003 and vide letter dated 18.9.2003 the petitioner was appointed as PAT in Government Primary School, Juvyalidhar, Education Block, Bakras, District Sirmaur. 4. On 24.8.2011, the respondent-department framed a policy for regularization of GVUs, who had completed 8 years of service as on 31.3.2011 and before regularization the GVUs were supposed to undergo special JBT training course to be conducted by the DIETs and the course was a correspondence course. After successful completion of the training the GVUs were to be regularized and appointed as JBTs. 5. After successful completion of the training the GVUs were to be regularized and appointed as JBTs. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having undergone training on different periods conducted by the DIET's, and now through the correspondence dated 7.12.2013 and 9.12.2013, the department has taken a decision to conduct a training for all untrained teachers (left out Gram Vidya Upasak/PATs/Gram Vidya Upasaks etc.) working in Government Primacy Schools through open distance learning from NIOS, Noida, as suggested by the National Council for Teachers Education. It is further provided that following categories of teachers would be eligible for admission to this course:-- (i) Those PAT's EGS (GVUs) teachers who have secured above 50% marks in +2 exam, in case of general category candidates and 45% marks in case of SC, ST & OBC candidates; (ii) Those PAT's, & EGS (GVU's) who are graduate in any discipline. 6. Because the petitioner has secured less than 50% marks in +2 examination insofar as he belongs to general category and less than 45 marks in the case of SC, ST, OBC, therefore, he has filed this petition alleging therein that at the time he was appointed, such conditions had not been prescribed and therefore, at this stage such conditions cannot be enforced against him as this would amount to change of rules of the game in the mid stream. It is further claimed that he is already undergoing the training from the DIET and therefore, cannot be subjected to any further training. 7. The respondents have filed reply, wherein they have stated as under:-- "1. That the present petition filed by the petitioner against the replying respondents is not maintainable because in the State trained JBT teachers were not available, hence to cope up with the deficiency of teachers in the Primary Schools, the Govt. formulated a scheme namely "H.P. Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme-2003." Under this policy Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) were appointed against the vacant posts of JBT teachers during the year 2004 to 2007. 2. That in the policy of Primary Assistant Teachers framed in the year 2003 there was no provision of imparting training to the Primary Assistant Teachers to be appointed under the policy and neither were they entitled to claim regularization/absorption appointment in the JBT cadre. However, taking a lenient view Govt. 2. That in the policy of Primary Assistant Teachers framed in the year 2003 there was no provision of imparting training to the Primary Assistant Teachers to be appointed under the policy and neither were they entitled to claim regularization/absorption appointment in the JBT cadre. However, taking a lenient view Govt. took a decision to impart training to them from 20.7.2011 in various DIETs of the State as per programme mentioned below so that they may become eligible for regularization as Junior Basic Teachers:-- Accordingly, curriculum for training was prepared and the said training was started in various DIETs of the State and the assessment was to be conducted by the H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala. 3. That in view of the implementation of the Right to Education Act, 2009 the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, notified National Council for Teacher Education as an academic authority. The National Council of Teacher Education vide its notification dated 23.8.2010 notified and laid down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher for class I to V. For class I to V the minimum qualifications have been prescribed as under:-- (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two years Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and two years Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the National Council of Teachers Education, NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulation-2002. OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 years Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed). OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two years Diploma in Education (Special Education) OR Graduation and two years Diploma in Elementary Education (By whatever name known) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the authority designated by the HP State Government. Accordingly, Recruitment and Promotion Rules were amended and notified on 23.8.2013. 4. That the Primary Assistant Teachers were not fulfilling the qualifications as laid down by the NCTE for a person to be appointed as teacher for class I to V. Therefore, the training course which was being imparted to the PATs by the State Govt. in various DIETs, was submitted to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. 4. That the Primary Assistant Teachers were not fulfilling the qualifications as laid down by the NCTE for a person to be appointed as teacher for class I to V. Therefore, the training course which was being imparted to the PATs by the State Govt. in various DIETs, was submitted to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India for according approval in the matter. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) placed the matter before the NCTE for granting further approval. The National Council of Teacher Education did not approve the proposal and directed not to continue with the on going programme and suggested to prepare a concrete proposal for untrained in-service teachers. Due to this reason the 2nd year six days training left to be imparted, could not be completed and examination was not conducted. It is further submitted that out of 104 days contact program training for 98 days had already been imparted to the PATs before it was stopped in view of the directions of Ministry of Human Resource Development Govt. of India, vide letter dated 4.6.2012. The Ministry of Human Resource Development vide letter dated 4.6.2013 conveyed the Govt. and the same is annexed as Annexure R-1. It is respectfully, submitted that for imparting 98 days training to the Primary Assistant Teachers (PATs) huge expenditure has incurred. 5. That it is submitted that the State made its best efforts to get the training course being imparted to Primary Assistant Teachers (PATs) approved from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) so that they may be considered for regularization accordingly. But the Ministry of Human Resource Development/National Council of Teacher Education did not approve the proposal of the State Government. Therefore, there was no way left, except imparting training to untrained teachers, which also includes Primary Assistant Teachers through Open Distance Learning Mode from NIOS Noida as suggested by the NCTE, New Delhi which also includes Primary Assistant Teachers. 6. That it is submitted that JBT training in the DIETs is a full time 2 years programme, whereas, the NCTE has held that the training being provided to the untrained teachers during the holiday period is inadequate and therefore, did not approve it." 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 9. It is settled law that it is for the statutory authority to frame the rules laying down the conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned, who can take ultimate decision thereon. The jurisdiction of the superior court, it is a trite law, would be to interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same. It is well settled that superior court while exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct the employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a post. 10. In Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. The Chairman, UPSC and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 42 , it has been held as under: "23. The qualifications for recruitment to a post are laid down in terms of the statutory rules. The Fourth Respondent raised a contention before the Tribunal that several persons named in Ground 'G' of the writ petition had occupied the very post in the Archaeological Department, although they were experts in Epigraphy. 25. The statutory authority is entitled to frame statutory rules laying down terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision therefore. 26. The jurisdiction of the superior courts, it is a trite law, would be to interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same. 27. It is well-settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post." 11. In Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh Vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and Others, AIR 2011 SC 2956 , it has been held as under:-- "12. The Tribunal and High Court also committed an error in holding that the appellant could not prescribe the qualifications of Ph.D. for the post of principal merely because earlier the said educational qualification was not prescribed or insisted. The Recruitment Rules were made in consultation with UPSC, to give effect to the UGC guidelines which prescribed Ph.D. degree as the eligibility qualification for direct recruitment of Principals. The Recruitment Rules were made in consultation with UPSC, to give effect to the UGC guidelines which prescribed Ph.D. degree as the eligibility qualification for direct recruitment of Principals. In fact, even the 1976 Punjab Rules prescribed Ph.D. degree as a qualification. In several States, Ph.D. is a requirement for direct recruitment to the post of a college Principal. When the said qualification is not unrelated to the duties and functions of the post of Principal and is reasonably relevant to maintain the high standards of education, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the provision of the said requirement as an eligibility requirement. It is now well settled that it is for the rulemaking authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. Courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the concerned authority so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of Constitution, statute and Rules. [See J. Ranga Swamy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. The Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 632. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or Statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Ph.D. is unreasonable." 12. In State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 545 , it has been held as under: "11. The courts as also the tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution." 12. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution." 12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of 'fair play', 'good conscious' and 'equity'. (Vide: State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Shiv Ram Sharma and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 653 ; and Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 633 . 13. In State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , this Court has held that any appointment made in contravention of the statutory requirement i.e. eligibility, cannot be approved and once an appointment is bad at its inception, the same cannot be preserved, or protected, merely because a person has been employed for a long time. 14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules is, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegibility and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See: Dr Prit Singh Vs. S.K. Mangal and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 714 Supp; and Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 153 ." 13. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See: Dr Prit Singh Vs. S.K. Mangal and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 714 Supp; and Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 153 ." 13. The statement of objects and reasons for enacting the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act') are stated thus:-- "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The crucial role of universal elementary education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through provision of equal opportunities to all has been accepted since inception of our Republic. The Directive Principles of State policy enumeration in our Constitution lays down that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of fourteen years. Over the years there has been significant spatial and numerical expansion of elementary schools in the country, yet the goal of universal elementary education continues to elude us. The number of children, particularly children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, who drop out of school before completing elementary education, remains very large. Moreover, the quality of learning achievement is not always entirely satisfactory even in the case of children who complete elementary education. 2. Article 21A, as inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, provides for free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a Fundamental Right in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. 3. 2. Article 21A, as inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, provides for free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a Fundamental Right in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. 3. Consequently, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2008, is proposed to be enacted which seeks to provide,-- (a) that Every child has a right to be provided full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain essential norms and standards; (b) 'compulsory education' casts an obligation on the appropriate Government to provide and ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education; (c) 'free education' means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education; (d) The duties and responsibilities of the appropriate Governments, local authorities, parents, schools and teachers in providing free and compulsory education; and (e) A system for protection of the right of children and a decentralized grievance redressal mechanism. 4. The proposed legislation is anchored in the belief that the values of equality, social justice and democracy and the creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through provision of inclusive elementary education to all. Provision of free and compulsory education of satisfactory quality to children from disadvantaged and weaker sections is, therefore, not merely the responsibility of schools run or supported by the appropriate Governments, but also of schools which are not dependent on Government funds. 5. It is, therefore, expedient and necessary to enact a suitable legislation as envisaged in Article 21A of the Constitution. 6. The Bill seeks to achieve this objective." 14. Section 23 of the Act provides as under:-- "23. Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.- (1) 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. 6. The Bill seeks to achieve this objective." 14. Section 23 of the Act provides as under:-- "23. Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.- (1) 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. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under subsection (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 this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under subsection (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teacher shall be such as may be prescribed." 15. The Central Government has also framed rules under the aforesaid Act called the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2010. 16. Rules 17, 18 and 19 reads as under:-- "17. Minimum qualifications.- (1) The Central Government shall, within one month of the appointed date, notify an academic authority for laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) The academic authority notified under sub-rule (1), shall, within three months of such notification, lay down the minimum qualifications for persons to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an elementary school. (3) The minimum qualifications laid down by the academic authority referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be applicable for every school referred to in clause (n) of section 2. 18. Relaxation of minimum qualifications.--(1) The State Government and the Union territory shall, within six months from the commencement of the Act, estimate the teacher requirement as per the norms in the Schedule for all schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2. 18. Relaxation of minimum qualifications.--(1) The State Government and the Union territory shall, within six months from the commencement of the Act, estimate the teacher requirement as per the norms in the Schedule for all schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2. (2) Where a State Government or a Union territory does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or persons possessing minimum qualifications as notified in sub-rule(2) of Rule 17 are not available in sufficient numbers in relation to the requirement of teachers estimated under sub-rule (1), the State Government or the Union territory shall request within one year of the commencement of the Act, the Central Government for relaxation of the prescribed minimum qualification. (3) On receipt of the request referred to in sub-rule (2), the Central Government shall examine the request of the State Government of the Union territory and may, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications. (4) The notification referred to in sub-rule (3) shall specify the nature of relaxation and the time period, not exceeding three years, but not beyond five years from the commencement of the Act, within which the teachers appointed under the relaxed conditions acquire the minimum qualifications specified by the academic authority notified under sub-section (1) of section 23. (5) After six months from the commencement of the Act, no appointment of teacher for any school can be made in respect of any person not possessing the minimum qualifications notified in sub-rule(2) of Rule 17, without the notification of relaxation referred to in sub-rule(3). (6) A person appointed as a teacher within six months of the commencement of the Act, must possess at least the academic qualifications not lower than higher secondary school certificate or equivalent. 19. Acquiring minimum qualifications.--(1) The State Government and the Union territory shall provide adequate teacher education facilities to ensure that all teachers in schools referred to in sub-clause (i), and schools owned and managed by the Central Government or the State Government or Union territory or local authority under sub-clause (iii), of clause (n) of section 2, who do no possess the minimum qualifications laid down under sub-rule (2) of rule 17 at the time of commencement of the Act, to acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years from the commencement of the Act." 17. In terms of the Section 23 of the Act, the NCTE alone has been authorized by Central Government to be the academic authority. Insofar the State Government is concerned, it has only insisted upon and sought implementation of the qualifications set out by the NCTE. This necessity has arisen in the context of 86th Amendment of the Constitution of India by introducing Article 21-A of the Constitution, providing that the State has to make endeavour to provide fundamental right of free and compulsory education to the children up to class-VIII. In order to regulate the same, the Parliament has enacted the law and the State has taken minimum steps to ensure the right of children to free and compulsory education. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of correspondence dated 7.12.2013 and 9.12.2013 on the ground already mentioned above. But, we find no justifiable reason to interfere as this would not only defeat the purpose of the Act but would also amount to sitting over the recommendations of the Academic Authority ('NCTE') which has been given the task of laying down the necessary qualifications of the teachers. A bare perusal of the qualifications laid down by the NCTE (supra) would show that the same is in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Act and the rules. It is settled law that the policy decision cannot be challenged especially when the same is in the interest of public. It is not for the petitioners to dictate their terms to the Government in order to challenge the eligibility criteria, especially, when the said criteria has been laid down strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down by the academic authority i.e. 'NCTE'. 19. It is not for the petitioners to dictate their terms to the Government in order to challenge the eligibility criteria, especially, when the said criteria has been laid down strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down by the academic authority i.e. 'NCTE'. 19. It cannot be disputed that the question relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunal/Courts at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. The Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 632 :-- "10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 20. The entire case has to be examined from the perspective of the object the Act seeks to achieve. It cannot be denied that unless the teachers themselves possess good academic records or minimum qualifications prescribed as the eligibility, the standard of education cannot be maintained/enhanced. These words of wisdom are from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 in the following manner:-- "29. Education is the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young persons in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends directly on the excellence of the teaching staff. Therefore, unless they themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, it is beyond imagination of anyone that standard of education can be maintained/enhanced. "18.......We have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress"." "33. Therefore, unless they themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, it is beyond imagination of anyone that standard of education can be maintained/enhanced. "18.......We have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress"." "33. In view of the above, it is evident that education is necessary to develop the personality of a person as a whole and in totality as it provides the process of training and acquiring the knowledge, skills, developing mind and character by formal schooling. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a high academic standard and academic discipline along with academic rigour for the progress of a nation. Democracy depends for its own survival on a high standard of vocational and professional education. Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for the State not to provide quality education to its future citizens. It is for this reason that in order to maintain the standard of education the State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools to ensure the smooth running of the institution so that the standard of teaching may not suffer for want of funds. 34. Article 21A has been added by amending our Constitution with a view to facilitate the children to get proper and good quality education. However, the quality of education would depend on various factors but the most relevant of them is excellence of teaching staff. In view thereof, quality of teaching staff cannot be compromised. The selection of the most suitable persons is essential in order to maintain excellence and the standard of teaching in the institution. It is not permissible for the State that while controlling the education it may impinge the standard of education. It is, in fact, for this reason that norms of admission in institutions have to be adhered to strictly. Admissions in mid academic sessions are not permitted to maintain the par excellence of education." 21. The importance of education has been highlighted in a judgment delivered by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by one of us (Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) in OWP No. 674 of 2010 titled Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh and Others Vs. Admissions in mid academic sessions are not permitted to maintain the par excellence of education." 21. The importance of education has been highlighted in a judgment delivered by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by one of us (Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) in OWP No. 674 of 2010 titled Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh and Others Vs. State and others , along with connected matters, decided on 06.06.2012, wherein the need for quality education has been emphasized in the following manner:-- "(24) At the very outset let us advert to the essence of word 'Education' being the foundation of all the writ petitions. The purpose of essence of education is a basis for foundation of nation, thus while establishing Universities or Centers outside State, necessary requirements of the enactments/Acts/Rules and Regulations are to be followed. Any institution established or run to dehors of rules virtually amounts to demolishing the society. The Regulations, Acts, Rules, applicable serve the interests of students, teachers and the public at large. Their role is of paramount importance; the good education aims at to preserve harmony among affiliated institution." "35. Before proceeding further on the issue, the purpose and concept of Education be reminiscent: The dictionary meaning of Education is learning; to gain knowledge. The petitioners, like all those people who pursue and are in search of particular knowledge, have a propensity to become the torch bearers only if the same is pursued and accomplished in a very fair; transparent and legal manner; but if the degrees, as in the case in hand, are provided like a street commodity the fate of the future can just be anticipated. 36. This court would not hesitate even to say that if the objection regarding the sanctity of petitioners degrees would not have been raised by the respondents, the probability was that they would have made their entry on different posts, again meant for imparting education, and the same would have resulted in generational waywardness, for, a candle cannot light another unless it continues to burn its own flame." 22. Thus, taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with as the petitioner has failed to establish violation of any fundamental or other right. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application, if any.