Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 832 (KAR)

Chandrashekariah C. N. v. State of Karnataka

2016-11-08

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2016
ORDER : Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner-Mr. Chandrashekariah C.N, has challenged the legality of the endorsement dated 1-7-2014, issued by the Director of Public Instructions-respondent 3, whereby the respondent 3 has declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner for Grant-in-Aid, and has returned the proposal to respondent 7-Nehru Vidya Shala High School. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent 6-Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust, had established the Nehru Vidya Shala High School, at Seegehalli, in Tumkur District. The said school was recognised and aided by the Government of Karnataka. By notification dated 2-2-2013, certain vacancies were advertised for the post of Assistant Teachers. The said vacancies were reserved for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Since the petitioner was eligible for the same, he applied for the said post. By order dated 12-4-2012, the petitioner was appointed. Subsequently, the approval of the petitioner's appointment, and the appointment of other candidates, were submitted by the Trust to the Block Education Officer-respondent 5. After conducting the inspection, the respondent 5 submitted his recommendation with regard to the petitioner to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions-respondent 4. Consequently, the Screening Committee was constituted, which considered the recommendation for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Even the said Screening Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for approval. However, the recommendation of the Committee was placed before respondent 3. The respondent 3-the Director of Public Instructions, by the impugned endorsement dated 1-7-2014, has rejected the proposal ostensibly on the ground that the petitioner had secured a Degree in B.A. (Special Education) from Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal. According to respondent 3, the said qualification could not be considered for appointment of a General Teacher. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 3. Mr. M.P. Srikanth, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('the Act' for short), dearly states that any person who possess such minimum qualification as laid down by an Academic Authority authorised by the Central Government by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a Teacher. Secondly, according to the notification dated 31st March, 2010, the Central Government has constituted the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE' for short) as the Academic Authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher. Secondly, according to the notification dated 31st March, 2010, the Central Government has constituted the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE' for short) as the Academic Authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher. Thirdly, according to the notification dated 23-8-2010, issued by the NCTE, the minimum qualification required for a teacher to be appointed for Classes 6 to 8 is B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and one year B.Ed, (Special Education). Moreover, according to Condition No. 2 in the said notification, a person with his B.Ed., in Special Education, would be considered eligible for appointment as a Teacher, provided the B.Ed. (Special Education) Course is recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India ('RCI' for short). According to the learned Counsel, the B.Ed. (Special Education) obtained by the petitioner is duly recognised by RCI. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for being appointed as a General Teacher under Section 23 of the Act, read with, notification issued by the NCTE mentioned herein above. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is clearly illegal. Thus, the same deserves to be set aside by this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. E.S. Indiresh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1 to 5, submits that the Degree earned by the petitioner is not recognised as a valid qualification. Therefore, the respondent 3 was justified in rejecting the proposal made by respondent 6 with regard to the approval of the petitioner's appointment as a General Teacher. Hence, the learned Counsel has supported the impugned endorsement. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for parties, and perused the impugned endorsement. 6. Section 23 of the Act is as under: "1. Minimum Qualifications. Therefore, the respondent 3 was justified in rejecting the proposal made by respondent 6 with regard to the approval of the petitioner's appointment as a General Teacher. Hence, the learned Counsel has supported the impugned endorsement. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for parties, and perused the impugned endorsement. 6. Section 23 of the Act is as under: "1. Minimum Qualifications. - (i) Classes I-V. - (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 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 2 years Diploma in Education (Special Education) And (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. (ii) Classes VI-VIII. - (a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) Or B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) Or B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 years Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 years B.A./B.Sc. Ed. or B.A. Ed./B.Sc. Ed. Or B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education) And (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. 2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education. - For the purposes of this notification, a Diploma/Degree Course in teacher education recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in ease 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. 3. Training to be undergone. - A person. - (a) with B.A./B.Sc. However, in ease 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. 3. Training to be undergone. - A person. - (a) with B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for Classes I to V up to 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognised 6 months special programme in Elementary Education. (b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognised 6 months special programme in Elementary Education. 4. Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification. - The following categories of teachers appointed for Classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above: (a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2011 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2011 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation: Provided that a teacher of Classes I to V possessing B.Ed. qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) or D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognised 6 months special programme on elementary education; (b) A teacher of Classes I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has completed a 6 months Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE; (c) A teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules. 5. Teacher appointed after the date of this Notification in certain cases. - Where an appropriate Government, or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time)." According to the said provision, the eligibility criteria for appointment as a Teacher is to be established by the authority constituted by the Academic Authority authorised by the Central Government. According to the notification dated 31-3-2010, the Central Government has appointed the NCTE as the Academic Authority. Thus, it is for the NCTE to prescribe the eligibility for the appointment of a teacher. According to the notification dated 31-3-2010, the Central Government has appointed the NCTE as the Academic Authority. Thus, it is for the NCTE to prescribe the eligibility for the appointment of a teacher. According to the Notification dated 23-8-2010, issued by the NCTE, a person with B.Ed. (Special Education) is certainly eligible for being appointed as a General Teacher, provided his degree is recognised by the RCI. Undoubtedly, the B.Ed. Degree earned by the petitioner from Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, is recognised by the RCI. Thus, the petitioner does have the eligibility requirement as laid down by the NCTE. Since according to the Act, the power to lay down the eligibility requirement rests solely with the NCTE, the Academic Authority, the State is not justified in claiming that it is not bound by the eligibility criteria as established by the NCTE. 7. Since the petitioner possess the qualification laid down by the NCTE, obviously the endorsement is legally unsustainable. For, according to respondent 3, the petitioner does not possess an eligibility which is recognised by the State for the post of General Teacher. However, the said observation is contrary to the requirement of law as prescribed by Section 23 of the Act, read with the notification issued by NCTE. Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated 1-7-2014 is set aside. The respondent 6 is directed to send the proposal to respondent 3-the Director of Public instructions, for his reconsideration within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent 3 is directed to consider the said proposal for approving the appointment of the petitioner in the light of Section 23 of the Act, the notification dated 23-8-2010, issued by the NCTE, and to decide the proposal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of proposal from respondent 6. With these observations, the petition is, hereby, allowed.