JUDGMENT : “Teaching is not a lost art, but the regard for it is a lost tradition”, wrote Jacques Barzun, Jacques Barzun, ‘Teacher in America’, (1945) in mid 20th century USA, which finds its echo in the callous disregard for teaching and education in Uttarakhand today. The sheer apathy of the powers that be towards elementary education in the State, lie at the heart of the problem before this Court. 2. The petitioners before this Court have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for declaring Rule 7, Rule 9 & Rule 32 of the Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teacher)(Amendment) Service Rules, 2012, as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The above Rules were incorporated in the main Service Rules vide amendments made in the year 2013 and 2014, respectively. With the said amendments, primarily the “Shiksha Mitras” which are akin to para teachers, are being absorbed as Teachers in Government Primary Schools, inter alia, by exempting a mandatory qualification in their case, which the petitioners would argue is illegal and ultra vires being violative of the provisions given in the Right to Education Act, 2009. The petitioners claim that the Shiksha Mitras, who are imparting elementary education in the State, cannot be exempted from the mandatory qualification of ‘Teachers Eligibility Test’ (from hereinafter referred to ‘TET’), which is laid down by the academic body i.e. National Council for Teachers Education, under Section 23(1) of The Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (from hereinafter referred to as ‘Right to Education Act’). 3. A candidate cannot be considered as “eligible” for appointment as a teacher in a primary school, which is covered under the Right to Education Act, until and unless he qualifies an examination known as TET. As we shall see, in certain contingencies, the Central Government can relax another mandatory qualification, which is a two years diploma in elementary education, but under no circumstances can either the Central Government or the designated academic body i.e. ‘National Council for Teachers Education’ (in short ‘NCTE’) and certainly not the State Government, can exempt this mandatory qualification called TET. All the same, the State Government by making amendment in its Rules, has done precisely this, which is that it has exempted a certain category of “teachers” known as ‘Shiksha Mitra’ in the State of Uttarakhand from the mandatory qualification of TET. All the same, the State Government by making amendment in its Rules, has done precisely this, which is that it has exempted a certain category of “teachers” known as ‘Shiksha Mitra’ in the State of Uttarakhand from the mandatory qualification of TET. An Act, which is presently under challenge in the writ petition. 4. Article 41 of the Constitution is a directive principles of State Policy which declares that the State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the right to education (amongst other rights). Yet positive efforts of the State, in form of legislations or executive orders, were slow in coming in the initial years of the new Republic. 5. The subject “education” was originally in the State list of the Seventh Schedule till the 42nd amendment. Vide 42nd amendment it was omitted from list II and inserted in Item No. 25 of List III i.e. Concurrent List. Thereafter since 1990s, the Central Government introduced various Schemes, such as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’, aimed towards the spread of elementary education in the country. 6. In order to fully appreciate the legal issues raised in the present petition, it is absolutely necessary that we first understand the concept of “Shiksha Mitra”. In the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, for the first time, the concept of “Shiksha Mitra” was introduced by Government vide an order dated 26.05.1999. The State of Uttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh by an Act of Parliament called U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 and was formed on 9th November 2000. The Scheme of “Shiksha Mitra” which was a part of national drive towards the spread of elementary education, and was introduced in Uttarakhand vide Government Order dated 27.01.2001. The aim was to spread primary education in remote areas, where there was a shortage of teachers, and where educated youth with a minimum intermediate qualification (Class XII), could be appointed as a Shiksha Mitra on an honorarium of Rs.2,250/- per month by a committee of Gram Panchayat. This was hence a Gram Panchayat level appointment, with an aim to provide primary education to children in such schools which were inaccessible for reasons of difficult hill terrain or remoteness, or backwardness of the area. The focus of the Scheme was to reach children in areas, so far deprived of primary education. This was hence a Gram Panchayat level appointment, with an aim to provide primary education to children in such schools which were inaccessible for reasons of difficult hill terrain or remoteness, or backwardness of the area. The focus of the Scheme was to reach children in areas, so far deprived of primary education. The salient features of this Scheme, as per the Government Order dated 27.01.2001 are as follows:- “(1) Priority for appointment of Shiksha Mitra would be given to such school which are in distant and remote areas with single teacher. (2) After such schools have been identified by a district-level committee, the village education committee of the gram panchayat shall take a decision for appointment of Shiksha Mitra. (3) In case an eligible candidate is not available in that Gram Panchayat, then such a candidate can be picked from the Nyaya Panchayat. (4) The Gram Panchayat would evaluate the merit of a candidate on the basis of marks obtained by candidate in high school or intermediate and preference will be given to such candidates, who have either BTC, B.Ed., LT. (5) Out of the entire Shiksha Mitra 50 percent would be women. (6) The terms of Shiksha Mitra would come to an end on the last day of education session. (7) Shiksha Mitra would be appointed on an honorarium by Gram Shiksha Samiti, which would be funded from the gram village fund, the honorarium of Rs.2,250/-(Rupee Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) per month.” 7. The major breakthrough in the field of elementary education, however came with the 86th amendment in the Constitution of India in the year 2002 and the insertion of Article 21A in Part III of the Constitution of India when it finally became a fundament right of every children between 6 to 14 years to get free and compulsory elementary education, as “the State may by law determine”. It took seven more years for the Parliament to give a meaning to this fundamental right, by the enactment of Right to Education Act in the year 2009 wherein the law was brought to implement the mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution and to make elementary education free and compulsory. 8. The entire scheme of the Act is with the purpose to make elementary education in the country not just free and compulsory, but the emphasis is also on the quality of education. 8. The entire scheme of the Act is with the purpose to make elementary education in the country not just free and compulsory, but the emphasis is also on the quality of education. It has to be a meaningful education as well. Section 23 of the Right to Education Act would be extremely relevant, which reads as under:- “23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers – (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorized 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 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, no exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification; Provide that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (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.” 9. Under Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, the qualifications which are required for an elementary school teacher shall be what will be laid down by the designated academic authority of the Central Government, under clause (1) of Section 23 of the Act. The Central Government later designated the National Council for Teachers Education (from hereinafter referred to as NCTE), as this academic body. NCTE is a creature of a statue known as the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, which was enacted with an objective of achieving “planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system [including qualifications of school teachers] and for matters connected therewith, From the preamble to the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Act No. 73 of 1993). ” 10. ” 10. At the same time, the Legislatures were aware that on the one hand there was a growth in primary schools as they were being opened even in remote areas, which till now remained inaccessible to children, yet on the other hand for these schools there may not still be enough “qualified teachers” to impart elementary education. This was a genuine concern as in Uttarakhand there is still only one institute in each district (thirteen in the entire State), where such training can be imparted, and the trained teachers who come out of these institutes are not sufficiently large in number to meet the great demand of trained teachers in the rapidly growing elementary education sector. In this background, being conscious of this reality, Central Government was given powers under Clause (2) of Section 23 of the Act to relax this particular qualification i.e., the qualification of two years certificate or diploma in elementary education, for a given State considering the contingency in that particular State. Moreover, these powers were only for five years. Clause 2 of Section 23 of the Right to Education Act states that whenever necessary the Central Government by notification can relax this qualification “required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification”. It is also noteworthy that though the power to lay down qualifications was given to the academic body i.e. NCTE, yet the powers to relax one of the qualifications, that too for a limited period, was given only to the Central Government. 11. Being designated as the “academic body” NCTE vide its notification dated 23.08.2010 laid down the essential qualifications for both primary school teachers as well as senior primary school teachers. 12. The notification dated 23.08.2010 of NCTE is extremely important as it lays down the mandatory qualifications for the post of a teacher in elementary and senior elementary schools in the country. One of the mandatory qualifications for appointment of a teacher in an elementary school is that such a person must have two years certificate or diploma in elementary education from a recognized institution, by whatever name it is called, in that State. In the State of Uttarakhand, this two years diploma or certificate is known as “Basic Teachers Certificate” or “BTC”. One cannot be appointed as a teacher without being a BTC. In the State of Uttarakhand, this two years diploma or certificate is known as “Basic Teachers Certificate” or “BTC”. One cannot be appointed as a teacher without being a BTC. The other mandatory qualification is that he/she must qualify a test known as Teacher’s Eligibility Test or TET. 13. The academic body, which is NCTE, in its notification dated 23.08.2010 prescribing qualifications for an elementary school teacher, which are as under: “1. Minimum Qualifications:- (i) CLASSES I – V (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year 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 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El. Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (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 year 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 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El. Ed) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/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 Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” 14. Para 4 of the above notification relates to teachers who have been exempted from the notification. Paragraph 4 read as follows:- “4. (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” 14. Para 4 of the above notification relates to teachers who have been exempted from the notification. Paragraph 4 read as follows:- “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, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation. Provided that a teacher class 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 recognized 6 month special programme on elementary education. (b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has completed a 6 month 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. 15. Under paragraph 4 of the notification it has been mentioned that the minimum qualification given in paragraph 1 of the notification shall not be applicable to such teachers who were appointed prior to the date of notification i.e. prior to 23.08.2010, but the condition was that they should be “teachers” who were either appointed in terms of the earlier Regulations of NCTE i.e., of the year 2001, or were appointed under the prevailing Service Rules for teachers in the State. A remarkable feature here is that neither NCTE nor the Central Government have been given powers to relax the mandatory qualification of TET, with which we are presently concerned and which is in fact the subject matter of this case. 16. Definitely, TET was not a mandatory qualification prior to 23.08.2010, but for appointment as a teacher in elementary school a candidate was required to be appointed in accordance with the Regulations of 2001. 16. Definitely, TET was not a mandatory qualification prior to 23.08.2010, but for appointment as a teacher in elementary school a candidate was required to be appointed in accordance with the Regulations of 2001. In case the appointment is earlier to these regulations then the prevailing State Rules would be applicable, which would mean that a person must have had educational qualification prescribed either in the Regulations or the Rules depending when the appointment is made. The second category of teachers, who are exempted are the ones, who are already teachers in primary school (Class I to V), having B.Ed. qualification but had completed six months special BTC course approved by NCTE. The third category of exempted teachers are the ones, who were appointed prior to 03.09.2001, as those were the teachers who were appointed before NCTE had framed any of its regulations, but still it was necessary that these teachers were the ones who were appointed as per the prevalent Rules. 17. Whether Shiksha Mitra could come under any of these exempted categories, as narrated above, is the crucial question before this Court and before we deal with this question, it would be necessary to understand and evaluate the very scheme of Shiksha Mitra and their purpose and the nature of their appointment. 18. In a case before a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Km. Sandhya Singh & others Vs State of U.P. & others reported in 2013 (3) UPLBEC 2377 the issue was primarily regarding the status of Shiksha Mitra as teachers in primary schools in the light of the Right to Education Act, wherein it was held that Shiksha Mitra are not regular teachers as they are appointed for a fixed tenure of eleven months on an honorarium. In the said judgment, the entire Scheme of Shiksha Mitra was examined by the Full Bench and a detail evaluation of the Scheme was made by the learned Judges and the findings were that Shiksha Mitra cannot be considered as a regularly appointed teacher in primary schools. 19. Prior to the formation of the new State of Uttarakhand on November 9, 2000, primary education was under the supervision and control of a government body known as U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, but in the new State of Uttarakhand this body i.e. “Shiksha Parishad” was never created and elementary education came directly under the State Government. 19. Prior to the formation of the new State of Uttarakhand on November 9, 2000, primary education was under the supervision and control of a government body known as U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, but in the new State of Uttarakhand this body i.e. “Shiksha Parishad” was never created and elementary education came directly under the State Government. The Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 formalised this vide Section 58 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 which reads as under:- “58. The services of teachers and employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad to be under the control of State Government- All the teachers, officers and employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, including any supervising or inspecting officer or employee working immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act, shall be transferred to the State Government and they shall become teachers, officers and employees of the State Government and their services shall be governed by the service rules prescribed by the State Government.” 20. At the relevant time, the qualifications of a primary school teacher continue to be governed under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Under the aforesaid Rules, Rule 8 gives the qualification of an Assistant Teacher, Primary School, which is as under:- Post Academic Qualification Assistant Teacher, Primary School Bachelor’s Degree from a University established by law in India or a Degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher’s Certificate, Vishist Basic Teachers Certificate (B.T.C.) two years BTC Urdu Special Training Course, Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto : 21. The important aspect to be considered here is that even under the 1981 Rules, apart from “graduation” the necessary qualification was “training qualification” in elementary education, which is U.P. as well as in Uttarakhand is known as BTC i.e. Basic Teacher Certificate, which is a two years teaching course in elementary education, from the State Institute. 22. Later under the provision contained in Rule 58 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006, the State Government framed service Rules for government primary school teacher, known as The Uttarakhand Government Primary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012. It is the amendments made in this Rule that have now been challenged. 23. 22. Later under the provision contained in Rule 58 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006, the State Government framed service Rules for government primary school teacher, known as The Uttarakhand Government Primary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012. It is the amendments made in this Rule that have now been challenged. 23. Before bringing in the present amendments, the State Government vide its order dated 14.06.2011 and 29.08.2012 had exempted BTC trained candidates who had not yet been selected as teachers, from TET, on grounds that right from the time a candidate enters a BTC course in a Government Institute i.e. DIET, he is actually in service. At least this was the logic given by the Government. These two Government Orders i.e. orders dated 14.06.2011 and 29.08.2012 were challenged before this Court by petitioners, who were “Shiksha Mitras” and during the course of their employment had done a BTC training under certain Government Orders and hence claimed the same exemption for themselves on grounds that they are not only BTC trained candidates, but are teachers already in service. This Court, however, come to the conclusion that under the Right to Education Act, the Academic Body i.e. NCTE has notified the qualifications of teachers vide order dated 23.08.2010, wherein TET is a mandatory qualification, which cannot be relaxed even by the Central Government leave aside the State Government and consequently their writ petition was dismissed on 13.12.2012. The reference here is of Bhuwan Chandra and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others reported in 2013 (1) U.D., 434. The above finding of the Court was in view of the statutory provision contained in Section 23 of the Act where the State Government has absolutely no powers to grant relaxations as it did in the two orders dated 14.06.2011 and 29.08.2012, which were also quashed. The order dated 13.12.2012 in Bhuwan Chandra (Supra), came to be challenged in special appeal being Special Appeal No. 48 of 2013, which was dismissed. 24. In clear disregard of the above findings of this Court wherein the mandatory nature of TET was emphasized, the government has nevertheless brought its own amendments in the 2012 Rules, exempting TET qualification for the Shiksha Mitras. But before this, we shall deal with the amendments made in Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Rules. 25. 24. In clear disregard of the above findings of this Court wherein the mandatory nature of TET was emphasized, the government has nevertheless brought its own amendments in the 2012 Rules, exempting TET qualification for the Shiksha Mitras. But before this, we shall deal with the amendments made in Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Rules. 25. The first is Rule 7, which is regarding the ‘age’ of a candidate who is to be appointed as a teacher in an elementary school. The Rule 7 in the original 2012 Rules prescribes the minimum and maximum age for the teacher, which was 21 years and 35 years, respectively. 26. The 2013 amendment, known as “Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teacher) (Amendment) Service Rules, 2013”, Rule 7 and Rule 9 were amended. 27. After amendment in Rule 7 of 2012 Rules, the following Rule was substituted, which reads as under:- “Amendment of Rule 7 (Age):- In the Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012, for the existing Rule 7 the following shall be substituted, namely- “A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 40 years on the first day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies are advertised: Provided that the upper age limit in the case of candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Classes and such other categories to the State of Uttarakhand, as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall be greater by such number of years as may be specified:” Provided further that the para teacher known as SHIKSHA MITRA who has completed two years (BTC) and qualified TET-1 or who has completed two years D.El.Ed. course from IGNOU and qualified TET-I and should not be more than the age as on the time of appointment on contractual as a Shiksha Mitra.” 28. Similarly Rule 9 relates to an ‘academic qualification’ of a teacher in a Primary School as well as in Senior Primary School. The un-amended Rule read as under:- Sl. No. Post Educational Qualification (a) Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress Government Primary School/ Attached Government Primary School. (Class I – V) (i) Graduate from the University established by law in India: Provided that for appointment of Assistant Teacher (URDU), graduations with Urdu as a main subject shall be compulsory. The un-amended Rule read as under:- Sl. No. Post Educational Qualification (a) Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress Government Primary School/ Attached Government Primary School. (Class I – V) (i) Graduate from the University established by law in India: Provided that for appointment of Assistant Teacher (URDU), graduations with Urdu as a main subject shall be compulsory. (ii) Two years Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) known as B.T.C. in Uttarakhand from the concerned District Institute of Education and Training/District Resource Centre. and Must have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), conducted by the State Government/Central Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. (b)…………………………… (c)…………………………… 29. For Rule 9, the following Rule was substituted, which reads as under:- “Amendment of Rule 9 and Note (Academic qualification):- In the Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012, for the existing Rule 9 and Note the following rule shall be substituted, namely- Sl. No. Post Educational qualification (a) Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress Government Primary School/ Attached Government Primary School (Class I – V) (i) Graduate from the University established by law in India: Provided that for appointment of Assistant Teacher (URDU), graduation s with Urdu as a main subject shall be compulsory. (ii) Two years Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) known as B.T.C. in Uttarakhand from the concerned District Institute of Education and Training/District Resource Centre. Or SHIKSHA MITRA (para teacher) working in Government Primary School and has passed two years D.El.Ed. Course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Or (ii) Must have qualified Teacher Eligibility Test (TET-I) from Class I-V conducted by the State Government/Central Govt. in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose and Must have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), conducted by the State Government /Central Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose Note. – If no candidate is available with requisite academic and training qualification with subject combination to fill up the post of clause (b), Director (Ele. Edu.) can relax the teaching experience limit up to three years instead of five years. And even after relaxation departmental eligible candidates are not available for promotion the post can be filled up through direct recruitment. Edu.) can relax the teaching experience limit up to three years instead of five years. And even after relaxation departmental eligible candidates are not available for promotion the post can be filled up through direct recruitment. Age limit for direct recruitment will be between 21 to 40 year and working teachers also who are below the prescribed time limit can avail the appointment and for this the candidate apart from having subject combination at graduation level for the teaching of subject as mentioned in clause (b), must have following academic, training qualification – Graduation or equivalent and 2 year Diploma (BTC/D.El.Ed.) in Elementary Education Or Graduation or equivalent with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed./L.T.) or Shiksha Shastri (only regular) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation issued from time to time in this regard. Or Graduation or equivalent with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (special education) And Qualified Teacher Eligibility Test (TET-II) for Class VI-VIII conducted by State Government/Central Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. 30. So far as the amendment in Rule 7 made in the year 2013 is concerned, the challenge to the said Rule fails for the following reasons- By the amendment incorporated in Rule 7, the upper age limit of a teacher in a primary school has been increased from 35 years to 40 years. There is no illegality here as the State is within its powers to prescribe the maximum age limit in public service. It also has powers to grant relaxation as to the upper age limit. Moreover, the increase of age from 35 years to 40 years is not in violation of the notification of NCTE dated 23.08.2010 or even its earlier regulations. Therefore, so far as the challenge to the increase in age is concerned, the same is without any substance. 31. The second challenge is to the amendment made in Rule 9, whereby in the “academic qualifications”, for a primary school teacher, the following has been added:- “SHIKSHA MITRA (para teacher) working in Government Primary School and has passed two years D.El.Ed. Course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU).” 32. 31. The second challenge is to the amendment made in Rule 9, whereby in the “academic qualifications”, for a primary school teacher, the following has been added:- “SHIKSHA MITRA (para teacher) working in Government Primary School and has passed two years D.El.Ed. Course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU).” 32. This Court has been informed by the learned Advocate General for the State that what has been included in the eligibility list is not a mere Shiksha Mitra but a Shiksha Mitra who has done two years D.El.Ed. Course (Diploma in Elementary Education), from Indira Gandhi National Open University (in short ‘IGNOU’), and this has been done by the approval of NCTE and the Central Government. Shikha Mitras are technically speaking not “teachers”. They can only be considered eligible as teachers after they have acquired the requisite qualification in terms of the orders of the Central Government under powers vested with it in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. Under no condition can they be considered “teachers” prior to having acquired such a qualification and this appointment is only subject to their fulfillment of other conditions as well which we shall deal with shortly. 33. Hence the challenge to the amendment made in Rule 9 of the Rules on grounds that it is in violation of the provisions laid down in the Right to Education Act as well as the notification of NCTE dated 23.08.2010 has not been substantiated to the satisfaction of this Court. Consequently the challenge to Rule 9 of the Rules also fails. 34. The next amendment, with which we are concerned, was brought in the year 2014. Vide the aforesaid amendment a new Chapter i.e. Chapter eleven (11) was added to the Rules, known as “Teachers Eligibility Test exempted Shiksha Mitras”, which had Rule 32 which reads as under:- “Chapter 11 – Teacher Eligibility Test Exempted Shiksha Mitra Sl. No. Post Educational qualification (a) Assistant Master/Assistant Mistress Government Primary School/ Attached Government Primary School (Class I – V) 1. Graduate from the University established by law in India: Provided that for appointment of Assistant Teacher (URDU), graduation with Urdu as a main subject shall be compulsory. 2. Having passed two years B.T.C. from District Institute of Education and Training/District Resource Centre. 3. Graduate from the University established by law in India: Provided that for appointment of Assistant Teacher (URDU), graduation with Urdu as a main subject shall be compulsory. 2. Having passed two years B.T.C. from District Institute of Education and Training/District Resource Centre. 3. Shiksha Mitras working in Government Primary School who are exempted from Teacher Eligibility Test vide Letter No. F-62-4/2011/NCTE/N&S/A83026 dated 17 th February, 2014 of National Council for Teacher Education. Or Teacher Eligibility Test exempted Shiksha Mitra working in Government Primary School and has passed two years D.El.Ed. Course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Notification/order issued from time to time by the National Council for Teacher Education regarding qualification shall be made applicable by the Government Orders issued by the Administrative Department in future. 35. Vide the above amendment, a new Chapter i.e. Chapter eleven which has Rule 32 has been added whereby the Shiksha Mitras have been now exempted from TET qualification is concerned, this Court is of the view that this could not have been done by State Government, NCTE or even by Central Government. 36. The heading of Chapter eleven is “Teachers eligibility test exempted Shiksha Mitra”. Under Rule 32 the qualifications as per the notification dated 23.08.2010 have first been reproduced as necessary qualifications for appointment of teacher in primary schools, and then another qualification has been added i.e. such Shiksha Mitra who have been teaching in Government Primary Schools and have been exempted by NCTE vide its letter dated 17.2.2014. These are in the beginning of the said amendment dated 05.03.2014, it says that such Shiksha Mitras who are teaching in Government Primary Schools and have been exempted from the qualification of TET by NCTE vide its letter dated 17.2.2014 are also qualified teachers in primary schools. 37. There is a short history to the above amendment and it is extremely necessary that this must be stated here. It starts first with the letter written by the Principal Secretary, Education, Government of Uttarakhand to the Member Secretary, NCTE on 7.11.2013 with a copy to the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The letter says that in order to actualize the objective of universalisation of Elementary Education in the State of Uttarakhand and to fulfill the large number of vacancies of Teachers in the remote/difficult areas, the scheme of “Shiksha Mitra” was introduced in Uttarakhand vide Government Order dated 27.1.2001. The letter says that in order to actualize the objective of universalisation of Elementary Education in the State of Uttarakhand and to fulfill the large number of vacancies of Teachers in the remote/difficult areas, the scheme of “Shiksha Mitra” was introduced in Uttarakhand vide Government Order dated 27.1.2001. Their qualification was also prescribed (such as the one which has been already referred in the preceding paragraph of this judgment). In order to meet the qualification laid down by NCTE in its Regulation 2001 where two year BTC training was made mandatory, the State Government vide its order dated 1.9.2011 has formulated a policy of imparting two year BTC Training programme through Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and arrangements are being made so that all the Shiksha Mitras imparting education in elementary school can be absorbed as teachers after undergoing this training. Thereafter in the letter a reference is made to the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the notification issued by NCTE on 23.8.2010 and the exemption clause stated therein. A case is then made by the Principal Secretary for the Shiksha Mitra in Uttarakhand declaring that Shiksha Mitra meet all the criteria of eligibility laid down by NCTE in its 2001 Regulations. The letter states as under: “Considering all the above facts it is clear that State policy to impart two years training specific to Elementary Education was based on the premise that after completion of the training they will be absorbed as assistant teachers in primary school because Shiksha Mitra are not fulfilling the qualification as prescribed in the NCTE regulation 2001. It is also important to mention here that most of the Shiksha Mitras are working against the post of assistant teachers primary school and they are getting their monthly honorarium from the State Exchequer since 2006. On the basis of the above facts it is clear that TET is not required for the appointment of 3652 Shiksha Mitra as assistant teachers primary school, who were in the system prior to NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010. Kindly ascent the same.” (emphasis provided) 38. After receiving the aforesaid letter, NCTE vide its letter dated 1.1.2014 to the Central Government elaborated what it had already stated in its notification dated 23.8.2010 as regarding exemption and clarified that only a limited category of teachers can be exempted from the mandatory qualification laid down in notification dated 23.8.2010. Kindly ascent the same.” (emphasis provided) 38. After receiving the aforesaid letter, NCTE vide its letter dated 1.1.2014 to the Central Government elaborated what it had already stated in its notification dated 23.8.2010 as regarding exemption and clarified that only a limited category of teachers can be exempted from the mandatory qualification laid down in notification dated 23.8.2010. Para 4, 5 and 6 of the letter dated 1.1.2014 reads as under: “4. It is to mention that the RTE Act, 2009 came into force on 1st April, 2010. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 (1) of this Act, the Central Government authorized the NCTE as the Academic authority to lay down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The NCTE vide its notification dated 25.08.2010 laid down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII. One of the eligibility conditions mentioned in these Notifications is that a person should pass the TET conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with guidelines dated 11.02.2011 framed by the NCTE. Further, clause 4 and 5 of the Notifications delineates the procedure of categories of teachers appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of Notification dated 25.08.2010 as follow: 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 34d September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers In Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation. Provided that a teacher of class 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 recognized 6- month special programme on elementary education. (b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE. (c) A teacher appointed before the 34d September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules. 5. Teacher appointed after the date of this notification in certain cases. (b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE. (c) A teacher appointed before the 34d 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). 5. Keeping all the aspects of the matter in view NCTE is of the opinion that the Govt. of Uttarakhand may be clarified that these 3652 untrained in-service teachers appointed prior to 25/08/2010, are covered under the categories as stated above i.e. Clause 4 & 5 of the Notification 25.08.2010 and therefore, need not to acquire the professional qualifications in consonance with the NCTE Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools Notified on 03.09.2001 (as amended time to time) which was in-vogue, prior to Notification dated 25.08.2010. Therefore, TET should not be insisted on such category of un-trained in-service teachers. 6. The comments/views (if any) of the Ministry of H.R.D. may kindly be provided in the light of the stipulations of the RTE Act, 2009 to enable NCTE to provide an appropriate clarification to the Govt. of Uttarakhand. It shall be appreciated if the matter may be accorded TOP PRIORITY.” (emphasis provided) 39. NCTE without examining the nature of the Shiksha Mitra, their qualifications or even the manner of their appointment took the recommendations of the State Government at its face value and forwarded to the Central Government, the case of Shiksha Mitra with a recommendation for their exemption from TET. 40. In reply to the letter of the NCTE dated 1.1.2014, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development vide its letter dated 10.02.2014 stated the position of the Government as under: “Subject: Clarification regarding requirement of qualifying TET in respect of untrained in-service teachers being trained through Open and Distance Learning Mode providing D.El.Ed. course of two years duration approved by NCTE to the Government of Uttarakhand. course of two years duration approved by NCTE to the Government of Uttarakhand. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. F.62-4/2011/NCTE/N&S dated 1st January, 2014 on the subject. In view of Uttarakhand Governments clarification, RTE Bureau’s views are conveyed as follows: “The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy is in agreement with Para 5 of the NCTE’s letter in reference No. F.62-4/2011/NCTE/N&S dated 1st January, 2014 with respect to clarification regarding requirement of qualifying TET in respect of untrained in-service teachers being trained through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode providing D.El.Ed. course of two years duration approved by NCTE to the Government of Uttarakhand, which the proviso that it will be applicable only for Shiksha Mitras who have been in continuous service.” This issues with the approval of AS(SE).” 41. Finally the NCTE clarifies its position to the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand vide its letter dated 17.2.2014. Para 5 of the letter dated 17.2.2014 reads as under: “In this context, the matter has also been clarified by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India vide its letter No. 3-4/2013-EE-4 dated 10.02.2013 (copy enclosed) and their view are conveyed as follows: “The Ministry of HRD is in agreement with para 5 of the NCTE’s letter no. 62-4/2011/NCTE/N&S dated 1st January, 2014 with respect to clarification regarding requirement of qualifying TET in respect of untrained in-service teacher being trained through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode providing D.El.Ed. course of two years duration approved by NCTE to Govt. of Uttarakhand, with the proviso that it will be applicable only the Shiksha Mitras who have been in continuous service.” (emphasis provided) 42. It is in the background of these communications referred in the preceding paragraphs that the amendments were incorporated in the Uttarakhand (Government Primary School Teachers) Service Rules, 2012 on 5.3.2014. In short, the chain of the letters which we have referred above, demonstrate the skewed method adopted by the State Government, NCTE as well as the Central Government, where without even touching the core issues, or ascertaining the real nature of Shiksha Mitra, an exemption has been granted. The case of Shiksha Mitra and their exemption from TET has not been appreciated in the manner it ought to have been done. The case of Shiksha Mitra and their exemption from TET has not been appreciated in the manner it ought to have been done. Nevertheless the cautious movement of letters, as shown above demonstrate the obvious difficulty before the State Government as well as the NCTE and the Government of India as under no circumstances could any of them had powers to exempt Shiksha Mitras from TET, which was a mandatory qualification. The only possible way to bail out the Shiksha Mitras from the mandatory TET qualification was to declare them as already in-house working teachers. Once a Shiksha Mitra is treated to be a regular teacher in Government school, he is automatically exempted from all the qualifications which have been laid down by NCTE by notification dated 23.8.2010, and this is precisely what has been done by the Government. The question therefore precisely is not of exemption but whether Shiksha Mitra can actually be treated as working teachers imparting education in elementary schools so that they may be validly exempted from the mandatory qualification of TET. 43. This question again has been answered by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in rather great detail. The reference here would be to the Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Shivam Rajan V. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (3) UPLBEC 2297. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court was constituted in pursuance of the order dated 27.7.2015 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Kumar Pathak [Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014 and IA Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 167 of 2015], where the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that the matter before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, both at its Lucknow Bench and Allahabad Bench relating to Shiksha Mitra be heard by a Full Bench at Allahabad. In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the writ petitions relating to Shiksha Mitra which were pending before the Lucknow Bench were also transferred to the Allahabad High Court for hearing. In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the writ petitions relating to Shiksha Mitra which were pending before the Lucknow Bench were also transferred to the Allahabad High Court for hearing. The question before the Full Bench was the one which is here before this Court i.e. whether Shiksha Mitra can be exempted from the mandatory qualification of TET, along with other questions including the validity of State amendments in the Service Rules of Teachers whereby the mandatory qualifications of TET was exempted under the Rules. The Full Bench referring with approval the two earlier decisions of the Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others [ (2008) 3 UPLBEC 2195 ] and Km. Sandhya Singh & others Vs State of U.P. & others reported in 2013 (3) UPLBEC 2377, had this to say for the Shiksha Mitras:- “Evidently, Shiksha Mitras could not either seek the benefit of clause (a) or clause (c) of Para 4 of the notification dated 23.08.2010. They were not teachers appointed in accordance with the Regulations of 3.9.2001 since, admittedly they did not possess the BTC qualification. Moreover, Shiksha Mitras did not have the benefit of clause (c) of Para 3 since any appointment made prior to 3.9.2001 had to be in accordance with the prevalent recruitment rules. The engagements of Shiksha Mitras were de hors the recruitment rules and were not in accordance with the Service Rules of 1981 which apply to appointments of basic teachers in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 23 governs persons who are teachers and who, at the commencement of the RTE Act of 2009, did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed under sub-section (1). They were given a period of five years to acquire the minimum qualifications. The proviso would govern persons who were recruited as teachers in the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Act and the Service Rules of 1981 and can have no application to Shiksha Mitras.” 44. Apart from the minor distinctions between the problem before the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court and the one which is before this Court, substantially the question before this Court is the same which has already been answered by the Full Bench. Apart from the minor distinctions between the problem before the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court and the one which is before this Court, substantially the question before this Court is the same which has already been answered by the Full Bench. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court had held similar amendments in U.P. exempting Shiksha Mitra from TET to be arbitrary and ultra vires, which were accordingly quashed and set aside. 45. In Uttar Pradesh, by an amendment in the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules by way of 19th amendment, Rule 16-A was introduced into the Rules framed by the State Government and new Rules were framed under the provisions of Section 38 of the Right to Education Act. The Rules which were known as Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 gave the State Government powers to relax the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools in the case of Shiksha Mitras for the purposes of appointment in regular service. The second amendment which was introduced by the Uttar Pradesh was in Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, where by an amendment the State Government has enabled the appointment of Shiksha Mitras who were working on the date of commencement of the amended Rules into regular service as Assistant Teachers in junior basic school i.e. primary schools. Apart from these two amendments, certain executive orders were also under challenge by which the powers were actually exercised and such Shiksha Mitras were being absorbed in service. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Shivam Rajan (supra) held these two amendments to be arbitrary and ultra vires which were quashed and set aside. Consequently the provisions incorporated for the appointment of Shiksha Mitras, the academic qualifications for the recruitment of Shiksha Mitras and for the absorption of Shiksha Mitras as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools were also held to be unconstitutional and all consequential executive orders of the State Government providing for absorption of Shiksha Mitra into regular service of the State as Assistant Teachers were also quashed and set aside. 46. In Uttarakhand, the State actually did not take upon itself the powers to exempt the qualification as it was done in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 46. In Uttarakhand, the State actually did not take upon itself the powers to exempt the qualification as it was done in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In Uttarakhand, such Shiksha Mitras have nevertheless been absorbed as teachers in primary school by treating them as in service teachers and therefore only the recourse of ‘clarification’ was taken from both NCTE and the Central Government. The net result though is the same as these Shiksha Mitras have been treated as regularly appointed teachers in accordance with law holding that there is no application of the notification dated 23.8.2010 in their case. Therefore, though the route taken by the State Government in Uttarakhand is different, but the net result in both the cases is the same, which is that in Uttar Pradesh as well as in Uttarakhand, Shiksha Mitras have been given equivalence of a regularly appointed teacher, thereby exempting them of a mandatory qualification i.e. TET. 47. That TET is a mandatory qualification was earlier held by another Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & others reported in [(2013) 3 UPLBEC 2156. The Full Bench held as follows:- “The teacher eligibility test is an essential qualification that has to be possessed by every candidate who seeks appointment as a teacher of elementary education in Classes 1 to 5 as per the notification dated 23.8.2010 which notification is within the powers of the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the 2009 Act.” 48. What is common in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is that in both the States “Shiksha Mitras”, who were not eligible for appointment as teachers in elementary schools have been made eligible in both the States. The purpose with which the respective amendments were brought by the two States is the same, though the route they have taken to achieve this common goal is different. Whereas in Uttar Pradesh the State in clear violation of the mandate of clause (2) of Section 23 of the Act arrogated to itself the powers to relax the “qualification” exempting the mandatory qualification of TET for “Shiksha Mitra”, in Uttarakhand the Government was both circumspect and somewhat ingenious. Whereas in Uttar Pradesh the State in clear violation of the mandate of clause (2) of Section 23 of the Act arrogated to itself the powers to relax the “qualification” exempting the mandatory qualification of TET for “Shiksha Mitra”, in Uttarakhand the Government was both circumspect and somewhat ingenious. It did not arrogate to itself the powers of the Central Government, as the learned Judges of the Full Bench in Shivam Rajan’s case (supra) have observed were done in Uttar Pradesh, instead the Government took its case with NCTE and the Central Government and presented the case of “Shiksha Mitras” as teachers working in elementary schools prior to the date of notification of NCTE dated 23.08.2010, and hence it tried to make out a case for exemption in their favour from the required qualification. The manner and the process adopted thereafter culminated in the “exemption chapter” of the Rules, which has already been explained in the preceding paragraphs. 49. The entire efforts on the part of the government and its machinery were to further the interest of Shiksha Mitra. But while doing so it has also frustrated the mandate of the Constitution and the Parliament as Shiksha Mitras are both unqualified and untrained. Whereas the focus of the government should have been on imparting a meaningful elementary education, it focused instead in keeping the job secure for the Shiksha Mitra. It is for this reason that the learned Judges of Allahabad High Court lamented similar efforts in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra) and observed “everybody is forgetting that the scheme of Shiksha Mitra is to spread education and it is not a scheme for employment.” 50. “School is a building that has four walls – with tomorrow inside”, (My source is from the Full Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court, in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma (Supra), paragraph 55) is a well known aphorism, regretfully forgotten by the State Government. Myron Weiner in his seminal work (Myron Weiner, The Child and the State in India (Oxford University Press, New Delhi)) on Child Labour in India notes that many of the developed countries today are the ones where education had become compulsory much before they became developed. For example, many of the Municipalities in Germany had made child education compulsory as far back as 1524. For example, many of the Municipalities in Germany had made child education compulsory as far back as 1524. Japan made child education compulsory in 1872 as it wanted to catch up with the rest of the world, for which education was considered essential. China did the same and today its literacy rate is virtually 100% as compared to India’s 74%. Many of the ills in society can be prevented or curbed with a proper and effective spread of elementary education. Weiner in fact links the child labour problem in India with the lack of effective measures in elementary education in the country. The point therefore is that we are already late in making improvement in elementary education and the measures which are now introduced by the Parliament and the Central Government must be implemented in its true letter and spirit! 51. Shiksha Mitra can never be treated to be in service teachers. The exemption of TET in their case is in violation of Section 23 read with NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010. The route taken by the government though different yet seeks to achieve exactly the same object which the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Shivam Rajan’s case (Supra) has already held to be unconstitutional in the case of Uttar Pradesh. 52. What cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly. “Shiksha Mitras” were never “teachers” appointed in accordance with law. Neither do they have requisite qualifications for an elementary school teacher nor was due procedure followed in their appointment. Hence they can never be considered as teachers in primary schools prior to the enforcement of Right to Education Act and notification of NCTE dated 23.08.2010. 53. As far as the exemption of two years diploma in elementary education is concerned, the powers have been clearly given to the Central Government under clause (1) Section 23, and in an appropriate case, if such a power has been exercised by the Central Government and granted as in the case of Shiksha Mitras where Shiksha Mitras were asked to undergo two years distance learning programme duly approved by the IGNOU, that is completely different aspect, but exempting them from TET is quite another. The exemption granted to them, by whichever route the State Government has chosen, is not permissible. The exemption granted to them, by whichever route the State Government has chosen, is not permissible. Even though this exemption has been granted ostensibly by the approval of the NCTE or the Central Government, the fact remains that neither the Central Government nor the NCTE had powers to exempt TET. 54. In Shivam Rajan’s case, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has emphasized the importance of TET as under:- “The object and purpose of introducing the TET is to ensure that a teacher who embarks upon instructing students of primary and upper primary classes is duly equipped to fulfil the needs of the students, understands the relevance of education for a child at that stage and can contribute to the well rounded development of the child. Teaching a child is not a merely a matter of providing information. Deeply embedded in the process of imparting education is sensitivity towards the psyche of the child, the ability to understand the concerns of a young student of that age, the motivations which encourage learning and the pitfalls which have to be avoided. The emphasis on clearing the TET is to ensure the maintenance of quality in imparting primary education. These requirements which have been laid down by NCTE fulfil an important public purpose by ensuring a complement of trained teachers who contribute to the learning process of children and enhance their growth and development. These requirements should not be viewed merely as norms governing the relationship of a teacher with the contract of employment. These norms are intended to fulfil and protect the needs of those who are taught, namely, young children. India can ignore the concerns of its children only at the cost of a grave peril to the future of our society. The effort of the State Government to by-pass well considered norms which are laid down by NCTE must be disapproved by the Court. We have done so on the ground that the State Government lacks the legislative power and competence to do so. Equally, fundamental is the concern that a relaxation of the norms prescribed by an expert body will result in grave detriment to the development and growth of our young children and the provision of quality education to them. Providing quality education is crucial for students belonging to every strata of society. Equally, fundamental is the concern that a relaxation of the norms prescribed by an expert body will result in grave detriment to the development and growth of our young children and the provision of quality education to them. Providing quality education is crucial for students belonging to every strata of society. Education which is provided in schools conducted by the Basic Education Board should not be allowed to degenerate into education of poor quality which it will, if the norms which are prescribed by an expert body under legislation enacted by Parliament in the national interest are allowed to be ignored by the State Government on the basis of parochial or populist perceptions. Such an attempt is ultra vires the statutory powers of the State and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 55. The exemption of TET to Shiksha Mitras granted by the State Government is ultra vires and illegal. Consequently writ petition is allowed and the amendment in the 2012 Rules in the year 2014 by way of incorporating Chapter eleven, and Rule 32 is hereby declared arbitrary and ultra vires, and is hereby quashed and set aside. A mandamus is issued to the State Government to take all appropriate and consequential action in accordance with law forthwith.