Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 260 (JK)

Ghulam Nabi Khan v. State of JK

2018-05-04

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the eligibility conditions prescribed in various Notifications issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board with regard to the educational qualification for the post of Teacher in School Education Department. The petitioners pray for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to make appropriate amendments in the J&K Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules and incorporate therein the qualification of B.Ed. for recruitment to the post of Teacher. 2. Briefly put, the facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioners, after doing their Graduation, have acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed). It is claimed that the aforesaid qualification was acquired by the petitioners keeping in view the educational policy of the Government of India as well as the State, which would require the Teacher to possess the qualification of B.Ed. mandatorily. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that as per the J&K Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules of 2008 as amended vide SRO 290 dated 06th September 2016, the minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the post of teacher is provided as “Graduate from recognized University”, whereas in the Central legislation i.e. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the minimum qualification, which the Teacher is required to possess, is B. Ed. 4. The further grievance of the petitioners is that Government of Jammu and Kashmir is selectively implementing the directives of Ministry of HRD, and have taken no steps to incorporate the aforesaid qualification of B.Ed. as minimum qualification for recruitment of Teachers in School Education Department by effecting appropriate amendment in the Rules of 2008. 5. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the learned counsel of the petitioners has raised two points : (a) That in view of the policy of the Central Government for providing free and compulsory education to the children and the enactment of special legislation in this regard i.e. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the State Government is under obligation to appropriately amend the Rules of 2008, so as to bring them in conformity with the aforesaid legislation. The petitioners are though more concerned about the minimum qualification for a Teacher in the School Education Department. (b) That when a Teacher, after recruitment is required to compulsorily undergo B.Ed. The petitioners are though more concerned about the minimum qualification for a Teacher in the School Education Department. (b) That when a Teacher, after recruitment is required to compulsorily undergo B.Ed. training at the expense of State, there is no reason or justification not to recruit the candidates who already possess such a qualification, for, that would also lessen burden on the public exchequer. (c) That once the Government has been following the advisory of HRD of Government of India in various matters, there is absolutely no reason or justification to ignore the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and Rules framed thereunder and accordingly, upgrade the Rules of 2008 by making necessary amendment. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel of the petitioners and perused the record. 7. The recruitment to the post of General Line Teacher is governed by the Rules of 2008 as amended vide SRO 290 dated 06th September 2016, which provide Graduation from recognized University as a minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Teacher. These Rules have been framed by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Section 124 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. 8. The legislation, which the learned counsel for the petitioners refers to, is the Central legislation which admittedly does not extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. That being so, the Government is not bound to follow the same unless it is extended by following proper procedure as envisaged in the Constitution of India. That being so, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to frame Statutory Rules in a particular manner, more so when the existing rules have not been found to be ultra vires to the Constitution. 9. Needless to say that it falls within the domain of the employer to provide for requisite qualification to be possessed by its employees. What should be the qualification for a particular post is the job of experts and Court may not be in a position to express its opinion on such matters. B.Ed. may be desirable qualification for Teachers in the School Education Department, but same cannot be directed to be made as a minimum qualification, that too, by issuing writ of mandamus to the State to amend the Statutory Recruitment Rules. B.Ed. may be desirable qualification for Teachers in the School Education Department, but same cannot be directed to be made as a minimum qualification, that too, by issuing writ of mandamus to the State to amend the Statutory Recruitment Rules. The law in this regard is well settled and needs no reiteration. 10. The plea of the petitioners is that a Teacher after his appointment is imparted training of B. Ed at the expense of State and therefore, it is all the more necessary to insist for minimum qualification of B. Ed. at the time of recruitment, also cannot be accepted for the reason that again, it is for the employer to provide qualification for recruitment of its employees and not for the Court. Unless the qualification prescribed for the post is found to be absurd or arbitrary, the Court would not interfere. In any case, the Court would not issue a mandamus to the State to perform legislative functions, that too, in a particular manner. Besides, Rules of 2008 nowhere provide that a Teacher once recruited in a School Education Department should necessary acquire B.Ed. qualification, though, acquisition of such qualification may make a Teacher eligible for promotion to the post of Master and upward. 11. The third point urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that by selectively implementing advisory of the Ministry of HRD, Government of India, the respondents have generated legitimate expectation in the minds of the petitioners and such like other candidates that State would appropriately amend its Rules and provide B.Ed. as a minimum qualification for recruitment. The petitioners under a hope that State respondents would bring out amendment in the Rules, acquired the aforesaid qualification of B. Ed. 12. True it is, that State Government in certain matters has been following the advisory issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of HRD, so as to upgrade the standard of the School Education in the State and it would be befitting, if the State takes cognizance of the grievances projected by the petitioners in this petition and consider providing B. Ed qualification as a minimum qualification for recruitment for the post of teacher. 13. 13. As stated above, this Court may not issue mandamus but, nonetheless, State of its own can do so, more so, when such amendment is in the larger public benefit and would go long way in ensuring the standard of education. 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I decline the prayer of the petitioners for issuing mandamus to the respondents to appropriately amend the Rules of 2008 as amended vide SRO 290 dated 06th September, 2016 and provide B.Ed. as a minimum qualification for recruitment of Teachers in the School Education Department. I also do not find any material to declare the recruitment of Rules 2008 as amended vide SRO 290 dated 06th September, 2016 insofar it provides Graduation from the recognized University as a minimum qualification for teacher as unconstitutional. 15. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. 16. Before parting with, I would like to remind the State of its obligation of not only providing free and compulsory education to the children, but also of providing quality education to its citizens. The education is a backbone of the economy of every country. No country can progress, unless its citizens are literate and well qualified. This objective can only be achieved by raising the standard of education. The backdoor entry to the post of Teachers by appointing Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) has already played havoc with the educational system in the State. The aforesaid scheme only focused on providing employment to educated youths in the rural and urban areas and made the merit casualty. Resultantly, thousands of teachers were recruited in the State on the basis of merit and qualification determined at village and even habitation basis. 17. In the aforesaid context, it would be befitting, if the School Education Department considers prescribing B.Ed. as a minimum qualification for the post of Teacher in the School Education Department. B.Ed. qualification is not simply a higher qualification, but it also equips a Teacher with techniques of teaching, to deal with children in the development of their personality and to make them better citizens. 18. The importance of B.Ed. is well recognized by the State in the Rules of 2008 and even in the repealed Rules of 1979. A Teacher is entitled to be promoted to the post of Master, only if he possesses qualification of B. Ed. Government spends a lot of money in imparting B.Ed. 18. The importance of B.Ed. is well recognized by the State in the Rules of 2008 and even in the repealed Rules of 1979. A Teacher is entitled to be promoted to the post of Master, only if he possesses qualification of B. Ed. Government spends a lot of money in imparting B.Ed. qualification to in-service Teachers, such expenditure can be avoided, if the minimum qualification for Teacher is enhanced to B.Ed. 19. Having said so, I leave it to the wisdom of those at the helm of affairs in the School Education Department to take appropriate measures in this regard. I make it clear that the aforesaid observations are only out of concern for falling standard of education and shall not be construed as directions by this Court.