Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 132 (CAL)

Sentu Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal

2019-01-28

SHEKHAR B.SARAF

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept with the record. 2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners are aggrieved by apathy shown by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.C.T.E.’) with regard to a representation made by them on November 9, 2015. In the said representation the petitioners had prayed before the N.C.T.E. to recognise the Postgraduate Diploma Course in Special Education (Multiple Disabilities-Physical and Neurological) undergone by the petitioners as equivalent to one year B.Ed. (Special Education). 3. The petitioners rely on a letter dated July 30, 2014 by the Rehabilitation Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.C.I.’) wherein it has been clearly stated that PG Diploma in Special Education (Multiple Disabilities : Physical & Neurological) is equivalent to B.Ed. Special Education (Multiple Disabilities). 4. The petitioners also refer to a Notification bearing No.F.No.61-1/2010/NCTE(N&S) dated 23rd August, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Notification’) issued by the Department of N.C.T.E. that lays down the minimum qualification required for eligibility for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII. They refer to Clause 2 wherein it is stated that 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 case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education), a course recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered. 5. In the present case, petitioners want to be considered for appointment as teachers for Class VI to VIII wherein the qualifications in the said notification lays down the minimum qualification as follows :- “1(ii) Classes VI-VIII (a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR Graduation 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 B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed. OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. 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 B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed. OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” 6. It is the case of the petitioners that they fall under the category wherein there is requirement for graduation of at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education). 7. The petitioners submit that the said Notification as substituted by Notification bearing No.F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE(N&S) dated 29th July, 2011 read with letter dated 30th July, 2014 issued by the R.C.I. makes it very clear that the PG Diploma in Special Education (Multiple Disabilities : Physical & Neurological) is equivalent to B.Ed. Special Education (Multiple Disabilities) and therefore, they should be treated as trained candidates for appointment in the 1st S.L.S.T. Upper Primary, 2016 Examination, held by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission. 8. Per contra, Counsel on behalf of the N.C.T.E. submits that the requirement is that of 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) and the Rules do not specify that the 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) can be substituted by an equivalent course. He submits that rules have to be read litera legis and no purposive interpretation may be given. 9. Counsel on behalf of the School Service Commission supports the submission made by the N.C.T.E. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appearing parties and perused the materials on record. 11. It is to be noted that Clause 2 of the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 carves out an exception in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education) and states that in these cases the course recognised by the R.C.I. only shall be considered. In fact, in case of Special Education the courses carried out by the N.C.T.E. would not be considered and only the one recognised by the R.C.I. would be considered. Relying further on the letter issued by the R.C.I., it is clear that P.G. Diploma in Special Education is equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education). Since both the Diploma and B.Ed. In fact, in case of Special Education the courses carried out by the N.C.T.E. would not be considered and only the one recognised by the R.C.I. would be considered. Relying further on the letter issued by the R.C.I., it is clear that P.G. Diploma in Special Education is equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education). Since both the Diploma and B.Ed. (Special Education) are carried out by the R.C.I., this statement of the R.C.I. carries a lot of weightage. 12. In interpreting the statute of this nature, one is required to understand the raison d’etre of the above notifications and to ascertain the reasons for having certain minimum criteria for selection. 13. In the present case, it is clear that a person who is applying to teach in Class VI to VIII should be a person having secured at least 50% marks in graduation examination and possessing 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification. 14. The very fact that the R.C.I. recognises a Postgraduate Diploma in Special Education as equivalent to B.Ed. (Special Education) amounts to a same degree of weightage being given for both the qualifications. The said notification has further made it clear that in case of B.Ed. (Special Education) it is the course recognised by the R.C.I. that is to be taken into account and not the courses recognised by the N.C.T.E. 15. Under these circumstances, I am unable to comprehend as to why the N.C.T.E. is quibbling with words only with the purpose to disentitle the persons who are equally qualified”. 16. It is also to be noted that the prayer made on November 9, 2015 by the petitioners to the Chairman of N.C.T.E. has been met with complete indifference and nonchalance and no reply to the same has been received till date. 17. It is also to be pointed out that inspite of opportunity granted by this Court to file affidavit, the N.C.T.E. has chosen not to file any affidavit till date. The only affidavit that has come on record is of the West Bengal School Service Commission which simpliciter states that they are bound by the decision of the N.C.T.E. 18. As pointed out, the manner in which the N.C.T.E. has proceeded in this matter is, to say the least, deplorable and not becoming of a premier national institution. 19. The only affidavit that has come on record is of the West Bengal School Service Commission which simpliciter states that they are bound by the decision of the N.C.T.E. 18. As pointed out, the manner in which the N.C.T.E. has proceeded in this matter is, to say the least, deplorable and not becoming of a premier national institution. 19. In view of the above reasons recorded, I direct the West Bengal School Service Commission, being respondent nos.2 and 3, to treat the petitioners as trained candidates possessing 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification and proceed with their applications in accordance with law. 20. The Commission shall be at liberty to verify as to whether the certificates issued by the University of Burdwan to the petitioners are recognised by the R.C.I. by writing to the R.C.I. on their own and confirming the same. 21. Needless to say, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take part in the verification and personality test. 22. With the above observations, this writ petition being W.P. 407(W) of 2016 is disposed of. 23. All parties are to act on the website copy of this order.