Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 219 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Dayal Kumar

2019-03-18

N.S.DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. The applications, seeking condonation of the delay, are not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. 2. These three appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.438 of 2016 and batch dated 01.06.2018 and Writ Petition (S/S) No.2284 of 2017 dated 06.09.2018. 3. The 2013 amendment to the Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Rules, 2012 granted relaxation for Shiksha Mitras, working in various schools in the State, to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers on their completing the two year Diploma course in Elementary Education, with TET examination, from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (for short IGNOU). 4. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, while the earlier stand of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) was that the said diploma was not recognized, they had later, vide their letter dated 29.05.2018, stated that the Diploma in Elementary Education from IGNOU was duly approved and recognized by the NCTE. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, quashed the order under challenge; and declared that the respondents-writ petitioners were fully eligible to be considered for the said post. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals. 5. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that the question which fell for consideration was not whether the Diploma in Elementary Education course, offered by IGNOU, was recognized by the NCTE or not; the question, which ought to have been examined by the learned Single Judge, was whether the respondents-writ petitioners, who were admittedly not Shiksha Mitras, were eligible, in terms of 2013 Amendment to the 2012 Rules, to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers, merely because they had completed their two year Diploma course from IGNOU; the said Rules only granted relaxation to those who were working Shiksha Mitras to obtain their two year diploma from IGNOU, for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers; the respondents-writ petitioners were, admittedly, now working as Shiksha Mitras; and the order under appeal, therefore, necessitates interference. 6. On the other hand Mr. 6. On the other hand Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would place reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.239 of 2018 dated 27.04.2018, in support of the submission that, in terms of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “2009 Act”), the qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers is prescribed by the NCTE; such qualifications would prevail, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the State Rules; a two year diploma course in Elementary Education, from any institution recognized by the NCTE, would suffice for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers; in Special Appeal No.239 of 2018, the Division Bench had opined that there was no restriction therein that the qualifications should be one which is obtained from an institution within the State alone; and, in any event, as has been stated by the appellants in the grounds of appeal itself, the Rules have now been amended in the year 2018; and all candidates, who have a two year diploma from any institution, are recognized by the State Government as eligible to be considered for appointment as a Teacher. 7. While the State Government has, by notification No.1148 dated 14.12.2018, amended the 2012 Rules, and has now prescribed a diploma in Elementary Education from any institution as an eligible qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers, these Rules may not apply to the respondents-writ petitioners, since they had applied for the post of Assistant Teachers pursuant to a notification issued long prior to the amendment of these Rules. 8. Section 23 of the 2009 Act relates to qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers and, under subsection (1) thereof, any persons 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. 9. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act, the NCTE prescribed the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher in Class I to VIII, vide notification dated 23.08.2010. 9. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act, the NCTE prescribed the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher in Class I to VIII, vide notification dated 23.08.2010. Clause 1 thereof relates to the minimum qualification and, in so far as Classes I to V are concerned, the minimum qualification stipulated includes, among others, a senior secondary certificate (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) and a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate Government. These Rules were amended by the notification dated 29.07.2011 and the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as an Assistant Teacher for Classes I to V included, among others, a senior secondary (or its equivalent) certificate with at least 50% marks, and a two year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) or graduation with two year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known); and a 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. 10. The minimum qualification prescribed by the NCTE does not restrict eligibility, for being considered for appointment as a teacher, only to those who obtained their diploma from an Institution within the State. It is, in this context, that the Division Bench, in its order in Special Appeal No.239 of 2018 dated 27.04.2018, held that, as long as the qualifications were recognized by the NCTE, it was not open to the State to stipulate, by its Rules, that the qualifications, obtained from within the State alone, would be accepted. 11. While Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would contend that, unlike in the present case where the respondents-writ petitioners had obtained their two year diploma course certificate from IGNOU, the respondent-writ petitioner in Special Appeal No.239 of 2018 had obtained his two years diploma certificate from institutions outside the State; and, therefore, the respondents-writ petitioners herein cannot compare themselves with the respondent-writ petitioner in Special Appeal No.239 of 2018. 12. We must express our inability to agree. 12. We must express our inability to agree. The Division Bench, in its order in Special Appeal No.239 of 2018 dated 27.04.2018, had examined whether the State could restrict, as an eligibility criteria, only those who had obtained their two year diploma course certificate from an Institution within the State, and not from outside. It is, in this context, that the Division Bench had, after taking note of the minimum qualification prescribed by the NCTE, held that the impugned Rules, which restrict the eligibility only to candidates who completed their two year diploma course from within the State, was illegal. Even otherwise, it is not as if the appellants herein are of the view that the two year diploma course from IGNOU should not be recognized, for they have themselves prescribed such a qualification as sufficient in the case of Shiksha Mitras. This question is, as at present, merely academic, since the appellants have themselves recognized the need to bring their Rules in conformity with the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE, as Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act makes any person, possessing the minimum qualifications stipulated by the NCTE, as eligible for appointment as a teacher. 13. Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to exercise discretion to interfere with the order under appeal. All the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 14. Since we are disposing of the appeals, we see no reason to insist on the appellants rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the Registry.