Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 551 (JK)

Mohammad Saleem Rather v. Union Territory of J&K

2020-10-23

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2020
Judgment Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—Since, all these petitions involve similar questions of facts and the law, as such, same having already been clubbed and heard together, are being decided by way of a common judgment. 2. In these petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved of two communications bearing No. Edu/SPD/SmS/126/20290-20334/2020 dated 30th of January, 2020 and No. Edu/SPD/SS/864-908/20 dated 28th of August, 2020, alongwith guidelines issued vide communication No. Edu/SPD/SmS/26/26837/20 dated 2nd of March, 2020, whereby the petitioners, who are in-service Grade-II and Grade-III Teachers (erstwhile RReTs), have been directed to undergo the ‘Integrated Multidisciplinary Professional Advancement Course for Teachers’ (for short ‘IMPACT’) training course. 3. The star argument of all the learned appearing counsels representing the petitioners is that the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to undergo the IMPACT training course has bifurcated the Teacher community into two groups as trained and untrained without any criteria, thereby resulting in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the very object for which the IMPACT training course has been developed is to impart training to untrained Grade-II and Grade-III elementary level Teachers so as to improve their teaching abilities and to bring them at par with the trained Grade-II and Grade-III elementary level Teachers, but the respondents have included the petitioners in the group of untrained Grade-II and Grade-III Teachers ignoring the fact that the petitioners are trained/ qualified Grade-II and Grade-III Teachers having years of experience at their end. It is also contended that the guidelines for conducting IMPACT training course clearly emphasize that the said program is designed for the untrained Teachers who do not have the relevant professional degrees, as such, the petitioners, being trained and qualified Teachers, cannot be brought within the ambit of the aforesaid training course. The learned counsels have also averred that the respondents have equated the petitioners, who are trained and qualified Teachers having years of teaching experience to their credit and have undergone various training programmes in the Department from time to time, with untrained teachers thereby subjecting them to hostile discrimination. The learned counsels have also averred that the respondents have equated the petitioners, who are trained and qualified Teachers having years of teaching experience to their credit and have undergone various training programmes in the Department from time to time, with untrained teachers thereby subjecting them to hostile discrimination. In order to bring home the argument that the petitioners are fully trained Teachers being possessed with high qualification degrees and, as such, are not required to undergo any further training to improve their teaching skills, the learned counsels have referred to and relied upon the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Amendment Act, 2017. 4. Objections stand filed on behalf of the respondents, resisting and controverting the averments made by the petitioners in their petitions. It is submitted that the IMPACT training course for Teachers has been designed by the NCERT to address the gaps in the teaching skills of Grade-II and Grade-III elementary level Teachers (RReTs) and that it is purely a capacity building one-month course aimed to build the capacity of Teachers for achieving better learning outcomes stipulated for every class in all major subject areas. It is further submitted that it is the prerogative of the Government to conduct training programmes for its employees as per requirement and, as such, these Grade-II and Grade-III Teachers (RReTs) are no exception. The General Line Teachers already working in the School Education Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, as stated, have already attended such programmes in the past which were aimed at enhancing their professional skills without raising any objection that they are possessed of high qualification degrees like PG/B.Ed./M.Ed./M.Phil./Ph.D., etc., while these Grade-II and Grade-III teachers, viz. the petitioners herein, are simply making an issue out of a non-issue to suit their vested interests. The respondents have also pleaded that such training programmes, aimed at building the capacity/ skill development of the employees, are not only being done in the Education Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, but also in other Government Departments to make the employees abreast with the latest techniques and skills for improving their professional capabilities. The respondents have also pleaded that such training programmes, aimed at building the capacity/ skill development of the employees, are not only being done in the Education Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, but also in other Government Departments to make the employees abreast with the latest techniques and skills for improving their professional capabilities. In the end, the respondents have urged that since no right of the petitioners is being violated by the respondents in the process of directing the petitioners to attend the IMPACT training course, as such, these petitions, having been unnecessarily filed, are liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, coupled with a perusal of the pleadings on record, what emerges is that the sole purpose of the IMPACT Training Course is to enhance the professional skills of Grade-II and Grade-III elementary level Teachers and, therefore, ordinarily, no Teacher is even expected to seek exemption from this capacity building programme/ course designed to improve the teaching method with a view to have better learning outcomes of our students, let alone challenge his/ her appearance in the aforesaid Training Course before a Court of law. Skill development and professional improvement is a lifelong process, irrespective of the fact whether an individual/ employee is qualified or not. Besides, possessing of higher qualification does not confer any right upon an employee to seek exception from the capacity building programme(s), moreso, when the course is designed to address the vital aspects concerning the teaching/ learning process. In this behalf, the competent authorities in the respondent-Government are well within their rights to take all steps for ensuring enhancement of the professional skills of its employees, including the Grade-II and Grade-III Teachers for the benefit of public at large in general, and the student community in particular, with the passage of time and advent of new/ modern methods/ techniques of administration, technology, teaching etc. This Court, thus, is unable to find any fault in the action of the respondents in directing these Grade-II and Grade-III Teachers, petitioners herein, to undergo the IMPACT training course designed only to provide quality education to the student community by improving the pedagogical skills of these Teachers. 7. This Court, thus, is unable to find any fault in the action of the respondents in directing these Grade-II and Grade-III Teachers, petitioners herein, to undergo the IMPACT training course designed only to provide quality education to the student community by improving the pedagogical skills of these Teachers. 7. Apart from the above perspective and since the petitioners are seeking a ‘Writ of Mandamus’, thereby commanding the respondents not to subject the petitioners to the IMPACT training course, it, needs, must be said that ‘Mandamus’ literally means a command. The essence of ‘Mandamus’, in England, was that it was a royal command issued by the King’s Bench (now Queen’s Bench), directing performance of a public legal duty. A ‘Writ of Mandamus’ is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself/ herself. Likewise, a ‘Writ of Mandamus’ is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. This ‘Writ of Mandamus’, thus, is the most extensive remedial measure, object being to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted. Therefore, in order that a ‘Writ of Mandamus’ may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the Writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. The petitioners have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the respondents not to subject the petitioners to the IMPACT training course nor have they established before the Court that by directing them to appear in the IMPACT training course, the respondents have violated any of their rights qua their service carrier. This view is fortified by two judicial dictums rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case titled ‘Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain & Anr.’, reported as ‘(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 280’ and ‘Union of India & Anr. v. S. B. Vohra & Ors.’, reported as ‘(2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 150’. 8. This view is fortified by two judicial dictums rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case titled ‘Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain & Anr.’, reported as ‘(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 280’ and ‘Union of India & Anr. v. S. B. Vohra & Ors.’, reported as ‘(2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 150’. 8. The reference made by the learned counsels for the petitioners to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Amendment Act, 2017, viewed in the above context, is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case and can be, thus, of no help to the petitioners. The training course in question does not, in any manner whatsoever, infringe upon any of the terms and conditions governing the service carrier of the petitioners, but is, in fact, a capacity building course aimed at building the capacity of Teachers for achieving better learning outcomes stipulated for every class in all major subject areas. 9. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, all these petitions are found to be devoid of any merit and, as such, same are, accordingly, dismissed alongwith all connected CMs. Interim directions, if any, subsisting as on date in any of these petitions, shall also stand vacated. 10. Registry to place a copy of this judgment on each of the connected files.