IMPORTANT POINT
Where for selection of Assistant Teacher to Primary School Teachers Training Certificate from a recognised institution was called for, it excluded B.Ed. candidates.

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari J.-This is an appeal by candidates who are holders of B.Ed degree seeking recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The division bench of Delhi High Court by impugned common judgment dated 6-2-2001 in Public Interest Petition and Original Petitions filed by B.Ed. candidates dismissed the claim of B.Ed. candidates for appointment to the post of primary teachers. The candidates holding B.Ed. degree have approached this Court in this appeal.

2. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the B.Ed. candidates is that under the terms of the advertisement for recruitment issued on 21.9.2000, B.Ed. qualification is included in the prescribed qualification and just at the nick of final selection the authorities were not right in issuing the impugned Circular to declare them ineligible for recruitment. The relevant part of the advertisement for recruitment containing the requirements of essential qualifications reads as under:

"A (I) Higher Secondary pass of recognised board/University with an elective subject in the Matric level.

(II) Two year teacher training certificate from the recognised institute OR

B(I) Intermediate or equivalent from a recognised board/university with an elective subject in the required language at the Matric level.

(II) One year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognised institution.

Note: The candidate applying for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) - Hindi must have passed Hindi as an elective subject at the Matric level."

(Underlining for emphasis)

3. The submission made on behalf of B.Ed. candidates is that as prescribed in clause B(ii), one year s Trained Teachers Certificate is not granted anywhere by any institution and therefore the aforesaid qualification should be treated to be to meant to indicate B.Ed. degree which is a one year teacher s training course after Graduation.

4. The second contention advanced is B.Ed. qualification should be treated as higher qualification than TTC because primary teachers recruited on TTC qualification can get promotion as teachers to teach higher classes and B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification for higher classes.

5. The division bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered opinion it has rightly come to the conclusion that B.Ed. qualification, although a well recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education- being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed. candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B. Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with B.Ed. degree qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former.

6. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants urged that undisputedly for the last several years for recruitment of primary teachers in Municipal Corporation Schools, candidates with B.Ed degree were considered and appointed. This long standing practice should be taken as aid to construe the terms of the advertisement and particularly clause B(ii) on which reliance is paced by B.Ed. candidates to consider them eligible.

7. In support of the above contention - learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India [1992 Sup