Important point
Considering that a large number of young girls below the age of 10 years were taught in the primary school and recognizing that it would be preferable that such young girls are taught by women, the reservation of 50% of the posts of Assistant Teachers in favour of female candidates was held to be justified.

Headnote:National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993—U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972—U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981—Government orders relating to selection for training of candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers in primary schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board—Government Order provided that 50% of the candidates to be selected shall be from Science stream and 50% from the Arts stream and further 50% would be female candidates and 50% would be male candidates—By another Government Order dated 14.9.2001, State Government took a policy decision to prepare a merit list, not on the district level, but at the State level—On 31.10.2001, by another Government Order, Government Order dated 14.9.2001 was amended—Once again merit list of all the applications received from candidates was directed to be prepared at the district level—Writ petitions were filed challenging action of the Government in changing criteria of preparation of merit list from State wise to district wise as arbitrary—Whether restriction of selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was arbitrary—(Yes)—Whether selection of candidates for special BTC training is contrary to provisions of the Basic Education Act and the Rules—(Yes)—Whether reservation of 50% of the posts in favour of female candidates was justified—(Yes)—Constitution of India—Articles 14 and 15.
       Held : The Division Bench took the view that Articles 15(3) of the Constitution enables the State government to make special provision for woman and children notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Article 15(1). Particularly viewed in the background of the fact that a large number of young girls below the age of 10 years were taught in the primary school and recognizing that it would be preferable that such young girls are taught by women, the reservation of 50% of the posts in favour of female candidates was held to be justified. The classification made was justified and cannot be styled as arbitrary or liable to be hit by Article 14. (Para 14)
       The Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the merit list could not be prepared on districtwise basis and that restricting the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was not justified and amounted to discrimination. It was also found that though at one stage the State government had decided to prepare the merit list on the State level, it was suddenly changed to the district level and the reasons advanced for the sudden change were found to be wholly irrelevant and unjustified. The action of the State government in restoring the preparation of merit list from State level to district level was held arbitrary and violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. (Para 16)
       We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench on this issue and hold that restriction of the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was arbitrary and violative of Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. (Para 17)
       The U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 provides under Section 5 for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistresses to Junior Basic Schools. The Rules prescribe the qualifications requisite for such posts. Academic qualification required is a bachelor’s degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government together with ‘training qualification’ consisting of a Basic Teacher’s Certificate, Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognised by the government as equivalent thereto. In the face of these Rules, and particularly keeping in view the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the High Court that the special BTC training course formulated by the State government was contrary to the provisions of the impugned Act and Rules and the 1993 Central Act. (Para 20)

Judgment

Srikrishna, J.—Leave granted.

2. This group of appeals impugns the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a group of appeals challenging the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge, who allowed a batch of writ petitions resulting in the quashing of certain Government Orders relating to selection for training of candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’).

3. The material facts relevant for disposal of this group of appeals may be summarized thus :

For several years, the State of U.P. had experienced a severe shortage of teachers as a result of which it was finding it difficult to fulfill its obligations as mandated by Article 45 of the Constitution of India to provide free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 years. The State Government runs a training college in each district, (about 70 in number) where the candidates are given training in teaching and on successful completion of the training are awarded a ‘Basic Teacher’s Certificate’ (hereinafter referred to as BTC). The State government experienced that the number of candidates turned out from these training institutions was insufficient to meet the large requirement of trained teachers required to teach in primary schools run by the Board. While the intake in the training colleges was only about 100 persons in a year, resulting in the number of trained BTC teachers in the range of 5000 to 6000 per annum, it was found that the total requirement of Assistant Teachers for teaching students in the primary schools run by the Board was in the range of about 50,000. In order to meet the shortfall, the State government decided to impart two months’ special training to candidates, who had done their B.Ed/L.T. so that they could be employed as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools run by the Board. This decision was implemented by a Government Order dated 3.8.2001. Applications were called for from B.Ed./L.T. qualified candidates for selection to undergo the special BTC training after which suitable candidates would be selected and appointed as Assistant Teachers. The Government Order provided that 50% of the candidates to be selected shall be from Science stream and 50% from the Arts stream and further 50% would be female candidates and 50% would be male candidates. The Government Order also states that after the special BTC training, there would be an examination held and the selected candidates passing the examination would be interviewed and after selection would be recruited as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools of the districts and regions where there was deficiency of teachers. There was a restrictive condition in the Government Order dated 3.8.2001 that candidates were eligible to make applications only against the vacancies available in their home district and that, if a candidate applied for two or more districts, such applications were liable to be rejected. There was a detailed manner of selection for training on the basis of quality point marks obtained in the various examinations passed by the candidates. The Government Order stated that those candidates who successfully completed the special BTC training shall be treated on par with the BTC general trained candidates and become eligible for appointment to the vacant posts of Assistant Teacher for primary schools.

4. The Government Order dated 3.8.2001 was subsequently modified by another Government Order dated 20.8.2001 under which the candidates having C.P.Ed., D.P. Ed. And B.P. Ed. Training as regular students from the universities, colleges and training college recognised and run by the State government, were also eligible to apply for the BTC training programme. There was some relaxation of age given by the Order which is not material. The last date of receipt of application was extended from 15.9.2001 to 29.9.2001.

5. By another G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 777

Cases Referred (3)