Importent Point: The NCTE Act only deals with teachers training institutes; it has nothing to do with the ordinary educational institutions. Hence, the qualification for appointment as teacher in the ordinary educational institutions like the primary school, cannot be prescribed under the NCTE Act.

Headnote:(a) Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 8 - Equivalence of D.Ed. certificate awarded by the DIET, Jabalpur with BTC of U.P. earlier recognized, admittedly rescinded by the U.P. Government - Respondent got appointment after the circular and hence it applies to him - Not having requisite qualifications in terms of the circular, respondent was not entitled to appointment. (Paras 10 and 14)
       (b) Service Law - Appointment - Qualifications - Equivalence - Grant of equivalence and /or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority - The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government - Court has nothing to do with such matters as it does not have expertise in such matters - Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it. (Para 15)

       (c) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Section 2(m) - The NCTE Act only deals with teachers training institutes, it has nothing to do with the ordinary educational institutions - Hence, the qualification for appointment as teacher in the ordinary educational institutions like the primary school, cannot be prescribed under the NCTE Act - Such essential qualifications are prescribed by the local Acts and Rules in each State. (Para 19)
       (d) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Section 2(2) - The word "institution" as defined in Section 2(2) only means teachers training institute and not the ordinary educational institutions - Thus, the NCTE Act does not deal with or relate to the ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools, intermediate college or university at all. (Para 22)
       (e) Constitution of India - Article 254 - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 operate in two different fields - Therefore Article 254 has no application in this case at all and High Court wrongly held that the respondent had the requisite qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Master in a Junior Basic School. (Para 23)
       Facts of the case:
       1. The essential academic qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools in U.P. is mentioned in Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.
       2. At the relevant time the said qualification mentioned in Rule 8 was Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or any other qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher Certificate, Hindustani Teacher Certificate, Junior Teacher Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto.
       3. Admittedly, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 8034/2001 (Upendra Rai) only holds a Diploma in Education (in short D.Ed.) which was awarded to him after he completed two years course from DIET Jabalpur in M.P. He does not hold any of the certificates of training qualification referred to in Rule 8 of the Rules.
       4. In the aforesaid U.P. Government Circular dated 11.8.1997 it is mentioned that it has been decided by the Government that in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 the posts of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools of the Board be filled up only with those candidates who are trained in U.P. Government Training Institutes and possess BTC or Hindustani Teaching Certificate or teaching certificate of Junior Teachers or Teacher. It was also specifically mentioned that equivalence to BTC granted earlier to other certificates was cancelled with immediate effect.
       5. The respondent admittedly got appointment after the Circular dated 11.8.1997 and hence this Circular applies to him.
       6. Before the Learned Single Judge the challenge was to the advertisement dated 28.4.1999 and the Government Circular dated 11.8.1997. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but in appeal the Division Bench set aside that judgment and also the impugned Government Circular and the advertisement and allowed the appeal.
       Findings of the Court:
        Equivalence of the qualification held by the respondent with the prescribed one having been rescinded, he was not entitled to appointment.
       Result:
        Appeal Nos. 8034/2001, 3998/2002, 153/2003, . /2008 and 1207/2006 allowed. Appeal Nos. 2796/2006, 4784/2006 dismissed.

JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. -- Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Since a common question of law is involved in the appeals filed by the State of U.P., Civil Appeal No.8034/2001 Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and others is taken as the leading case for consideration in dealing with these appeals. Civil Appeal No. 8034/2001 has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.2.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 25 of 2000 by which the Learned Division Bench set aside the judgment of Learned Single Judge dated 7.12.1999.

4. Before the Learned Single Judge the challenge was to the advertisement dated 28.4.1999 and the Government Circular dated 11.8.1997. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but in appeal the Division Bench set aside that judgment and also the impugned Government Circular and the advertisement and allowed the appeal. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, this appeal has been filed by special leave.

5. The question in this case and the connected appeals is about the qualification of the respondent for being appointed as Assistant Master in Junior Basic Schools in U.P. The essential academic qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools in U.P. is mentioned in Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.

6. At the relevant time the said qualification mentioned in Rule 8 was Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or any other qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto together with training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher Certificate, Hindustani Teacher Certificate, Junior Teacher Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto.

7. A perusal of Rule 8 shows that there are two essential requirements for being appointed as Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools, these are

(a) Intermediate Certificate of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP (which was later substituted by an amendment of Rule 8 by prescribing bachelor's degree instead of Intermediate Certificate);

(b) Training qualification consisting of Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC), Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate or Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government equivalent thereto. 8. In the present case, we are concerned with the second essential requirement viz., training qualification.

9. Admittedly, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 8034/2001 (Upendra Rai) only holds a Diploma in Education (in short D.Ed.) which was awarded to him after he completed two years' course from DIET Jabalpur in M.P. He does not hold any of the certificates of training qualification referred to in Rule 8 of the Rules.

10. It was submitted by learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) before the High Court that the aforesaid D.Ed. certificate awarded by the DIET, Jabalpur was earlier recognized as equivalent to BTC of U.P. However, even if that is so, we find that its equivalence (if it existed at all) to BTC has been, admittedly, rescinded by the U.P. Government Circular dated 11.8.1997.

11. The aforesaid U.P. Government Circular dated 11.8.1997 has been annexed as Annexure P-5 to this appeal. This Circular dated 11.8.1997 was written by the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Government to the Director of Education (Basic) & Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. In this Circular it is mentioned in paragraph 2 that it has been decided by the Governmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document