Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ANAND KUMAR YADAV & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 9529 of 2017 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32599 of 2015) With Civil Appeal Nos.9531-9542 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 33328-33339 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9544 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36019 of 2015) Civil Appeal No.9545 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19097 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) ......Cc No.1621 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9557 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34093 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9576 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36016 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9571 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36033 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9574 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36009 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9575 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36031 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9573 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36032 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9572 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36007 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9584 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36014 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33235 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9570 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36015 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9569 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36006 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9577 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36003 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9583 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36012 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9585 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36021 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9580 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36025 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9582 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36020 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.9586-9587 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 36262-36263 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9578 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36028 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9605 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36024 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9579 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 35999 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9588 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16169 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9636 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19101 of 2017), Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) ......Cc No. 21726 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9589 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4515 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9696 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19103 of 2017), Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) ......Cc No.21689 of 2015), Civil Appeal No.9744 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7131 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos.9697-9698 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos...19110-19111 of 2017), Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) ......Cc Nos.2397-2398 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 75 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 112 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.9699 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19113 of 2017), Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) ......Cc No.2678 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9606 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6858 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 109 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos.9712-9714 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5137-5139 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.9717 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19122 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 3431 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9721 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19125 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 3304 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9722 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19130 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 3498 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 121 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.9723 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19135 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 3574 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 102 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos.9724-9727 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10228-10231 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos.9728-9731 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8511-8514 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos.9733-9736 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19138-19141 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc Nos. 5273-5276 of 2016) Civil Appeal Nos.9756-9759 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 20444-20447 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos.9737-9739 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.19143-19145 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc Nos. 5270-5272 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos.9740-9743 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10224-10227 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9745 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19147 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 19839 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 120 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 124 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 149 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos.9746-9747 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 19837-19838 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 188 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 158 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 176 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.9748 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19148 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 9624 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 244 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.9749 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19155 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 10257 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 287 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.9751 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19156 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 14277 of 2016), Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 453 of 2016 In Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 605 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.9752 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19158 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 14057 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9753 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19159 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 14058 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9754 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19160 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 15298 of 2016), Civil Appeal No.9755 of 2017 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19161 of 2017) Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) .....Cc No. 15910 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 826 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 781 of 2016 In Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 915 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 928 of 2017 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 167 of 2015.
Decided On : 25-07-2017
(2008) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB) – Cited with approval
(b) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 23(2) – Shiksha Mitras – Volunteers appointed on contract basis for eleven months – Not on posts sanctioned by Government – Not possessing statutory qualifications required for appointment of teachers – Recruitment procedures for teachers not applicable to Shiksha Mitras – State amending Service Rules 1981 by inserting Rule 16A relaxing minimum educational qualifications to accommodate Shiksha Mitras – Amendment struck down by High Court being contrary to the provisions of the Act – These Shiksha Mitras having not been appointed prior to 23rd August, 2010 Notificatiotn, held, not entitled to regularisation. (Para 20, 21)
2013 (7) ADJ 1 (FB); (2010) 9 SCC 247; (2014) 4 SCC 583; (1968) 1 SCR 111; (1991) 4 SCC 584; (2008) 10 SCC 1; (1975) 4 SCC 714; (1999) 9 SCC 105; (1994) 5 SCC 557; (1991) 3 SCC 114; (1985) 3 SCC 545; (2011) 7 SCC 397; (2011) 7 SCC 397; (2003) 3 SCC 548; (1994) Suppl.(1) 44 – Referred
(c) Service law – Regularisation – Only in case of irregularity – Appointment of Shiksha Mitras only contractual – Not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher – Nor given designation of teacher – Appointment not in pay scale of teachers – Not covered by exceptions carved out by Supreme Court – Right to Education Act, 2009 – Sections 23(1) and (2). (Para 22, 23)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 – Followed
Facts of the case:
The High Court quashed the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Nineteenth Amendment) Rules 2014, insofar as they prescribe as a source of recruitment in Rule 5(2) the appointment of Shiksha Mitras; the academic qualifications for the recruitment of Shiksha Mitras in Rule 8(2)(c) and for the absorption of Shiksha Mitras as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools under Rule 14(6) as being unconstitutional and ultra vires.
All consequential executive orders of the State Government providing for the absorption of Shiksha Mitras into the regular service of the State as Assistant Teachers were also quashed and set aside.
The main question for consideration in these appeals therefore is whether it is permissible to appoint teachers for basic education who do not have the requisite statutory qualifications?
Finding of the Court:
Shiksha Mitras ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the concerned authority. Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides.
Result: Appeal disposed of with ditrection.
The Supreme Court's emphasis on the necessity for "Shiksha Mitras" or contractual teachers to strictly meet the standards set by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) underscores the importance of maintaining quality in elementary education. This position reinforces that only teachers who possess the prescribed statutory qualifications and have undergone recognized training should be appointed or absorbed as teachers in the formal education system (!) .
The Court's stance indicates that the verification process must be rigorous and thorough, ensuring that all teachers, including Shiksha Mitras, fulfill the minimum qualification criteria established by the relevant statutory authorities (!) . This approach aims to uphold the integrity of the educational standards and safeguard the fundamental right of children to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers.
Furthermore, the Court's ruling highlights that any relaxation or deviation from these standards must be authorized by the competent statutory authority, in this case, the Central Government or the designated regulatory bodies, and not by the State alone (!) . This ensures that the process of verification is not only strict but also consistent with the law, thereby preventing any arbitrary or unauthorized appointments that could compromise educational quality (!) .
In essence, the Court's emphasis on strict verification aligns with the broader objective of ensuring that elementary education is delivered by qualified, trained, and competent teachers, which is fundamental to achieving the constitutional goal of quality education for all children. The State's argument for rigorous verification is thus rooted in the need to uphold legal standards and protect the rights of children to receive effective and quality education from appropriately qualified teachers.
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
Leave granted.
This batch of cases arises out of judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 12th September, 2015 in Writ Appeal No. 34833 of 2015, (2015) ILR All 1108 : (2015) 8 ADJ 338 Anand Kumar Yadav v. UOI and connected matters. The High Court allowed the batch of writ petitions and directed as follows:
"(i) The amendment made by the State Government by its notification dated 30 May 2014 introducing the provision of Rule 16-A in the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 by the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) Rules 2014 is held to be arbitrary and ultra vires and is quashed and set aside;
(ii) The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Nineteenth Amendment) Rules 2014, insofar as they prescribe as a source of recruitment in Rule 5(2) the appointment of Shiksha Mitras; the academic qualifications for the recruitment of Shiksha Mitras in Rule 8(2)(c) and for the absorption of Shiksha Mitras as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools under Rule 14(6) are set aside as being unconstitutional and ultra vires; and
(iii) All consequential executive orders of the State Government providing for the absorption of Shiksha Mitras into the regular service of the State as Assistant Teachers shall stand quashed and set aside."
2. Main question for consideration is whether it is permissible to appoint teachers for basic education who do not have the requisite statutory qualifications?
FACTS :
3.1 Brief factual matrix may be noted. U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (the 1972, Act) was enacted to regulate and control basic education in the State of U.P. Section 19 of the 1972, Act authorizes the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (1981 Rules) lay down sources of recruitment and qualification for appointment of teachers. The National Council for Teachers' Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) was enacted by Parliament for planned and coordinated development for teacher education system. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009) was enacted by the Parliament for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. Section 23 provides for qualification for appointment of teachers. The NCTE was designated as authority under Section 23(1) to lay down the qualifications for appointment of teachers.
3.2 The NCTE issued notification dated 23rd August, 2010 laying down such qualifications. With regard to teachers appointed prior to the said notification, it was stated that they were required to have qualifications in terms of the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (the 2001 Regulations), if the teachers were appointed on or after 3rd September, 2001 subject to their undergoing NCTE recognized six months special programme in certain situations. Teachers appointed before 3rd September, 2001 were required to have qualifications as per the prevalent recruitment rules. One of the requirements under the said notification is the requirement of passing Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). However, by letter dated 8th November, 2010, the Central Government sought proposals for relaxation under Section 23 (2) of the RTE Act which was followed by the relaxation Order dated 10th September, 2012 for certain categories of persons which was to operate till 31st March, 2014. Vide letter of the NCTE dated 14th January, 2011, the NCTE accepted the proposal of the State of Uttar Pradesh for training of untrained graduate Shiksha Mitras by open and distance learning but it was made clear that no appointment of untrained teachers was permitted.
3.3 In exercise of powers under the RTE Act, 2009, the RTE Rules, 2010
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
