SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 663

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Ram Sharan Maurya and others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3707 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6841 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3708 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6847 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3709 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.7817 of 2020) With Contempt Petition (C) No. 418 of 2020 In Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6841 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3710 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13741 of 2020) Diary No.12189 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3711 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13742 of 2020) Diary No.12246 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3720 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13743 of 2020) Diary No.11446 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3721 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13745 of 2020) Diary No.11450 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3722 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13746 of 2020) Diary No.12016 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3728 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13747 of 2020) Diary No.13259 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3729 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13748 of 2020) Diary No.13288 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3725 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13753 of 2020) Diary No.12798 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3732 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13762 of 2020) Diary No.13517 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3731 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13750 of 2020) Diary No.12452 of 2020, Civil Appeal No.3724 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13752 of 2020) Diary No.12792 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13751 of 2020) Diary No.14138 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3730 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13749 of 2020) Diary No.11452 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3726 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13754 of 2020) Diary No.13182 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3712 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6846 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3713 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6842 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3714 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6687 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3717 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13761 of 2020) Diary No.11331 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3715 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6848 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3716 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6845 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3718 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6850 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.3719 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.6851 of 2020) With Special Leave Petition (Civil) D. No.13142 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3727 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13756 of 2020) Diary No.13639 of 2020 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.703 of 2020 With Civil Appeal No.3733 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13757 of 2020) Diary No.13872 of 2020 And Civil Appeal No.3734 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.13758 of 2020) Diary No.13888 of 2020
Decided On : 18-11-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties:Raghvendra Singh, Aishwarya Bhati, Harish Pandey, Mukesh Verma, Yash Pal Dhingra, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Abhishek Kishore, Tanya Agarwal, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Mukesh Verma, Raj Singh Rana, Fauzia Shakil, Sanskriti Pathak, Gaurav Aggarwal, Talha Abdul Rahman, Kushagra Pandey, Mohd. Shaz Khan, Udit Konkanthankar, L.P. Mishra, Talha Abdul Rahman, Amit Singh Bhadauria, Kushagra Pandey, Mohd. Shaz Khan, Udit Konkanthankar, Uday Prakash, Raghvendra Shukla, Ramjee Pandey, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Shrey Kapoor, Abdul Kalam, Abdul Qadir Abbasi, Meenesh Dubey, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Devvrat, Subas Ray, Swati Setia, Abhijit Banerjee, Aditya Kr. Dubey, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Robin Khokhar, Sandeep Jindal, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Ritu Reniwal, Kumar Gaurav, Shalu Sharma, L.P. Mishra, R.K. Singh, Mishra Amit Kumar Bahaduriya, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Tom Joseph, Sudhir Naagar, Roop Choudhary, Mohit Singh Savita Naagar, Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Aman Rastogi, Sanjay Rastogi, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Sheeba Fakhruddin Adil, Anupam Bhati, Malvika Raghawan, H.S. Mann, Pranshu Kaushal, Nakul Chaudhary, Kausar Raza Faridi, D.P. Shukla, Prashant Shukla, Jugul Kishore Gupta, Shahbaaz Jameel, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Anzu K. Varkey, Prashant Shukla, Shreya Mishra, Suyash Srivastava, Anurag Tripathi, Madhumay Mishra, Satyajeet Kumar, Brij Bhushan K. Jauhari, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadav, Harsh Mahan, Lalit Chahar, O.P. Singh, Mohit Yadav, Purnima Jauhari, Anand Nandan, Satya Mitra, M.M. Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Tanya Agarwal, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Tanya Agarwal, Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Anand Nandan, Rakesh Dahiya, Tarun Gupta, Rakesh Mishra, Vikas Kumar, Krishnanand Pandeya, Amit Pawan, Binay Kumar Das, Sachin Sharma, Akshat Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Tewari, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Priyank Upadhyay, Piyush Dwivedi, Akshay Verma, Saroj Tripathi, Satish Pandey, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Tanima Kishore, Lubna Naaz, Krishan Singh Chauhan, Advocates

Headnote:

U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - Section 19 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Recruitment - Appointment of teachers – Qualification - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 was enacted to regulate and control basic education in State of U.P. Section 19 of 1972 Act authorises State Government to make rules to carry out purpose of Act - U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 lay down sources of recruitment and qualification for appointment of teachers - National Council for Teachers’ Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) was enacted by Parliament for planned and coordinated development for teacher education system - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted by Parliament for free and compulsory education to all children of age of 6 to 14 years - Section 23 provides for qualification for appointment of teachers - NCTE was designated as authority under Section 23(1) to lay down qualifications for appointment of teachers - NCTE issued Notification dated laying down such qualifications - Whether in absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference - Held, Court have rejected challenge on behalf of Shiksha Mitras and dismissed their appeals, Court hope that in keeping with submissions made on behalf of State, as recorded in paragraph 34 hereinabove, one more opportunity shall be afforded to Shiksha Mitras to compete in next selection – Court leave it to discretion of State Government to consider manner and modalities in which such opportunity can be availed of - Needless to say, matter in that behalf is entirely left to discretion of the State Government - If there are less number of candidates against vacancies for these categories, such vacancies shall be subject to Rules in that behalf - If vacancies cannot be carried forward, same shall and must enure to advantage of candidates in present selection - Writ Petition (Civil) No.703 of 2020 and appeals arising out of petitions preferred by B.Ed./B.T.C. candidates as well as Contempt Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2020 and all Intervention Applications also stand disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

The Court recognized that the State possesses the authority to establish stringent criteria for teacher recruitment to ensure the selection of meritorious candidates. This includes the power to set high standards, such as specific qualification requirements, to maintain the quality of education. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that if the State considers the use of UDISE codes as a necessary verification tool to confirm the existence and proper functioning of schools, such a measure can be deemed a reasonable and legitimate verification mechanism. This approach aligns with the State’s broader discretion to implement measures that uphold the integrity and standards of the educational system.


JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.13142 of 2020: (i) permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted in all the concerned matters; and (ii) Special Leave to Appeal is granted in all matters.

2. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,1[The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench] in Special Appeal No.207 of 2019 and all connected matters whereby the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1188(SS) of 2019 and other connected matters. These appeals, inter alia, deal with the extent of rights of Shiksha Mitras and benefits conferred upon them by the decision of this Court in State of U.P. and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others, (2018) 13 SCC 560.

3. The facts leading to the decision of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav, were set out in said decision as under:-

    “3. Brief factual matrix may be noted. The 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 authorises the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. The U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (the 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 (the RTE Act, 2009) was enacted by 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. NCTE was designated as authority under Section 23(1) to lay down the qualifications for appointment of teachers.

    4. NCTE issued Notification dated 23-8-2010 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 3-9-2001 subject to their undergoing NCTE recognised six months’ special programme in certain situations. Teachers appointed before 3-9-2001 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 8-11-2010, the Central Government sought proposals for relaxation under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act which was followed by the relaxation Order dated 10-9-2012 for certain categories of persons which was to operate till 31-3-2014. Vide Letter of NCTE dated 14-1-2011, 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.

    5. In exercise of powers under the RTE Act, 2009, the RTE Rules, 2010 were framed by the Central Government. At the same time, the State of U.P. also purported to frame rules called the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011.

    6. Reference may now be made to the scheme under which the Shiksha Mitras were recruited. On 26-5-1999, a Government Order was issued by the State of U.P. for engagement of Shiksha Mitras (Parateacher). The purported object of the Order was to provide universal primary education and for maintenance of teacher student ratio in primary schools by hiring persons who were not duly qualified at lesser cost as against the prescribed salary of a qualified teache


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top