1. Petitioners challenge contractual employment of special teachers for children with special needs, seeking regular appointments based on mandated pupil-teacher ratios. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 648
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
RAJNEESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.132 OF 2016, 876 OF 2017
DECIDED ON : 28-10-2021
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Shoeb Alam, Prashant Shukla, Suyash Srivastava, Shreya Mishra, Madhumay Mishra, Satyajeet Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, G. Prakash, Rashmi Nandakumar, Madhvi Divan, Ld. R. Bala, Akshay Amritanshu, Vimla Sinha, Nidhi Khanna, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Vinay Garg, Tanmaya Agarwal, Anuvrat Sharma, Krishnanand Pandeya, Uttara Babbar, B. Sunita Rao, Deepika Gupta, Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Piyush Dwivedi, Rohit K. Singh, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Prakhar Srivastav, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, K.V. Jagdishram, N.P. Haibila, G. Indira, D. Mahesh Babu, Abhinav Mukerji, Rishi Malhotra, Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., Eliza Bar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Aravindh S., Akansha Singh, Ravish Singh, Krishnanand Pandey, Abdul Qadir, Ritika Singh, Anand S. Jondhale, Sunil Prem Lalla, Gulfeshan Javed, Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui, Abbula Kalam, Dilshad Bohra, Ninanda Nair, Satish Pandey, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Shoeb Alam, Prashant Shukla, Suyash Srivastava, Shreya Mishra, Madhumay Mishra, Satyajeet Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, G. Prakash, Rashmi Nandakumar, Madhvi Divan, Ld. R. Bala, Akshay Amritanshu, Vimla Sinha, Nidhi Khanna, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Vinay Garg, Tanmaya Agarwal, Anuvrat Sharma, Krishnanand Pandeya, Uttara Babbar, B. Sunita Rao, Deepika Gupta, Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Piyush Dwivedi, Rohit K. Singh, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Prakhar Srivastav, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, K.V. Jagdishram, N.P. Haibila, G. Indira, D. Mahesh Babu, Abhinav Mukerji, Rishi Malhotra, Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., Eliza Bar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Aravindh S., Akansha Singh, Ravish Singh, Krishnanand Pandey, Abdul Qadir, Ritika Singh, Anand S. Jondhale, Sunil Prem Lalla, Gulfeshan Javed, Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui, Abbula Kalam, Dilshad Bohra, Ninanda Nair, Satish Pandey, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocates
The Court mandated that children with special needs (CwSN) must be taught by RCI-registered special educators. It established stopgap pupil-teacher ratios (8:1, 5:1, 2:1 depending on disability) and directed the Central Government to notify formal norms and create permanent posts to ensure inclusive, quality education.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32 and 21A - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(m), 16, 16(i) and (iv)., 17 , 3 , 2©; , 2(m); , 2(h); , 2(x); , 2(za) - Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - clause (i) of section 2, 11 , 12 - Scheme of Integrated Education for the Disabled Children 1992 Act - Sections 11 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - section 45 - Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Act - Sections 25, 27 and 28 - Appointed on contractual basis in different schools - Posts in each and every schools of Country/State - Authorities repeatedly, no heed has been given to their demands and most of them have been appointed on contractual basis in different schools - This is despite obligation of State to ensure that Pupil-Teacher ratio is maintained in recognized schools, by appointing adequate number of trained teachers on regular post - Affidavit that State of U.P. is keen to have special schools having special teachers for imparting education to disabled children who cannot be imparted education in normal schools - Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for State of U.P. relying on affidavit and instructions has submitted that sixteen special schools have already been established and teachers have been appointed and presently the schools are functional - Special schools are imparting education to visually impaired, hearing and speech impaired, mentally disabled and physically disabled children - It is submitted by her that schools have residential facilities and they also admit students who belong to nonresidential category - Cour have been apprised that seven schools for visually impaired are situated in and Meerut and five schools for hearing and speech impaired– Held, State Commissioners appointed under Section 79 of 2016 Act in concerned States/Union Territories to forthwith initiate suo motu enquiries regarding compliance and then make recommendation to appropriate authority may be necessary, so that authority will be obliged to submit compliance report to State Commissioner within three months from date of receipt of recommendation, as mandated under Section 81 of 2016 Act - Court deem it appropriate to presently issue directions to State Commissioner(s) would be in a better position to ensure that corrective and remedial steps are taken by concerned State/Union Territory within the timeline specified in this order - non-miscellaneous day, for consideration of reports received from concerned State Commissioners - State Commissioner of all the States/Union Territories through email forthwith, for information and necessary action. Copy of this order be also forwarded to the Chief Secretary/Lieutenant Governor/Administrator of States/Union Territories through email, for information and necessary action – Court also issue notice to the Secretary of Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) – Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment – Ordered Accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- education law
- disability law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend the State must maintain pupil-teacher ratios by appointing qualified special teachers on regular posts instead of contractual bases. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The court found the RTE Act's Schedule lacks specific pupil-teacher ratios for children with special needs, requiring reliance on special disability laws and executive schemes. (Para 32 , 33 , 46 , 50 )
4. Absent express norms in the RTE Act, pupil-teacher ratios for children with special needs are governed by special disability legislation and relevant executive schemes. (Para 33 , 37 , 53 )
5. Directed the Central Government to notify pupil-teacher ratios and ordered the creation and filling of permanent special teacher posts nationwide. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 )
6. Who is legally authorized to practice as a special teacher in India?
Only rehabilitation professionals possessing recognized qualifications and enrolled on the Register of the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) can practice as special teachers. Practicing without RCI registration is a punishable offence under Section 13(3) of the RCI Act, 1992. (Para 14 , 15 , 40 , 43 )
7. How is the pupil-teacher ratio determined for children with special needs when the RTE Act is silent?
Since the RTE Act's Schedule does not specify ratios for children with special needs, schools must adhere to norms specified in special disability laws or executive schemes, such as the Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Scheme. (Para 33 , 37 , 47 , 50 )
8. Is the appointment of special teachers on an itinerant basis legally permissible?
Yes. While the RTE Act generally prohibits deploying teachers to other schools, the appointment of special teachers on an itinerant basis to serve a cluster of schools is permissible under special disability schemes to optimize resources. (Para 53 )
9. What stopgap pupil-teacher ratios did the court mandate for different types of disabilities?
The court adopted ratios of 8:1 for cerebral palsy; 5:1 for intellectual disability, ASD, and specific learning disabilities; and 2:1 for deaf-blind or a combination of two or more disabilities. (Para 52 )
JUDGMENT :
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India are filed in representative capacity, to espouse the cause of teachers having B.Ed. (Special) and D.Ed. (Special) degree/diploma courses and fully trained to cater to the requirements of Children/Child with Special Needs1[for short, “CwSN”] also known as Divyang, including to impart them education and make them independent. The thrust of the grievance in the writ petition(s) is about the illegality being committed by the concerned State and its Authorities in employing them in recognised schools on contract basis without any certainty of tenure. According to the petitioners, there is a need to appoint 73,888 special teachers on regular basis to teach 3,69,443 CwSN in the State of Uttar Pradesh and equally large number in the State of Punjab so as to fulfil the required Pupil-Teacher ratio i.e., 5:1.
2. It is urged that despite knocking doors of the concerned Authorities repeatedly, no heed has been given to their demands and most of them have been appointed on contractual basis in different schools. This is despite the obligation of the State to ensure that Pupil-Teacher ratio is maintained in the recognized schools, by appointing adequate number of trained teachers on regular post. The principal reliefs prayed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.132 of 2016 are as follows:
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to ensure the free and compulsory education to each and every CWSN (Child with Special Need)/Disabled Children as per the Rules, Regulation and Schemes stated above by initiating the process of appointment of Special Teachers as per the Teacher-Pupil ratio i.e. 1:5; and/or
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to reserve and create, at least (sic) two posts or minimum number of posts in each and every schools of the Country/State, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of complete justice for CWSN (Child with Special Need)/Disabled Children; and/or
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to reserve a minimum number of posts which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in every pending vacancy and future vacancies of the teachers, in the schools of aided by State Government as well as Central Government; and/or,
..…”
Similarly, the reliefs claimed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.876 of 2017, are as follows:
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to ensure the free and compulsory education to each and every CWSN (Child with Special Need)/Disabled Children as per the Rules, Regulation and Schemes stated above by initiating the process of appointment of Special Teachers as per the Teacher-Pupil ratio i.e. 1:5; and/or,
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to reserve and create, atleast two posts or minimum number of posts in each and every schools of the Country/State, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of complete justice for CWSN (Child with Special Need)/Disabled Children; and/or,
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to create and appoint 18053 Special Teachers for class I to V and 1478 Special Teachers for class IX to XII immediately as they are required to teach disabled children in the Schools of Punjab particularly under the circumstances, till date not even a single special teacher has been appointed in the schools of State of Punjab to teach physically disabled children/Child with Special Need (CWSN).
(d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to reserve a minimum number of posts which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in every pending vacancy and future vacancies of the teachers, in the schools of aided by State Government as well as Central Government; and/or,
(e
