Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 843
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Bhola Prasad Shukla & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(s). 14621/2019 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 01-10-2018 in SPLAD No. 537/2018 Passed By The High Court of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
Decided On : 16-01-2020
Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv., Mr. Girdhar Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Kausar Raza Faridi, AOR, Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Madhumay Misra, Adv., Mr. Satyendr Kr. Mishra, Adv., Mr. Shahbaaz Jameel, Adv., Mr. R.K. singh, Adv., Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv., Ms. Neeraj Singh, Adv., Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv., Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv., Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kr. Jha, AOR, Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv., Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv., Dr. Brij Bhushan K. Jauhari, Adv., Mr. Karunakar, Ms. Veena Bansal, adv., Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv., Mr. Harsh Mahan, Adv., Ms. Purnima Jauhari, AOR Mahalik, AOR, Mr. Pradeep Kr. Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kr. Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv., Mr. Raghvendra Nath Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv., Ms. Madhu Bala, Adv., Mr. Awadhesh Kr., Adv., Mr. Chandan Misha, Adv., Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR, Mr. Ashotosh Lal, Adv., Mr. Alok Kr. Misra, Adv.,, Mr. Diwakar Prasad Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR, Mr. Anil Kr. Verma, Adv., Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Surya Kr, Adv., Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR, Ms. Akansha Rai, Adv., Ms. Yashoda Katiyar, Adv., Mr. Anup Kr. Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Nandlal Kr. Mishra, Adv., Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR, Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv., Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv., Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv., Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR, Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, adv., Mr. Pawan Kr. Shukla, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Kr. Singh, Adv., Mr. Sangeet Paliwal, Adv., Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR, Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR, Mr. Purushottam Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.K. Shukla, Adv., Mr. Dinesh S. Radiar, adv., Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Adv., Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar, AOR, Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv., Ms. Neeraj Singh, Adv., Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv., Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv., Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv., Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR, Mr. Shashank S. Mangal, Adv., Mr. Adarsh Kr, Adv., Ms. Sukhda Kalra, Adv., Mr. M.M.Singh, Adv., Mr.Jitendra Kr., Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Pd. Goyal, AOR, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, AOR, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv., Mr. Kamal Kr. Pandey, Adv., Mr. Kakrand Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Siddnath Singh Sengor, Adv., Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv., Mr. Neeraj Singh, Adv., Mr. Kumar Gaura, Adv., Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv., Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Robin Khokhar, Adv., for the Parties.
Points Of Law : Selection process was undertaken to fill up approximately 69,000 vacancies in the Primary Schools in the State, in which selection process about 41,500 teachers were selected - Matter is completely left to discretion of State and its authorities.
Headnote:
Permission to file SLPs is granted – Relaxation - Shiksha Mitras qualifications - Applications for intervention/impleadment are allowed as posed - Whether any relaxation be given to the present incumbents and how the interest of such incumbents could be secured.
Finding of the Court :
Appointments in present case are clearly after said date - Relaxation provision could be invoked for a limited period or in respect of persons already appointed in terms of applicable rules relating to qualifications - Shiksha Mitras in present case do not fall in category of pre Notification whose appointment could be regularised – Government to initiate process for selection, after assessing the actual number of vacancies, as early as possible and preferably six weeks from today and conclude selection process within six months thereafter.
Result: Special Leave Appeal disposed of
ORDER
1. Permission to file SLPs is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Applications for intervention/impleadment are allowed.
4. In State of U.P. and Another vs. Anand Kr. Yadav & Others [(2018) 13 SCC 560] , the basic question as posed in Para 2 was as under:-
"2. The main question for consideration is whether it is permissible to appoint teachers for basic education who do not have the requisite statutory qualifications?"
5. The decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court was affirmed by this Court as under:
"28. We are in agreement with the above findings. In view of clear mandate of law statutorily requiring minimum qualification for appointment of teachers to be appointed after the date of the Notification dated 23-8-2010, there is no doubt that no appointment was permissible without such qualifications. Appointments in the present case are clearly after the said date. Relaxation provision could be invoked for a limited period or in respect of persons already appointed in terms of applicable rules relating to qualifications. The Shiksha Mitras in the present case do not fall in the category of pre 23-8-2010 Notification whose appointment could be regularised.
29. Further difficulty which stares one in the face is the law laid down by this Court on regularisation of contractually appointed persons in public employment. Appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of teacher nor in pay scale of teachers. Thus, they could not be regularised as teachers. Regularisation could only be of mere irregularity. The exceptions carved out by this Court do not apply to the case of the present nature.
30. In view of our conclusion that the Shiksha Mitras were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications and are not covered by relaxation order under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, they could not be appointed as teachers in breach of Section 23(1) of the said Act. The State is not competent to relax the qualifications.
31. Since, we have given full hearing to all Shiksha Mitras through their respective counsel, it is not necessary to consider the argument of breach of procedure under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.
32. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 lakh persons to be regularised in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if for a stop-gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed. It may be permissible to give some weight age to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with. Regularisation of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are obvious. We do not find any error in the view 1 taken by the High Court."
6. However, while considering whether any relaxation be given to the present incumbents and how the interest of such incumbents could be secured, it was observed in Para 33 as under:
"33. Question now is whether in the absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference. In the peculiar fact situation, they 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 weight age for their experience as may be decided by the authority concerned. 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."
7. Thus, on two counts, benefit was extended to the present incumbents who are w
