Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Devesh Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No.20743 of 2021) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5122 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 17633 OF 2023) @ D.NO.21388 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5070 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2069 OF 2022) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5086 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S).17630 OF 2023) @ D.NO.5464 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5121 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S).17632 OF 2023) @ D.NO.12813 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5069 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2061 OF 2022) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5071-5084 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.2578-2591 OF 2022) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5085 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3222 OF 2022) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5087 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 17631 OF 2023) @ D.NO.7368 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5088-5120 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.15118-15150 OF 2022) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5125 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.22923 OF 2022) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5123-5124/2023 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.21308-21309 OF 2022) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.137 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.881 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.355 OF 2022
Decided on : 11-08-2023
(A) Right to Education Act, 2009 – Section 23 – Constitution of India – Articles 21A and 45 – Right to education – Elementary education has to be of good quality and not just a ritual or formality – Free and compulsory education for children becomes meaningless if we make compromise on its quality – We must recruit the best qualified teachers – A good teacher is first assurance of quality education in a school – Any compromise on qualification of teachers would necessarily mean compromise on quality of education. (Paras 12 and 21)
(B) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 – Sections 12A and 29 read with Appendix 2 to NCTE Regulations, 2009 – Appointment on Post of primary school teacher (Level-1) – Educational qualification – NCTE considered appointment of trained and qualified teachers as an absolute necessity in primary schools – It is for this reason that qualification which was prescribed for a teacher in primary school was a diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.) and not any other educational qualification, including B.Ed. – Apart from this teachers eligibility test or TET would further test skills of a candidate to handle students at primary level – A candidate who has a diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.) is trained to handle students at initial formative years – B.Ed. course is not designed for teaching at primary level – Pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected from a B.Ed. trained teacher – They are trained to teach classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and above – It is a D.El.Ed. training course which is designed and structured to impart skills in a teacher who is to teach Primary level of students – By implication inclusion of B.Ed. as a qualification amounts to lowering down of quality of education at Primary level – NCTE was not justified in including B.Ed. as a qualification for appointment to post of primary school teacher (Level-1) – Rajasthan High Court by way of Impugned Judgement had rightly struck down impugned notification. (Paras 25, 27, 31 and 34)
(C) Constitution of India – Articles 32/136/226 – Scope and ambit of power of Judicial Review – Policy decisions of Government should normally not be interfered with, by a constitutional Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review – At the same time if policy decision itself is contrary to law and is arbitrary and irrational, powers of judicial review must be exercised – Judicial review becomes necessary where there is an illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety – Decision taken at Government level to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers at primary level is a policy decision but this decision is not correct as it is contrary to purpose of Act – It goes against letter and spirit of Fundamental Right enshrined in Constitution under Article 21A. (Paras 36 and 37)
(D) Statute Law – Constitutionality of Statute – A statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
Question of law to be answered in these cases is whether NCTE was right in including B.Ed. qualification as an equivalent and essential qualification for appointment to post of primary school teacher (Level-1)? Rajasthan High Court in impugned judgment has quashed notification dated 28.06.2018, holding B.Ed. candidates to be unqualified for posts of primary school teachers (Level-1).
Findings of Court:
Judgment dated 25.11.2021 of Rajasthan High Court is upheld. Notification dated 28.06.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
2. A Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court, dated 25.11.2021, is under challenge before this Court. Apart from the appeals, there are three Writ Petitions as well before this Court, on the same issue. All the same, while dealing with these cases, for facts, we would be referring to Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.20743 of 2021 Devesh Sharma versus Union of India, which arises out of the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2109 of 2021.
3. What lies at the core of the dispute before this Court is the notification dated 28.06.2018, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereafter ‘NCTE’), made in exercise of its powers under Section 23(1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). This notification made B.Ed. degree holders eligible for appointment to the post of primary school teachers (classes I to V). All the same, in spite of the above notification, when the Board of Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, issued an advertisement on 11.01.2021, for Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (RTET Level-1), it excluded B.Ed. degree holders from the list of eligible candidates. This action of the Rajasthan Government was challenged before the High Court. The petitioner Shri Devesh Sharma has a B.Ed. degree, and as per the Notification dated 28.06.2018, he was eligible, like many other similar candidates. Consequently, he filed his petition before the Rajasthan High Court, inter alia, praying that the advertisement dated 11.01.2021 be quashed, as it was in violation of the notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE.
4. Apart from the above batch of petitioners, there was another set of petitioners, with their own grievance. These are the candidates who are diploma holders in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), 1[It is possible that this diploma is called by different names in different States. It is for this reason that at some place it may just be referred as a diploma in elementary education.], which was the only teaching qualification required for teachers at primary level, and who are aggrieved by the inclusion of B.Ed. qualified candidates. They too filed Writ Petitions before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the legality of the notification dated 28.06.2018. The State of Rajasthan understandably supported these second batch of candidates before the High Court, as they would do before this Court.
5. Out of the three writ petitions before us two (W.P. No. 137 of 2022 and 881 of 2022) are challenging the notification dated 28.06.2018 and the subsequent notifications issued by the Government of Bihar and U.P. respectively calling for application from eligible candidates including B.Ed. W.P. No. 355 of 2022 again challenges the notification dated 28.06.2018. SLP (C) No. 22923 of 2022 is against an interim order of the Calcutta High Court which denied relief to the petitioners who were seeking a stay of the notification dated 28.06.2018.
6. Hence the question of law to be answered in these cases is whether NCTE was right in including B.Ed. qualification as an equivalent and essential qualification for appointment to the post of primary school teacher (Level-1)? The Rajasthan High Court in the impugned judgment has quashed the notification dated 28.06.2018, holding B.Ed. candidates to be unqualified for the posts of primary school teachers (Level-1).
7. On behalf of the Petitioners, we have heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia who has assailed the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. Mr. Patwalia appeared for the B.Ed. qualified candidates and would support the notification dated 28.06.2018, and the petitioners who had challenged their exclusion before the Rajasthan High Court. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel was also heard for the appellants. The learned counsel would argue tha
(1) Elementary education has to be of good quality and not just a ritual or formality – A good teacher is first assurance of quality education in a school.(2) NCTE was not justified in including B.Ed....
The inclusion of B.Ed. as eligibility for primary level teacher posts is illegal and undermines educational quality, necessitating the prioritization of D.El.Ed qualifications under the Right to Educ....
The court established that D.El.Ed. is the sole qualification for primary school teachers, invalidating B.Ed. as a qualification and affirming the prospective application of its ruling.
The qualifications set by the National Council for Teacher Education are mandatory, and states cannot unilaterally relax these requirements without approval.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of D.Ed. qualification for the post of Special Teacher under the Special School Code, 1997, and the importance of proper training f....
The court ruled that differing qualifications for promotion and direct recruitment to the same post violate constitutional provisions and NCTE regulations, affirming B.Ed as essential for lecturer ro....
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
