JUDGMENT - VIJAY DAGA, J.:---A Division Bench at Mumbai having differed with the view expressed by similar Benches at Nagpur and other at Aurangabad, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has, in the circumstances, constituted the present Full Bench to resolve the difference.

BACKGROUND FOR REFERENCE

2.An occasion arose for the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Ashok Agarwal and Mrs. Justice Ranjana Desai to make this reference as the services of one Shri Rajendra Raut having B.Ed. qualification were terminated on the ground that he did not hold requisite qualification namely; D.Ed. for teaching in primary school. He was sought to be replaced by a person holding requisite qualification i.e. D.Ed. He had thus invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1998 to challenge the said action. While hearing the said petition for interim reliefs, relevant question raised for consideration was as to whether the qualification of B.Ed. can be said to be requisite qualification for teaching the students of primary schools. The Division Bench found that the said question was the subject matter of consideration in several judgments rendered by different Benches of this Court in the case of (Sau. Alka Jagannath Bharati v. The State of Maharashtra and ors.)1, Writ Pettiton No. 3006 of 1991 by order dated 3-12-1991 Mr. Justice K. Sukumaran and Mr. Justice V.V. Kamat have taken a view that the qualification of B.Ed. is a higher qualification than D.Ed. Thus, it was held that the petitioner therein had not only a necessary requisite qualification for the post of primary teacher but had a qualification more than necessary for the said post. Similar view was reiterated in the case of (Smt. Aminabai Husain Shakir v. The State of Maharashtra ors)2, in Writ Petition No. 1925 of 1996 decided by A.A. Desai and S. Radhakrishnan, JJ., as also in case of (Dhondiba s/o Govindrao Lawte v. The State of Maharashtra ors)3, in Writ Petition No. 348 of 1998, decided by B.N. Srikrishna and S.P. Kulkarni, JJ., on 23rd March 1998.

3.A contrary view to the one in the aforesaid cases was also noticed by the Division Bench in the case of (Smt. Nandini Arunkumar Kalaskar v. State of Maharashtra ors)4, in Writ Petition No. 4644 of 1997 decided by Bench presided over by Ashok Agarwal, J., wherein the Division Bench had taken a view that as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules qualifications for primary teachers are as mentioned in Schedule B-I whereas qualifications for secondary teachers are as mentioned in Schedule B-II of the Rules. Schedule B-I prescribes D.Ed. as requisite qualification for primary teacher whereas Schedule B-II prescribes B.Ed. as requisite qualification for higher secondary teachers. Based on the aforesaid provisions it was held that B.Ed. is not a requisite qualification for primary teachers.

4.In view of the conflict in the aforesaid judgments, it was found necessary by the Division Bench, presided over by Mr. Justice Ashok Agarwal and Smt. Justice R.P. Desai, to resolve the difference by reference to the larger Bench. The Learned Chief Justice has in the circumstances, referred the above issue to this Bench for resolving the difference. Pending the hearing and disposal of these petitions, many more petitions joined the group as such all the petitions are taken up for hearing and all of them shall govern by this judgment.

Question referred to Full Bench

Whether the qualification 'B.Ed.' is a requisite qualification for teaching the students in the primary Schools?

BACKGROUND LEGISLATION

5.In order to appreciate the present controversy before considering the merits of the case, it will be convenient to notice few relevant provisions of the statute applicable to the facts of the case.

6.As the preamble shows the Act was enacted by the State Legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of employees in private schools in the State of Maharashtra and with a view to provide such employees secur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document