Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Shri Swami Samarth Apang Seva Mandal, Solapur & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Madhukar Dashrath Ghodke and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13854 of 2016
Decided On : 07-11-2023
D.Ed. Qualification - Employment Dispute - Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, Societies Registration Act 1860, Special School Code for Handicapped 1997 - The court discussed the requirement of D.Ed. qualification for the post of Special Teacher under the Special School Code, 1997 and its interpretation in light of relevant judgments. The court also highlighted the distinction between D.Ed. and B.Ed. qualifications and emphasized the importance of proper training for teachers at the primary level.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Trust running a school for disabled students, challenged the reinstatement of Respondent No.1, a Special Teacher, with backwages. The dispute arose from the respondent's termination due to lack of D.Ed. qualification as per the Special School Code, 1997.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not possess the requisite D.Ed. qualification for the Special Teacher position as mandated by the Special School Code, 1997. The court held that the Appellate Authority's direction for reinstatement was unsustainable and set aside the reinstatement order.
Issues: The main issue was the qualification requirement for the post of Special Teacher under the Special School Code, 1997, and the legality of the respondent's reinstatement without the requisite qualification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of D.Ed. qualification for teaching at the primary level, as mandated by the Special School Code, 1997. It relied on relevant judgments to establish the distinction between D.Ed. and B.Ed. qualifications and the necessity of proper training for teachers at the primary level.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Appellate Authority's order directing the reinstatement of the respondent and allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, with no orders as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for hearing.
2. Petitioner-Management has filed this petition challenging Order dated 03 October 2016 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare, Pune Division Pune setting aside oral termination of Respondent No.1 with effect from 01 May 2002 and directing his reinstatement with 50% backwages.
3. Facts of the case are in a narrow compass. Petitioner No.1 is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950 and also a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860. Petitioner-Trust has set up several schools for imparting training to disabled students. One such School established by Petitioner-Trust is Shri Swami Samarth Asthi Vyang Nivasi School, Akkalkot (School). During the years 1993 to 1995, the school was functioning on non-grant basis. Respondent No.1 held qualification Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and was appointed as Special Teacher in the school on temporary basis on payment of honorarium. On 28 April 1995, grant-in-aid was extended to the Petitioner-School with one of the conditions that appointed teacher should be trained. On 30 May 1995, Respondent No.1 was given regular-temporary appointment for the academic year 1995-1996. The District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur approved appointment of Respondent No.1 on 23 May 1996 subject to condition of acquiring necessary qualification in academic year 1996-1997. Accordingly, Petitioner-School issued letter to Respondent No.1 on 03 May 1996 calling him upon to acquire qualification of Diploma in Education (D. Ed) / Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.).
4. Special School Code for Handicapped, 1997 (Special School Code) came to be notified by the State Government in the year 1996, which provided eligibility criteria as D. Ed. for Trained Teachers for physically disabled schools. The appointment of Respondent No.1 was continued for academic year 1997-1998. It appears that Respondent No.1 acquired B.Ed. qualification from Shivaji University, Kolhapur on 17 October 1998. He gave intimation of acquisition of B. Ed. qualification to the School on 08 January 1999. In the meantime, on 01 June 1998 the Petitioner-Management appointed one Shri. R.Y. Dandagule on the post of Special Teacher. According to Respondent No.1, there was no vacancy available for appointment of Shri. R.Y. Dandagule. He was appointed because he was relative of one of the trustees. On 29 May 1999, Commissioner, Social Welfare cancelled grant-in-aid of Petitioner-School on account of failure to appoint Trained Teachers. The grant-in-aid was however restored in the year 2001-2002 on condition of appointment of Trained Teachers. Respondent No.1 demanded that he be continued in service after restoration of grand-in-aid and he was issued appointment order on 08 April 2002 only for limited period from 24 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 which was approved. After 30 April 2002, the appointment came to an end and Respondent No.1 was never appointed thereafter.
5. Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.114 of 2002 before School Tribunal, which allowed the Appeal on 29 April 2003 and ordered reinstatement of Respondent No.1 with backwages. Petitioner filed Revision No.5853 of 2003 in this Court challenging the decision of the School Tribunal, which came to be admitted and reinstatement Order came to be stayed. On 20 February 2015, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.5853 of 2003 holding that Appeal field before the School Tribunal was not maintainable as the school was not recognised under the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act (Conditions of Services) Regulation 1977. Respondent No.1 was therefore granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority under the Special School Code, 1997.
6. Accordingly Respondent No.1 filed Appeal under Rule 86 of the Special Schools Code, 1997. By order dat
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.
(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....
Point of law : Court cannot substitute the statutory qualification, which is not otherwise provided under the relevant provisions, which prescribe the essential qualification for appointment to the p....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and recognition of the B.P.Ed. qualification for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in a Primary School.
The Supreme Court ruled that B.Ed. is not a valid qualification for primary school teachers, affecting eligibility for appointments made after its decision.
Possession of a higher qualification, such as B.Ed., did not disqualify the petitioner from holding the advertised post if she actually possessed the basic qualification laid down for the post.
The court upheld that expired selection panels negate candidates' rights to be considered for appointment, asserting invalid qualifications as per Supreme Court directives.
Higher qualification like B.Ed. (Special Education) not equivalent to prescribed 2-year Diploma unless expressly declared; eligibility strictly per Recruitment Rules as on cut-off date; courts cannot....
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
