K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – Petitioners herein are guest teachers appointed to the Higher Secondary Schools in the State who challenge the Bihar State School Teacher (Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Proceedings and Service Conditions) Rules, 2023. The challenge is raised on three grounds. The first the State Government having provided for qualifying in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the State Government or the Central Government for the purpose of appointment as Higher Secondary School Teachers; which is against the prescription in the Regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity “NCTE”). There is no relaxation of maximum age permitted for guest teachers and there is no preference conceded to them; who were appointed after conducting a proper selection wherein reservation was also made applicable.

2. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri. Y.V. Giri for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General Shri P.K. Shahi for the respondent State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE as seen from Annexure-6 which does not mandate qualification in the TET conducted by the State or the Central Government. It is argued that the Regulation is brought out under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the State Government cannot vary from the prescriptions in the Regulations. It is contended that this would result in repugnancy insofar as the prescription of the State running against the statutory regulations prescribed by an apex academic body, under the law brought in by the Union Parliament. Reliance is placed on Forum for People's Collective Efforts (FPCE) & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Another; (2021) 8 SCC 599 and Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.; (2018) 1 SCC 407 to buttress this contention. As far as the primacy of the NCTE and the regulations brought out by the said academic body, reliance is placed on Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. and others; (2013) 2 SCC 617.

4. At the outset, it is to be stated that the averments in the memorandum of writ petition itself indicates that the appointments of the petitioners, guest teachers, were to continue only till regular appointments were made against the sanctioned and vacant posts. Having accepted such an appointment, there cannot be any contention raised for preference or regularization in the sanctioned posts. It is the exclusive premise of the State Government to make appointments in accordance with the NCTE regulations and also the stipulations brought in by the State. Insofar as the relaxation in age is concerned, we specifically notice Rule 5(v) which prescribes the minimum and maximum age. Though the minimum age for appointment to the Senior Secondary School is indicated as 21 years on the 1st of August of any year, the maximum age is as notified by the State Government from time to time. The Rule itself provides for relaxation of 10 years in the upper age limit in the first transaction of appointment after the Rules come into force, to such trained candidates who have qualified the TET prior to enactment of these Rules. The guest teachers cannot claim any further relaxation of age merely for reason of they having been appointed as guest teachers in the various schools; without satisfying the eligibility criteria.

5. Now we come to the contention of the State Government having impinged upon the powers of the Union Parliament. The notification relied on by the petitioners, Annexure-6, was issued under Section 32 (2) (dd) read with Section 12A of the NCTE Act, 1993. Section 32 is the power to make regulations and Clause (dd) of sub-section (2) speaks of the qualifications of teachers under Section 12A. Section 12A is the power of the NCTE to determine the minimum qualification of persons for being recruited as teachers, by regulations, for the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools. In fact, the nominal heading of Section 12A s