SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Cal) 412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Sarthak Ghosh & Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
WP No. 448(W), 24892(W), 27488(W) & 3217(W) of 2017 With CAN No. 953 & 951 of 2017
Decided On : 01-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Saptangshu Basu, Kishore Dutta, Anindya Bose, Pratik Dhar, S.P. Jana, Debangshu Ghorai, Ashim Kr. Neogi, Saktipada Jana, Ujani Pal (Samanta), Rajendra Chaturvedi, L. K. Gupta, Subir Sanyal, Ratul Biswas, Sagarmoy Ghosh, Advocates.

Treating candidates with D. Ed. (S.E.) qualification differently and as an inferior class vis-a-vis candidates with D. El. Ed. qualification would not pass the test of reasonable classification and hence would be impermissible under the law of the land.

Headnote:

D. Ed. (Special Education) qualification should be treated as a valid training qualification for the purpose of the process of recruitment of teachers in Primary Schools in the State of West Bengal so as to entitle a candidate with such qualification to the appropriate percentage/proportion of the 15 marks allotted for training qualification in the Recruitment Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners have all passed their higher secondary examination. Some of them have also done graduation. The petitioners have all acquired the D. Ed. (Special Education) qualification from various institutes approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India which is a body constituted under the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. The grievance of the petitioners is that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (in short the 'Board') is not treating the D. Ed. (Special Education) [in short the 'D. Ed. (SE)'] qualification as a valid training qualification in respect of the selection process initiated by the publication of the impugned advertisement dated 26 September, 2016.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the appropriate proportion of the 15 marks allocated for training as indicated in Table A under the Rule 8(3) of the Recruitment Rules, 2016, in so far the process of selection is concerned.

Issues: Whether D. Ed. (Special Education) qualification should be treated as a valid training qualification for the purpose of the process of recruitment of teachers in Primary Schools in the State of West Bengal so as to entitle a candidate with such qualification to the appropriate percentage/proportion of the 15 marks allotted for training qualification in the Recruitment Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The RTE Act, thus, in my opinion, is a commendable piece of legislation aimed at inter alia accommodating the children with special needs in ordinary schools. But, to teach and guide these children properly and efficiently, one would require teachers with special training and special education. To effectively promote the concept of inclusive education, the educational system would undisputedly require the services of teachers with special training. The petitioners are such candidates with Diploma in Special Education. The NCTE recognises the importance of absorbing candidates like the petitioners with Diploma in Special Education and accordingly has made a candidate with senior secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50 per cent marks and two years Diploma in Education (Special Education) eligible for appointment as a primary school teacher, albeit, with a condition that after appointment such persons shall have to undergo a six months special course in elementary education. The role of these persons in building up an integrated inclusive education system is crucial and indispensable. I see no reason why persons like the petitioners should be discriminated against or should be treated as inferior candidates and why they should not be treated at par with other candidates with Diploma in Elementary Education. If they are not treated equally with the other candidates, nobody is likely to run the risk of putting in future, their career in jeopardy by doing a Diploma in Special Education with the result that the object of promoting inclusive education would be defeated.

Final Decision: There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of WP No. 24892 (W) of 2016. The respondent authorities shall forthwith take appropriate steps and all measures that are required to be taken as a consequence of this order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The short issue but with a wide implication and ramification that arises for determination in these writ petitions is whether the D. Ed. (Special Education) qualification should be treated as a valid training qualification for the purpose of the process of recruitment of teachers in Primary Schools in the State of West Bengal so as to entitle a candidate with such qualification to the appropriate percentage/proportion of the 15 marks allotted for training qualification in the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners have all passed their higher secondary examination. Some of them have also done graduation. The petitioners have all acquired the D. Ed. (Special Education) qualification from various institutes approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India which is a body constituted under the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. The grievance of the petitioners is that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (in short the 'Board') is not treating the D. Ed. (Special Education) [in short the 'D. Ed. (SE)'] qualification as a valid training qualification in respect of the selection process initiated by the publication of the impugned advertisement dated 26 September, 2016. The D. Ed (SE) course trains the aspiring teachers to teach students with special needs. The petitioners contend that the D. Ed (SE) qualification entitles them to be considered as trained candidates.

2. Appearing for the writ petitioners in WP 24892 (W) of 2016, Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that promoting inclusive education is the motto of the day. The National Council for Teacher Education (in short 'NCTE') and Rehabilitation Council of India (in short 'RCI') are working together to being the children with special needs to the mainstream by accommodating them in normal schools. He submitted that Article 21A of the Constitution was brought in by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth amendment) Act, 2002 casting an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may determine by law. To achieve the said object, the Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short 'RTE Act'). Learned Senior Counsel referred to Sections 2, 3, 12, 23 and 29 of the RTE Act and also to Rules 5 and 11 of the RTE Rules, 2010, which I shall advert to later. He submitted that the State policy is that there should be no segregation of children with special needs or belonging to the financially weaker section of the society and the children without such physical or financial disability. The object is to promote integration.

3. Mr. Dutta referred to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19 January, 2005 entered into by and between NCTE and RCI, the preamble of which reads as follows:-

"India has already launched a Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan aimed at bringing all children to school and enabling them to complete elementary education by 2010. The objective is to ensure that every child of the country has had elementary education by 2010.

WHO and the United Nation General Assembly estimated that 10% of the children population has some physical, sensory or cognitive impairment which may interfere with the process of receiving education unless support services are provided. For the last many centuries or so this country has segregated these children in special schools which have been able to reach very small percentage of children with special needs."

4. Mr. Dutta then referred to a notification dated 23 August, 2010 issued by the NCTE laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a School referred to in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act. The relevant clauses of the said notification are as follows:-

"1. Minimum Qualifications. :-

(i) Classes I-V

(a) Senior Secondary (or it


















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top