Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 1003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN, J.
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP - Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6771/2008
Decided on : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Ms. Kusum Sharma, Mr. Mannu Mohan, Advs.
Mr. N. Waziri, Adv. for GNCTD Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Adv. for UOI Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv. for MCD Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Siddhi Arora, Advs. for NDMC Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for NCTE Mr. Umang Shankar, Adv. for DCPCR Mr. R.K. Singh, Ms. Deepa Rai, Advs. for NCERT Ms.Anuja Saxena, Adv. for RCI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a specific teacher pupil ratio, the equivalence of qualifications for the appointment of special teachers, and the training of in-service teachers as resource teachers to cater to the needs of disabled children.
Headnote:
Education - Disabled Children - Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) of Inclusive Education of Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) - Sec. 12, Sec. 13 sub clauses 2(b) of Act - B.Ed. (SE) - D.Ed.(SE) - Teacher : Pupil ratio - Special Educators - Resource Teachers - Training Programmes - Equivalence of Qualifications
Fact of the Case:
The court directed respondents to file an Action Taken Report regarding the improvement of infrastructure and upgradation of human resources to facilitate good quality education for disabled children. The Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi filed an action taken report, and various authorities filed responses and affidavits regarding the appointment and training of special educators for disabled children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a lack of adequate special educators and teachers for disabled children, and emphasized the need for detailed planning to ensure the integration of disabled children in regular schools. The court directed the respondents to achieve a teacher pupil ratio of 1:5 at the secondary level and 1:2 at the primary level, grant equivalence to B.Ed. (SE) with B.Ed.(General) and to D.Ed. (SE) with D.Ed./TTC for the purpose of appointment of special teachers, and consider granting preference and priority to candidates holding B.Ed.(SE) and D.Ed.(SE) degrees in appointment of teachers in all their schools.
Issues: The issues involved the availability and appointment of special educators, the teacher pupil ratio, training programmes for resource teachers, and the denial of admission to disabled children in schools.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a teacher pupil ratio of 1:5 at the secondary level and 1:2 at the primary level, and directed the respondents to grant equivalence to specific qualifications for the appointment of special teachers. The court also directed the training of in-service teachers as resource teachers and the sensitization of principals and educational administrators towards the needs of disabled children.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to ensure the appointment of special teachers, achieve the specified teacher pupil ratio, and provide necessary teaching aids and reading materials within six months. It also prohibited the denial of admission to disabled children in schools and directed the concerned Secretary to remain personally present in the court for the issue of mapping.
1. On 19th February, 2009, this Court had directed respondents to file an Action Taken Report with regard to mapping, improvement of Infrastructure and upgradation of Human Resources and Management so as to facilitate good quality education to disabled children.
2. The Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi has filed an action taken report outlining the measures that it has undertaken and that it proposes to take in the future.
3. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights has filed its response to the aforesaid action taken report. In the said response, it has been stated that the training provided to teachers during the SCERT orientation is not adequate and further that there is noncooperation between PWD and DSIIDC in consideration of infrastructure facilities. In the said response, it has been highlighted that neither the number of special educators and teachers to teach the disabled are adequate nor good quality of teachers are available. The Commission has emphasized that there must be detailed planning so as to ensure integration of disabled children in regular school and for this purpose, there must be a policy to admit disabled children at an
early age and all teachers in regular school should be sensitized to the different types of disabilities and handling of the said disabilities. The said affidavit suggests that in the B.Ed. course for teachers training, special education to deal with disabled children should be incorporated.
4. The Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘RCI’) has filed an affidavit with regard to the special educators to be appointed. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:-
“9. I say and submit that the centrally sponsored scheme of IEDC is to be implemented through the State Government/UT Administration/ Autonomous Organizations of stature having experience in the field of education and/or rehabilitation of the disabled. Because the scheme is to be implemented in schools, the Education Department is the implementing agency. The State Government may take the assistance of voluntary organization also for this purpose as may be feasible.
10. I say and submit that a bare perusal of the aforesaid scheme would reveal that at serial No. 11 and 12 provisions for appointment of special teacher have been made and for the sake of convenience of this Hon’ble Court they are being reproduced below:-Except for the children with locomotor disabilities, special education teachers may be appointed in schools where the scheme is in operation to provide specific attention to the disabled children. Sec.12 Appointment of Special Teachers The teacher – pupil ratio for special education teachers envisaged under the scheme is 1 : 8. This ratio will be the same for normal classes as well as for preparatory pre-school classes. The same teachers will provide counseling to the parents. In accordance with the ratio, the requisite number of special teachers may be appointed in schools (or for cluster of schools) for children requiring special teacher support.
11. I say and submit that under Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) of Inclusive Education of Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) Government of India under clause vi of 5.2 II the Special Educator will be appointed in the ratio 1 : 5. Ideally every school where disabled children are enrolled should have the services of at least one special teacher. Without prejudice, I would like to submit that once we are considering the ratio between special children and special teacher at secondary level should be 1 : 5 then at primary level it should be not more than 1 : 2 (copy of the scheme is enclosed herewith as Annexure – A2).
12. It is submitted that B.Ed. Special Education is a degree programme for one year and minimum qualification for entrance is graduation and the successful candidates are eligible to impart education to the secondary level of students. Hence it is equivalent to B.Ed. (Gene
