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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 3508

Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & V.M. VELUMANI, JJ.
S. Vincent & Another
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, School Education (TRB) Department, Secretariat & Others
Writ Petition (MD)Nos. 2677 & 4558 of 2014 & M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 of 2014 in W.P. (MD)No. 2677 of 2014 & 2 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)No. 4558 of 2014
Decided on : 25-09-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Party-in-person, V. Panneerselvam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, V.R. Shanmuganathan, Spl. Govt. Pleader, R4, A. Sivaji, Advocate.

Headnote:

Education - Teacher Eligibility Test - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act 35 of 2009), Section 23 - National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) guidelines - G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education Department, dated 06.02.2014 - [Article 45, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act 35 of 2009), Section 23]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a clause in the Guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test and a Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, reducing the pass percentage marks for certain categories. The Court analyzed the constitutional framework, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the guidelines issued by NCTE. The Court found that the impugned Government Order reducing the pass mark was not based on statistics and was not necessary to advance social justice. The Court set aside the Government order and dismissed the other writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the impugned Government Order reducing the pass mark was not based on statistics and was not necessary to advance social justice. The Court set aside the Government order and dismissed the other writ petition.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the Government Order reducing the pass mark for certain categories in the Teacher Eligibility Test and the interpretation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and NCTE guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Government Order reducing the pass mark was not based on statistics and was not necessary to advance social justice. The Court set aside the Government order and dismissed the other writ petition.

Final Decision: The Government order G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 6.2.2014 was set aside. The other writ petition W.P.No.2667 of 2014 was dismissed.

Judgment :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4558 of 2014, who is practising as an Advocate, has come up with the above writ petition, as a public interest litigation, challenging a particular clause in the Guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test and a Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, reducing the pass percentage marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and persons with disability.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2677 of 2014 has come up with the said writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 06.02.2014, insofar as it denies relaxation of 5% to the candidates who appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test, conducted by the 2nd respondent in 2012 and consequently to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of 5% relaxation to the petitioner.

3. We have heard Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4558 of 2014 appearing in person, Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2677 of 2014, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the State Government as well as the Teachers Recruitment Board and Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the National Council for Teacher Education.

4. Article 45 of the Constitution, as it originally stood, mandated the State to endeavour to provide, within a period of 10 years from the commencement of the Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years. By Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002, Article 45 was amended to read as follows:

"The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years."

By the very same amendment, Article 21-A was inserted, making the right to elementary education as a fundamental right.

5. Therefore, Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act 35 of 2009), with the object of providing for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years.

6. Chapter-IV of the Act, which contains Sections 12 to 28, lists out the responsibilities of schools and teachers. Section 23 of the Act prescribes the qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. Section 23 reads as follows:

"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.--(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.

(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed."

7. It is seen from Section 23 of the Act that after the Act came into force, only a person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by Notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. If the State does not have adequate institutions offering courses o





















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top