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

2023 Supreme(UK) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, JJ.
Neetu Pathak and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) Nos. 574, 590, 601, 635, 637, 638, 649, 670, 704, 772, 910, 980, 1060 of 2019, Writ Petition (S/B) Nos. 375, 379, 1546 of 2020, Writ Petition (S/B) Nos. 419, 420, 423, 424, 426, 428, 430, 435, 436, 446, 449, 452, 457, 460, 462, 564, 570 of 2021, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1419 of 2021, Writ Petition (S/B) Nos. 65, 102, 169 of 2022
Decided On : 06-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Dushyant Mainiali, Naveen Chandra Tewari, Sandeep Tiwari, Prem Sing, G.D. Joshi, Harendra Belwal, Allauddin, Asif Ali, Vinay Kumar, Shruti Joshi, Ghanshyam Joshi, R.C. Tamta, Himanshu Joshi, Prashant Khanna, Vivek Pathak, Davesh Bishnoi, Mohd. Umar, Hemant Pant.
For the Respondents: J.C. Pandey, Yogesh Kumar Pacholia.
For the Intervener : Shiv Pande.

B.Ed. qualification alone is not sufficient for appointment as a teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools, as established by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Headnote:

B.Ed. Qualification - Eligibility for Appointment as Assistant Teacher - Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Service Rules, 2012 - Rule 9 Column-2 - National Council for Teacher Education Notification - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners with B.Ed. qualifications challenged the eligibility condition for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools, which was amended in 2018 to require a minimum of 50% marks in graduation, contending it conflicted with NCTE notification and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners, lacking Diploma in Elementary Education and Diploma in Education, were not eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Issues: The issues raised by the petitioners regarding the eligibility condition for appointment as Assistant Teacher and its conflict with NCTE notification and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from addressing the issues raised by the petitioners as the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that B.Ed. qualification alone is not sufficient for appointment as a teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools.

Final Decision: The writ petitions failed and were dismissed, and any interim order was vacated.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 574 of 2019 alone are being considered.

2. Petitioners possess B.Ed. qualification from different universities established by law. According to them, they are eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools run by State of Uttarakhand; however, their eligibility for appointment has been taken away by Rule 9 Column-2 of Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Service Rules, 2012, as amended in 2018. By Rule 9 Column-2, as amended in 2018, a condition was added in the Rules that, anyone who has scored less than 50% marks in graduation would not be eligible for appointment, however, for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community, the minimum qualifying marks in graduation was prescribed as 45%.

3. Petitioners have challenged the said condition on the ground that it is in contravention to notification issued by National Council for Teacher Education on 13.11.2019 and further that it is in conflict with the spirit and provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Petitioners contended that the condition, which has been added through amendment, made in 2018, is in the teeth of judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 772 of 2011, Baldev Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others and also the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2017.

4. Per contra, Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel appearing for National Council for Teacher Education contends that the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) was in respect of similar condition prescribed for participating in Teachers Eligibility Test and not for appointment as Assistant Teacher. He further contends that Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online SC 985 has held that B.Ed. qualification holders are not eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools. Paragraph nos. 79 to 82 of the said judgment are extracted below:

    “79. In the present case and in the larger context of the matter, we cannot even see this as a policy decision. But without getting into this argument, even presuming for the sake of argument that the decision taken at the Government level to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers at primary level is a policy decision, we must say that this decision is not correct as it is contrary to the purpose of the Act. In fact, it goes against the letter and spirit of the Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution under Article 21A. It is against the specific mandate of the Act, which calls for a free, compulsory and meaningful primary education to children. By including B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers for primary school, the Central Government has acted against the provisions of the Constitution and the laws. The only logic given by the Central Government to include B.Ed. as a qualification is that it is a ‘higher qualification’. This we have already seen is not correct. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to say that the notification has rightly been quashed and the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has to be upheld.

80. In our considered opinion therefore the direction of the Central Government dated 30.05.2018 culminating in the notification dated 28.06.2018 of NCTE are violative of the principles as laid down in RTE Act. Not only this, the notification goes against the purpose and the mandate of law, which is to provide a meaningful and ‘quality’ primary ed

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
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