Back
2008(3) JLJ 203
A.K. Mishra and Prakash Shrivastava, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Pandya v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions (5) No. 10200, 9091, 7734, 11545, 5915, 7075, 7862,
9450, 11361, 11362, 12345 of 2006 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 25.1.2008.
The grivance of the petitioners is that rule 9 (c) of the Rules provides 20 marks to be awarded to the candidates of:
* Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade I for B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)
* Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II for B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)/B.T.C./D.Ed./D.S.E.
* Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III for D.Ed./B.T.C./D.S.E.
20 marks of experience of educational qualification are not to be awarded to the R Ed. incumbent, when he submits an application for contract teacher Grade III to teach at primary level. It has also been submitted that under Explanation 5 to subd`rule (b) of rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules, the teaching experience of Classes 9 to 12, 6 to 10 and 1 to 8 shall be accepted for contract teacher grade I. grade II respectively. Maximum of 15 marks shall be awarded for teaching experience in any school. For experience of one year, two years and three years, 05, 10 and 15 marks shall be awarded respectively, as provided in rule 9(b). The teachers who have teaching experience of classes 9 to 12, are not entitled for award of marks of experience for classes 1 to 8. It is submitted that qualification of B. Ed. is superior qualification and ought to have been accepted for grant of 20 marks. Even for contract teacher grade III, the qualification for which marks are to be awarded is D.Ed./B.T.C./D.S.E., B.Ed. has been excluded, there is no rationale behind it. It is further submitted that petitioner has experience of teaching classes 9 and 10 but he has not been awarded the experience marks on the basis of classes 9 and 10 for the post of contract teacher grade III, supposed to teach at primary level, thus the action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The benefit is being given to the diploma holders, there is per se discrimination, thus the aforesaid rules be struck down. [Para 2
Held : D.Ed. syllabus contains in first paper the special emphasis on the primary level education and development of child which is its paramount consideration, Second paper is related to child‘s psychology which contains several subjects with respect to child‘s development, factor affecting their psychology, problems of behaviour and mental health of child. Other papers also emphasize education at primary level. In paper 4 also there is special emphasis on child center education, methodology, schemes, valuation, teaching material required at that level, thus the overall development of children is the paramount cons ideation of the course content of D.Ed., B.T.C. and D.S.E. which are equal course whereas in B.Ed. emphasis is on higher education from Classes 9th to 12th. No subjects are being taught to the incumbents having B.Ed. qualification which are having special emphasis on the education at primary level, thus rule 9(c) which excludes grant of weight age marks to the candidates having B.Ed. qualification is in tune with the note 1 of the aforesaid notification issued by National Council of Teacher Education. (2003)3 SCC 541 and (2003)3 SCC 548 followed. [Para 10
(2) Panchayat M.P. Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Condition of Contract) Rules, 2005 (M.P.) -- R.9 (b), Explanation 5 -- requirement of teaching experience for teachers of various classes -- reasonable classification has been made for awarding marks.
Coming to the second limb of the submission relating to the marks of experience. Explanation 5 of rule 9(b) provides that the teaching experience of classes 9 to 12, 6 to 10 and 1 to 8 shall be accepted for Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade I, Grade II and Grade III, respectively. A maximum of 15 marks shall be awarded for teaching experience in any school. For experience of one year, two years and three years, 5, 10 and 15 marks shall be awarded respectively. There is rationale behind the aforesaid rule also as the teachers who are supposed to teach particular class should have teaching experience of that very level/classes and consequently they are awarded the marks, otherwise the teachers who have taught only at primary level will be entitled in case provision is held to be arbitrary for having experience at the level of classes 9 to 12 also and vice-versa whereas different skill is necessary for imparting the education at different level. Thus, we tend that intelligible classification has been made and teaching experience marks are being awarded rightly for the kind of experience which is possessed for the particular post of contract teacher grade I, II and III to teach the very class of which they are having the experience, thus, it cannot be said that there is arbitrariness violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the aforesaid explanation 5 to rule 9(b) of the aforesaid Rules, thus the submission fails. [Para 11
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- scope of equal protection -- mere differentiation or inequality of treatment -- does not amount to discrimination -- permissible classification which distinguishes between two and is founded on rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved by statute is permissible. AIR 1953 SC 91, AIR 1956 SC 479, AIR 1966 SC 1980, AIR 1966 SC 1044, AIR 1972 SC 828 and 2001 (L&S) 1039 followed. [Para 6
(4) Public Servant -- promotion -- experience of over a decade -- cannot be equated with educational qualification needed for promotion. 1998(2) JLJ 159 (SC) followed. [Para 6
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- weightage on the basis of place of residence -- is discriminatory. (2002) 6 SCC 526 followed. [Para 6
¼1½ iapk;r e-iz- lafonk ‘kkyk f‘k{kd ¼fu;kstu vkSj vkpj.k dh ‘krsZa½ fu;e 2005 && fu;e 9¼x½ && jk"Vªh; f‘k{kd f‘k{k.k ifj"kn~ && vf/klwpuk && uksV ¼1½ && izkFkfed d{kkvksa ds fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds f‘k{k.k ds fy, ch-,M- Bhd&gh vko‘;d ugha fd;k x;k && ;g vf/klwpuk dh lqlaxfr esa gSA ;kph dh f‘kdk;r ;g gS fd fu;eksa ds fu;e 9¼x½ esa & • lafonk ‘kkyk f‘k{kd izFke Js.kh ds fy, ch-,M-@ch-,M- ¼fo‘ks"k f‘k{k.k½ • lafonk ‘kkyk f‘k{kd f}r; Js.kh ds fy, ch-,M-@ch-,M- ¼fo‘ks"k f‘k{k.k½@ch-Vh-lh-@Mh-,M-@Mh-,l-bZ- • lafonk ‘kkyk f‘k{kd r`rh; Js.kh ds fy, Mh-,M-@ch-Vh-lh-@Mh-,l-bZ- ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 20 vad fn, tkuk fofgr gSA tc og izkFkfed Lrj lafonk f‘k{kd f‘k{kd r`rh; Js.kh ds fy, vkosnu izLrqr djrk gS] ch-,M- o`fÙkHkksxh dks ‘kS{kf.kd vuqHko ds 20 vad ugha fn, tkrsA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd iwoksZDr fu;eksa ds fu;e 9 ds mifu;e ¼[k½ ds Li"Vhdj.k ds v/khu d{kk 9 ls 12] 6 ls 10 vkSj 1 ls 8 rd dk ‘kS{kf.kd vuqHko Øe‘k% lafonk f‘k{kd izFke Js.kh] f}rh; Js.kh vkSj r`rh; Js.kh ds fy, Lohdkj fd;k tk,xkA fdlh Hkh fo|ky; esa f‘k{k.k ds vuqHko ds fy, vf/kdre 15 vad fn, tk,¡xsA fu;e 9¼[k½ eas ;Fkk micaf/kr ,d o"kZ] nks o"kZ vkSj rhu o"kZ ds vuqHko ds fy, Øe‘k% 5] 10 vkSj 15 vad fn, tk,¡xsA ftu v/;kidksa dks d{kk 9 ls 12 rd dk f‘k{k.k dk vuqHko gS] d{kk 1 ls 8 dks vuqHko ds vad izkIr djus dh gdnkjh ugha gksxhA ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd ch-,M- dh ;ksX;rk csgrj ;ksX;rk gS] og 20 vad iznku djus ds fy, Lohdkj dh tkuk pkfg, FkhA lafonk f‘k{kd r`rh; Js.kh ds fy, Hkh og ;ksX;rk ftlds fy, vad iznku fd, tk,¡xs] Mh-,M-@ch-Vh-lh-@Mh-,l-bZ- gS( ch-,M- vioftZr dj nh xbZ gS( blds ihNs dksbZ rdkZ/kkj ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd ;kph dks d{kk 9 rFkk 10 ds f‘k{k.k dk vuqHko gS fdarq lafonk f‘k{kd r`rh; Js.kh ftlls izkFkfed Lrj ij f‘k{k.k visf{kr gS] mls d{kk 9 vkSj 10 ds f‘k{k.k ds vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij vuqHko ds fy, vad ugha fn, x, gS( bl izdkj ;g dk;Z Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ds mYya?ku esa gSA fMIyksek /kkfj;ksa dks Qk;nk fn;k tk jgk gS] ;g Loeso HksnHkkoiw.kZ gS] blfy, iwoksZDr fu;e vfHk[kafMr fd, tk,¡A ¿ iSjk 12 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Mh-,M- ikB~;Ø; ds izFke iz‘ui= esa izkFkfed Lrj dh f‘k{kk vkSj ckyd dk fodkl varfoZ"V gS tks bldk loksZifj /;ku gSA nwljk iz‘ui= cky euksfoKku ls lacaf/kr gS ckyd ds fodkl] mudh ekufldrk dks izHkkfor djus okys dkjd] vkpj.k gh leL;kvksa vkSj ckyd ds ekufld LokLF; ds ckjs esa fofHkUu fo"k; varfoZ"V gSaA vU; iz‘ui=ksa esa Hkh izkFkfed Lrj dh f‘k{kk ij cy fn;k x;k gSA iz‘ui= 4 esa Hkh ckydsanz f‘k{kk] iz.kkyh foKku] ;kstuk,¡] ewY;kadu] ml Lrj ij vko‘;d f‘k{kk&lkexzh ij fo‘ksy cy fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj] Mh-,M-] ch-Vh-lh- vkSj Mh-,l-bZ- esa ftudk led{k ikB~;Øe gS] ckydksa ds lokZaxh.k fodkl dks loksZifj egRo fn;k x;k gS tcfd ch-,M- eas d{kk 9 ls 12 rd mPprj cy gSA ch-,M- ;ksX;rk okys o`fÙkHkksfx;ksa dks ch-,M- esa ,sls dksbZ fo"k; ugha i<+k, tkrs ftuesa izkFkfed Lrj ij f‘k{kk ij fo‘ks"k cy fn;k x;k gksA bl izdkj] fu;e 9¼2½ esa ftlesa ch-,M- ;ksX;rk okys vH;FkhZ dks vf/keku vad iznku fd, tkus dk viotZu] jk"Vªh; f‘k{kd f‘k{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk tkjh iwoksZDr vf/klwpuk ds uksV 1 dh lqlaxfr esa gSA ¼2003½3 ,l lh lh 541 rFkk ¼2003½3 ,l lh lh 548 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 10 ¼2½ iapk;r e-iz- lafonk ‘kkyk f‘k{kd ¼fu;kstu vkSj vkpj.k dh ‘krsZa½ fu;e 2005 && fu;e 9¼[k½ Li"Vhdj.k 5 && fofHkUu d{kkvksa esa f‘k{k.k ds fy, f‘k{k.k ds vuqHko dh vis{kk && vad iznku fd, tkus ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr oxhZdj.k fd;k x;k gSA vuqHko vadksa ls lacaf/kr fuosnu ds nwljs vax ij fopkj djsa rc fu;e 9¼[k½ ds Li"Vhdj.k 5 esa micaf/kr gS fd lafonk ‘kkyk f‘k{kd izFke Js.kh] f}rh; Js.kh rFkk r`rh; Js.kh ds fy, Øe‘k% 9 ls 12] 6 ls 10 vkSj 1 ls 8 ds fy, f‘k{k.k vuqHko Lohdkj fd;k tk,xkA fdlh Hkh fo|ky; esa f‘k{k.k vuqHko ds fy, vf/kdre 15 vad iznku fd, tk,¡xsA ,d o"kZ] nks o"kZ rFkk rhu o"kZ ds vuqHko ds fy, Øe‘k% 5] 10 vkSj 15 vad iznku fd, tk,¡xsA iwoksZDr bl fu;e ds ihNs Hkh rdkZ/kkj gS D;ksafd ,sls v/;kidksa dks ftuls fdlh fof‘k‘V d{kk dk v/;kiu visf{kr gS] mUgha Lrj@d{kkvksa esa v/;kiu dk vuqHko gksuk pkfg, vkSj ifj.kker% mudks vad iznku fd, tkrs gS( vU;Fkk mica/k euekuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus dh fLFkfr esa os v/;kid ftUgksaus u dsoy izkFkfed Lrj rd v/;kiu fd;k gS] d{kk 9 ls 12 ds Lrj rd v/;kiu ds vuqHko ds gdnkj gksaxs vkSj blds foykser% Hkh] tcfd fHkUu&fHkUu Lrjksa ij f‘k{k.k ds fy, fHkUu&fHkUu fuiq.krk vko‘;d gSA bl izdkj] gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd cks/kiw.kZ oxhZdj.k fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlh d{kk dk v/;kiu djus ds fy, ftldk mudks vuqHKo gS] lafonk f‘k{kd Js.kh 1] 2 rFkk 3 ds fof‘k‘V in ds fy, vuqHko ds izdkj ds fy, vuqHko vad Bhd&gh iznku fd, x, gSa( blfy,] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd iwoksZDr fu;eksa ds fu;e 9¼[k½ ds Li"Vhdj.k 5 esa euekusiu }kjk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 dk mYya?ku gqvk gS( vr% fuosnu foQy gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 && leku laj{k.k dh O;kfIr && ek= fof‘k‘Vhdj.k vkSj O;ogkj esa vlekurk && foHksn ds lerqY; ugha && vuqKs; oxhZdj.k ftlesa nks esa izHksn gksrk gS vkSj dkuwu }kjk bZfIlr mn~ns‘; izkIr fd, tkus ls ;qfDrewyd laca/k ij vk/kkfjr gS] vuqKs; gSA , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 91] , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 479] , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 1980] , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 1044] , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 828 rFkk 2001 ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 1039 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6 ¼4½ yksd lsod && izksUufr && ,d n‘kd ls vf/kd dk vuqHko && izksUufr ds fy;k vko‘;d ;ksX;rk ds lerqY; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA 1998¼2½ ts ,y ts 159 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6 ¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 && fuokl LFkku ds vk/kkj ij vf/keku && foHksndkjh gSA ¼2002½6 ,l lh lh 562 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6
1. In the writ petitions the constitutional validity of Explanation 5, rule 9(b) and rule 9(c) of M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Condition of Contract) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules") and corresponding pari materia Rules called M.P. Nagriya Nikay Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Condition of Contract) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) has been assailed.
2. Facts are being referred to from WP No.1 0200/2006. The petitioners applied for appointment as contract teacher Grade III pursuant to the advertisement published in Rojgar and Nirman dated 8.5.2006 having qualification of B.A. and B. Ed. The grievance of the petitioners is that rule 9 (c) of the Rules provides 20 marks to be awarded to the candidates of:
* Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade I for B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)
* Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II for B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education)/B.T.C./D .Ed./D.S.E.
* Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III for D.Ed./B.T.C./D.S.E.
20 marks of experience of educational qualification are not to be awarded to the B.Ed. incumbent, when he submits an application for contract teacher Grade III to teach at primary level. It has also been submitted that under Explanation 5 to sub-rule (b) of rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules, the teaching experience of Classes 9 to 12,6 to 10 and 1 to 8 shall be accepted for contract teacher grade I, grade II respectively. Maximum of 15 marks shall be awarded for teaching experience in any school. For experience of one year, two years and three years, 5, 10 and 15 marks shall be awarded respectively, as provided in rule 9(b). The teachers who have teaching experience of classes 9 to 12, are not entitled for award of marks of experience for classes 1 to 8. It is submitted that qualification of B. Ed. is superior qualification and ought to have been accepted for grant of 20 marks. Even for contract teacher grade III, the qualification for which marks are to be awarded is D.Ed./B.T.C./D.S.E., B.Ed. has been excluded, there is no rationale behind it. It is further submitted that petitioner has experience of teaching classes 9 and 10 but he has not been awarded the experience marks on the basis of classes 9 and 10 for the post of contract teacher grade III, supposed to teach at primary level, thus the action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The benefit is being given to the diploma holders, there is per se discrimination, thus the aforesaid rules be struck down.
3. In the return filed by •the respondents it is submitted that the aforesaid rules have been framed with the objective to provide efficient teachers to impart education at primary and secondary level. The provisions are neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. Considering the qualification required for a particular post and the expertise, the aforesaid qualification has been prescribed. Contract teacher grade III is recruited to impart education at primary level, considering the skill required for primary level, the aforesaid criteria has been laid down. Reliance has also been placed on the directives issued by National Council of Teacher Education as per notification (R-2) issued on 3.9.2001.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the aforesaid rules are discriminatory and differentiation created has no rationale behind it. The qualification of B.Ed. is superior qualification as compared to D.Ed./B.T.C./D.S.E., thus the weight-age ought to have been given at primary level also for such qualification. Similarly the experience for teaching in higher classes ought to have been considered for grant of marks of 'teaching experience' at primary level also. Consequently the explanation 5 of sub-rule (b) of rule 9 and rule 9 (c) deserve to be quashed being ultra vires and unconstitutional as the aforesaid rules violate the mandate of Article 14.
5. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents State of M.P. has submitted that the directives
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
