Saturday, September 29, 2012

Orissa Highcourt About TET / NCTE and Selection of Teachers

Orissa Highcourt About TET / NCTE and Selection of Teachers

2011 ( I ) ILR- CUT- 932
W.P.(C ) NO.1860 OF 2011(With Batch) (Decided on 29,03.2011)
RATIKANTA DUTTA & ORS.                                            ……..Petitioners.
STATE OF ORISSA                                                          …. …Opp.Parties.
           Posts of Sikhya Sahayak – Minimum qualification fixed as +2
C.T. excluding Matric C.T. – Change of eligibility criteria – Petitioners
are  Matric  C.T.  and  they  prayed  modification  of  the  Government
164           Imparting good quality education to students studying in
Class-I till Class-VIII – Quality education can only be provided by a
person having higher qualification – Government has a right to change
its policy – Courts will be slow to interfere unless it is shown that the
decision is unfair, malafide or contrary to any statutory direction –
Held, state is fully justified in amending the requisite qualification.
                                                                                                      (Para 16)
Case laws Referred to:-
1.(2002) 8 SCC 481           : (T.M.A. Pai Foundation-V-State of Karnataka).
2.(2005) 6 SCC 527           : (P.A. Inamadar-V-State of Maharastra)
3.1995(II) OLR 145            : (Miss. Alakha Das-V-Director, T.E. & SCERT)
4.2007(II) OLR 577            : (Chandramani Jena & Ors.-V-State of Orissa &
5.AIR 2000 SC 1576          : (Govind A.Mane & Ors.-V-State of Maharashtra
                                              & Ors.)
6.AIR 1971 SC 2303          : (Minor A.Periakaruppan-V-State of Tamil Nadu)
7.2010 .LAB.I.C. 2388        : (Gajendra Singh & Ors.-V-Ajaya Singh & Ors.)
8.1997 (10)SCC 419          :  (State of Rajasthan-V-R.Dayal & Ors.)
9.1983 (3) SCC 284           : (Y.V.Rangaiah & Ors.-V-J.Sreenivasa Rao
                                              & Ors.)
10.1995 (Supp)1 SCC 192 : (Ganga Prasad Verma (Dr.) -V-State of Bihar).
        For Petitioners    -    M/s.  P.C.Acharya & associates
                                        M/s.  D.N.Nath & associates
                                        M/s.  D.K.Mohapatra & associates
                                         M/s.  S.K.Ojha & associates
                                         M/s.  K.K.Kara & associates
                                         M/s.  M.R.Behera & associates
                                         M/s.  Prahalad Sahu & associates
                                         M/s.  S.K.Ratha & associates
                                         M/s. S.K.Dalei
                                         M/s. S.K.Sahu & associates
                                         M/s. B.Ratha & associates
                                         M/s. S.K.Ratha-1 & associates
                                         M/s. Deepak Kumar & associates
                                         M/s. S.B.Jena & associates
                                         M/s. K.P.Mishra & associates
                                         M/s. S.K.Das & associates
                                         M/s. N.Lenka & associates
                                         M/s. A.K.Mishra & associates
                                         M/s. K.K.Swain & associates
                                         M/s. K.K.Rout & associates
165                                         M/s. P.K.Kar & associates
                                         M/s. C.R.Swain & associates
                                         M/s. R.N.Prusty & associates
                                         M/s. L.K.Mohanty & associates
                                         M/s. S.B.Jena & associates
                                         M/s. C.R.Nandi & associates
                                         M/s. N.N.Mohapatra & associates
                                         M/s. B.Routray & associates
                                         Mr.  Manoranjan Nayak
                                         M/s. P.K.Ratha & associates.
         For Opp.Parties   -  Mr. K.K.Rath, Standing Counsel, SME.
                                         Mr. P.K.Mohanty for OPEPA
H.S.BHALLA,J. The  petitioners  in  these  batch  of  writ  petitions  are seeking modification of the Government resolution dated 10.1.2011 by virtueof which the minimum qualification has been fixed as +2 C.T. excluding Matric C.T. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to opposite party
no.1 to fill up the posts of Sikhya Sahayak on the ratio of 60:40 between the Matric  C.T.  and  B.Ed.  candidates.  Thus,  the  question  of  law  and  facts involved in these petitions being same and arise from the same cause of action, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. A  thick  better  took  place  on  the  better  field  of  the  Government resolution and in order to appreciate the point involved in these writ petitions,

it is necessary to reproduce clauses 4.2 and 6.1 of the aforesaid resolution dated 10.1.2011, which runs as under:
 “4.2. Vacant posts as well as newly created posts in the elementary schools  on  account  of  opening  of  new  Primary/upper  Primary Classes or due to Up-gradation of existing Primary Schools to Upper
Primary Schools or opening of Class-VIII by way of up-gradation of existing Upper Primary Schools shall be filled up by the candidates having  the  qualification  of  +2  Science,  Arts/Commerce  (or  its
equivalent examination declared by appropriate authority) and C.T.
Training  or  +2  Science,  Arts/Commerce  (or  its  equivalent examination declared by appropriate authority) and 2 year Diploma in  Education  (Special  Education)  a  course  recognized  by Rehabilitation  Council  of  India  (RCI)  and  B.A.,  B.Sc.  (or  as equivalent Examination declared by appropriate authority) and B.Ed. or B.A., B.Sc. (or its equivalent examination declared by appropriate
authority)  and  one  year  B.Ed  (Special  Education)  a  course 166recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) as per the requirement under each category.
As per Section 23(2) of the said Act, read with rule 16(2) and (4) of the said Rules the State Government shall request the Central  Government  for  relaxation  of  the  prescribed  minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority for appointment of  teachers.   The  candidates  with  lesser  qualification  will  be considered  for  appointment  only  on  the  basis  of  qualification  so relaxed by the central Government.
Untrained candidates selected as per the relaxed standard shall furnish an affidavit at the time of engagement to the effect that they shall acquire the required training qualification within a period of
5 years at their own cost.”
“6.1.  The  candidates  must  have  passed  +2  Science, Arts/Commerce  (or  its  equivalent  examination  declared  by appropriate  authority)  and  C.T.  Training  from  a  recognized Board/University or +2 Science, Arts/Commerce (or its equivalent examination declared by appropriate authority) and 2 year Diploma in  Education  (Special  Education)  a  course  recognized  by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) or B.A., B.Sc. (or its equivalent examination  declared by appropriate authority) and B.Ed. from a
recognized University or B.A., B.Sc. and one year B.Ed. (Special  RATIKANTA DUTTA   -V-   STATE OF ORISSA             [H.S.BHALLA,J.]
Education) a course recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI).  The +2 candidates must have odia as a subject up to classVII and B.Ed. candidates must have Odia as a subject up to classX.”
3. Most of the petitioners being Matric with C.T qualification are seeking engagement  in  the  post  of  Sikshya  Sahayak.   As  per  their  case  the qualification of a teacher in the Primary Schools was Matric with C.T training and the Government of Orissa, School and Mass Education had published the resolution dated 10.01.2011 for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks in different districts in the State of Odissa.  As per the said resolution, the policy of  engagement  of  Sikshya  Sahayak  is  to  provide  free  and  compulsory education to all children of the age group of six to fourteen years.  In order to
provide free and compulsory education to every child, opp. party no.1 is proposing to fill up all the vacant posts as well as newly created posts in the elementary schools on account of opening of new primary/upper primary classes or due to up-gradation of existing primary schools to upper primary 167schools or opening of class-VIII by way of up-gradation of existing upper primary  schools.  The  petitioners  have  further  pleaded  that  the  Orissa Elementary Education (Method of Recruitment and conditions of Teachers
and Officers) Rules, 1997, hereinafter to be referred as “Rules, 1997” is the only  Rule  for  the  elementary  teachers  which  deals  with  method  of recruitment, qualification, and promotion of teachers of elementary schools,
i.e., Primary schools and Upper primary schools.  It is further pointed out that the existing statutory Rule, i.e. Rules, 1997 clearly stipulates that the Orissa Elementary Education Service, Level-V shall consist of the post of Asst. Teachers of Govt. Primary Schools and also Assistant Teachers of Govt. Upper Primary Schools.  It further stipulates that in order to be eligible for direct recruitment to the post belonging to Level-V of the service, a candidate must  have passed  High  School  certificate Examination  or  an equivalent
Examination  and  must  have  completed  Secondary  Teachers Training/Certified Teachers course from a recognized Board or University.
Therefore, the case of the petitioners is that the minimum eligibility for an Asst. Teacher of Primary and Upper Primary schools is H.S.C. pass with C.T. Training,  i.e. Matric with  C.T. training.   As per  the said resolution, Sikshya Sahayaks will be recruited to work in Primary, Upper Primary and Upgraded Upper Primary Schools i.e. up to Class-VIII, but the minimum eligibility entry qualification has been prescribed in the said resolution as +2 Sc./Arts/Commerce with C.T. Training or +2 Science/Arts/Commerce without
training  and  excludes  the  trained  Matric  qualified  candidates  from  the eligibility  criteria.  So  the  petitioners  have  filed  the  present  writ  petitions challenging exclusion of Matric C.T. qualified candidates as well as exclusion of those persons  who  have  become over age due to non-recruitment for a
number of years, from the eligibility criteria as per the Rules, 1997, which is the only available statutory Rule in the State of Orissa for recruitment and promotion of elementary teachers. Finally it has been prayed by the present petitioners that direction be issued for modification of the resolution as stated above with other ancillary prayer.
4. On the other hand, the writ petitions were contested by the opposite parties and opposite party no.1 has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C). No. 1860  of  2011,  which  was  also  adopted  by  the  opposite  parties  for  the purpose of other writ petitions and a statement was suffered by the learned
counsel for the opposite parties that the counter be read in all other writ petitions.  Most of the assertions raised by the petitioners have been denied by  the  opposite  parties.   However,  it  is  categorically  pleaded  that  the petitioners have sought  for modification of resolution of the Government dated 10.01.2011, inter alia, on the ground that there is no avenue for the Matric  C.T.  candidates  for  being  absorbed  as  Sikshya  Sahayak,  which 168 violates the procedure for recruitment of elementary Teachers of Level V, under the Rules, 1997.    As per the case of the opp. parties, there has been  provisions  for  appointment  of  the  candidates  having  minimum qualification of +2 (Senior Secondary) trained onwards.  Hence, this trained
qualification is reflected therein under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is not liable to be accepted on facts and  law.   It is further  pleaded  that  recruitment  process under  the impugned resolution is completely different from the recruitment of Primary teachers so envisaged under the Rules, 1997, because it has now become paramount  consideration  of  the  circumstances  which  has  arisen  in  the context of 86th  Amendment of the Constitution of India by introducing Article
21-A of the Constitution, providing that the State has to make endeavour to provide fundamental right of free and compulsory education to the children up to Class-VIII.  In order to regulate the same, the Parliament has enacted the law  and  the State has  taken minimum  steps  to ensure the right  of children to free and compulsory education.  The eligibility criteria has been stipulated  for  engagement  of  Sikshya  Sahayak  to  teach  the  children  in elementary level.  It is further pointed out that the earlier recruitment of Sikhya Sahayak pursuant to the resolution  dated 19.11.2009 was called in question in W.P.(C) No. 1361 of 2010 and many other cases, which were decided  in  a  common  judgment  on  29.06.2010.   But  the  facts  and
circumstances at that point of time when the judgment was delivered, are totally different than the present stage.  The petitioners in the present writ petitions  have  attempted  to  equate  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the present case with the judgment in the aforesaid case, which is totally not justified in the eye of law because at that point  of  time,  the  Sikshya Sahayaks  were sought to be appointed under
different circumstances and were given the chance of being absorbed after some years.  As against the said resolution, it was contended that as they (Sikshya  Sayaks)  were  to be absorbed in future, the mode of selection prescribed therein will be conflicting with regard to procedure of recruitment of the Elementary Teacher as envisaged under the Elementary Teacher Recruitment Rule, 1997.  It was further pleaded on behalf of the State that such recruitment of Sikshaya Sahayaks at that point of time was sought on
the pretext of the Right to Education Act, which came into being and the Court after analyzing all the facts and submissions, came to the conclusion that by such time, since the effect of Right to Education Act had not come into being,  the State could not have resorted to such procedure on the pretext of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act, 2009”.  In that background, this Court quashed the resolution, however, gave liberty to the Government to take further steps for appointment of Sikshya Sahayak as per the existing 169 Rules and procedure. It is further categorically pleaded that the existing Rules and procedure, so indicated, obviously means that by the impugned resolution which has come into force by virtue of the Act, 2009, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010, and other ancillary steps taken therein.  Now by strictly adhering to the same, steps are taken for appointment of Sikshya Sahayaks, which are completely different from
the  teachers  recruited  under  the Rules,  1997.  It  is  further  pleaded  that resolution has been issued keeping in view the norms fixed by National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) being an academic authority for appointment of teachers (Sikshya Sahayak) in elementary schools.  It is further  pleaded  that  the State Government  has prescribed  the minimum qualification as +2 with C.T. and accordingly clauses 4.2 and 6.1 have been provided under the resolution in consonance with the above statutory Act and  Rules.  It  is  also  pleaded  that  Sikhya  Sahayak  scheme  has  been
introduced  for  engagement  of  Sikshya  Sahayaks  by  the  Collector-cumCEOs,  Zilla  Parishads  on  annual  contract  basis  under  the  financial assistance  of  Government  of  India  and  State  Government.   The  said contractual  appointment  will  be  renewable  subject  to  satisfactory performance of the candidate during the operation of the scheme of Sarva Sikhya  Abhijyan  and  the  Rules,  1997  is  not  applicable  to  the  Sikshya Sahayaks as per the Act, 2009. By denying other assertions raised in the
writ petitions the opp. parties have prayed that all writ petitions be dismissed.
5. Some of the petitioners opted to file rejoinder, wherein they have reiterated the stand taken in the petitions and denied the assertions raised by the other side in their counter.

6.     have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners,  learned  Counsel appearing for the School and Mass Education Department and OPEPA.
7.     At  this  stage,  I  would  like  to  observe  that  it  is  the  paramount consideration of the State in view of 86th  Amendment of the Constitution of India by introducing  Article 21-A of  the Constitution  to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may,  by law,  determine. The Parliament  has enacted the law by virtue of the said amendment and as per the power under Entry No. 25 under concurrent list of the constitution namely the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which has come into force  w.e.f.  01.04.2010.  Under  Section  38  of  the  Act,  2009,  the  State Government has framed Rules titled as “the Orissa Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education, 2010” (in short called as “Rules, 2010”).  In view of this, the State is required to take immediate steps to ensure the right of 170the children to free and compulsory education to the children and the impugned resolution has been issued by the Government by virtue of the powers under the said Act and Rules and the eligibility criteria has been fixed  for  engagement   of  Sikshya  Sahayak  to  teach  the  children  up  to elementary level.

8.        Before proceeding further, it is necessary to peep through Section 2 (f) of the Act, 2009 which defines “elementary education” as education from class-I to class-VIII and as per the counter affidavit filed by the State, ClassVIII has already been opened in 6774 Upper Primary (M.E.) Schools having
classes up to Class-VIII, thereby upgrading the said schools. The Schedule to the Act clearly spells out that for sixth class to eighth class at least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each for (i)
Science  and  Mathematics,  which  presupposes  that  teacher  having  both Science  and  Mathematics  is  one  of  the  subjects,(ii)  Social  Studies, (iii)languages. In this manner, it is crystal clear that from classes VI to VIII, here being three classes, there should be three teachers, who are required to be (i) Science and Mathematics, (ii) Social Studies and (iii) Languages and it was on account of all these, the Government have superseded all the earlier  resolutions  for  engagement  of Sikhya  Sahayaks  under  the Sarva
Sikhya Abhiyan. To my mind, therefore, as a special right, such special recruitment  of  Sikhya  Sahayaks  is  being  made,  which  is  entirely  on  a different platform for recruitment of teachers under the Elementary Rules, 1997. It appears that they will also perform the duties of helper and as such,
they are totally different from each other and there is no conflict and all these being introduced to achieve a different object. It is true that earlier also recruitment  of     Sikhya  Sahayaks  on  account  of  the  resolution    dated RATIKANTA DUTTA   -V-   STATE OF ORISSA             [H.S.BHALLA,J.]
19.11.2009 was called in question in W.P.(C) No. 1361 of 2010, which was decided on 29.6.2010, but the judgment was passed on the basis of the facts and circumstances     existing  at   that point of time. The petitioners tried to equate the facts and circumstances of that case and the judgment in the present circumstances, which is totally not justified in the eye of law because it is the admitted case of both the parties that at that point of time the Sikhya Sahayaks were sought to be appointed under a different circumstances and were  given  chance  of  being  absorbed  after  some  years.  Moreover
recruitment of Sikhya Sahayaks at that point of time was sought  under the Right to Education Act and this Court after analyzing the entire case came to the conclusion that by such time since the effect of Right to Education Act has  not  come  into  being,  the  State  could  not  have  resorted  to  such procedure in the pretext of the Act, 2009 and in that background, this Court quashed the resolution and liberty was granted to the Government to take further steps for appointment of Sikhya Sahayaks as per the existing Rules
171 and Procedure and now steps are being taken by the State Government which are completely different from the teachers recruited under the Rules,1997. The eligible candidates of the State in respect of their respective place of residence has a right to apply for such Education District and a candidate
of a particular district may apply in his own district or for any other district of his choice. It was also clarified that a candidate has to limit his application for one district, meaning thereby, that the candidate has the option to choose the district. In the instant case, the resolution in question, to my mind, has been issued for implementation of the newly enacted Central Act, namely,
“The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009”, and the Orissa Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010, which were framed in consonance with the said Act. It is further admitted case that the appointment of Sikhya Sahayaks is going to be made under the Sarva Sikhya Abhiyan, a time bound scheme of the Central Government,which is being implemented by the State Government in accordance with the norms fixed by National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), being an academic authority for appointment of teachers in elementary schools, which is followed by the State Government. As per the criteria laid down by the NCTE, the State Government has prescribed the minimum qualification as +2 with C.T. and accordingly, clause 4.2 and 6.1 have been provided under
the Resolution No.587/S & ME dated 10.01.2011 in accordance with the guidelines laid down under the Act and allied Rules. It is settled law that any qualification fixed in contravention of the prescribed qualification determined by the Regulation made by the NCTE.was bad. After having gone through
the  resolution,  I  find  that  the  government  in  school  and  mass  eduction Department  fixed  the  guideline  for  engagement  of  Sikhya  Sayakhak  in accordance  with the revised  norms of Sarva Sikhya  Abhiyan,  a   Centrally  sponsored plan scheme and in consnace with the provisions of Act.2009.
The  NCTE  being  the  academic  authority  authorized  by  the  Central Government  in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  sub-section  (1)  of Section 23 of the Act, 2009, by notification dated 23.8.2010 has laid down minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as teachers in Class –I to Class-V and Class-VI to Class-VIII in the schools referring to clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act, 2009. It is true that the word ‘teacher’ has
not been used in the resolution, but after having gone through the resolution in its entirety, I find that the Sikhya Sahayaks in same manner would step into  the  shoes  of  the  teacher  either  by  helping  a  teacher  to  teach  the students or by directly teaching the students in the elementary level. As per the notification  of the NCTE, the minimum  qualification  for a teacher of schools having classes I to Class-V is +2 (Senior Secondary) with two years
Diploma in Elementary Education (C.T.) and the minimum qualification for a teacher of a school having Class-VI to VIII is B.A., B.Sc. with B.Ed. In view of 172all these, I find that the clauses 4.2 and 6.1 of the resolution are justified and in consonance with the revised norms of Sarva Sikhya Abhiyan and as
per the provisions of Act, 2009.
9.      The Sikhya Sahayak are going to be engaged within a particular time frame for implementation of the Central sponsored Scheme, namely, Sarva Sikhya Aviyan.  In the scheme the sharing pattern of funds of the Central Government and the State Government is at the ratio of 65% and 35% respectively. If the Scheme is not implemented within the stipulated period, the State will  have to refund the amount pertaining to the share of the Central Government which may be detrimental to public interest of the State.
It is the obligation of the State to furnish the utilization of fund so as to justify funding for the next financial year in the interest of the State’s progress and development and unless the State utilizes the fund in proper implementing the scheme in time, the object to ensure the fundamental right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution will be frustrated.  In such a situation the  State  may be  de-listed  of  getting  the  benefit  and  implementing  the scheme under the Act, 2009.  Moreover Rules, 1997 is applicable for the recruitment of regular teacher who hold the civil post under the elementary cadre and the said Rule is not applicable so far as engagement of Sikhya Sahayaks under a particular scheme is concerned. The resolution further
spells out that the employees are to be engaged   on  annual contract basis subject to operation of the scheme. As per the provision under Section 23(1) of the Act, 2009 and Rule 15 of the Rules, 2010, the eligibility criteria with regard to qualification for engagement of teacher has been framed, which
lays down that any person possessing such minimum qualification by an academic authority authorized by the Central Govt. by a notification shall be  eligible for appointment as a teacher whereas Act 23(2) lays down that if a State does not have adequate institution offering courses or teaching in teacher  education  or  teachers  possessing  minimum  qualification  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 as required for appointment as a teacher for such period  not  extending  five years,  as may be specified in that  notification provided that a teacher who at the commencement of the Act does not possess the qualification as laid down in sub-section (1), shall acquire such
minimum qualification within a period of five years.
10.    The Government of India by way of notification dated 31.03.2010 in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section-I of Section 29 of the Act, 2009  authorised  the  NCTE  to  formulate  all  curriculum  and  evolution 173procedure  for  elementary  education  as  an  academic  authority.  In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act,  the  Central  Government  also  authorized  the  NCTE  as  academic authority to lay down minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment  as  a  teacher.  The  relevant  portion  of  notification  dated 23.8.2010 of NCTE stipulating the minimum qualification runs as under:
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of  the Right  of  Children  to Free and Compulsory Education  Act, 2009(35 of 2009) and in pursuance of Notification No.S.O.750(E)
dated  31st  March,  2010  issued  by  the  Department  of  School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India,  the National Council for Teacher Education
(NCTE), hereby lays down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 with effect from the date of this notification:
1. Minimum qualifications:
(i) Classes I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year  Diploma  in Elementary Education  (by whatever  name known)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance  with  the  NCTE  (Recognition  Norms  and  Procedure),
Regulations 2002
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.E.Ed)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (Special Education)
174(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc. and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)  in  accordance  with  the  NCTE  (Recognition  Norms  and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4- year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.E.Ed).
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc. Ed. Or B.A.Ed/ B.Sc.Ed
B.A./B.Sc.  with  at  least  50%  marks  and  1-year  B.Ed.(Special Education)
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the  appropriate  Government  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines
framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”

11.   The State Government published the impugned resolution and the consequential  advertisement  by quoting  the aforesaid  minimum  eligibility criteria with  regard to educational  qualification  of  Sikhya  Sahayaks  from Class I to Class-VIII in accordance with the norms, procedure, guidelines,
Act, 2009 and Rules, 2010. The State Government has also clarified that the policy decision  was  taken by the State by by eliminating  the residential status in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in pursuance of the earlier decision of this Court. I find that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the applicants have been instructed to file application in their respective education district on his/her own choice and as such, I find that the State has not committed any illegality so far as residential part is
concerned. With regard to age, as has already been stated, age relaxation 175cannot  be  done  as  such  relaxation  has  already  been  given  in  the resolution and the advertisement that a candidate under general category up to  42  years  can  apply  for  the  post.  Moreover,  the  petitioners  have  not challenged  the  Act,  2009  or  the  Rules,  2010,  basing  upon  which  the impugned  resolution  has  been  passed  and  the advertisement  has  been published. Unless the said Act and Rules are set aside, the claim of the
petitioners  are  devoid  of  merit  and  as  such,  the  same are  liable  to  be rejected.
12.     Now at this stage I would also like to assess the case of the petitioners from different angle and to my mind unless and until there is infringement of fundamental right, the policy decision of the State or the Union cannot be interfered with. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the Constitution has introduced Article 21-A in the 86th  amendment that the State has to make  endeavour  to  provide  fundamental  right  to  free  and  compulsory education to the children up to Class-VIII. In order to regulate the same, the
Parliament has enacted the law by virtue of the said amendment so also as per power under Entry 25 under concurrent list of Constitution, namely, Act,2009 and the State was given power to frame rule under Section 38 of thesaid  Act and pursuant  to which  the State framed the Rules,  2010. Theimpugned resolution is in consonance with the existing Act and Rules and moreover, it is settled that the policy decision cannot be challenged and the petitioners cannot take any benefit if the State has taken policy decision in
the interest of the public. The State has authority and power to specify the method of recruitment and under its inherent power to revise and substitute the same and the petitioners have no right to claim the appointment on the basis of earlier notification. The petitioners cannot dictate  their  terms to the Government in order to change the eligibility criteria and the  State has passed the resolution declaring the eligibility criteria strictly in accordance
with the criteria laid down by the academic authority, i.e. NCTE.

13.     It is settled law that the Government has a right to change its policy from time to time according to administrative exigencies and demands of the relevant time. As a matter of fact, the Courts would be slow in interfering with the matters of Government policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair, malafide or contrary to any statutory directions. In the instant case, in response to the advertisement, 1,88,000 applications were received by the Government for engagement of Sikhya Sahayak in their newly created policy in order to fill up 24,000 posts, meaning thereby that 24,000 persons who are eligible as per the resolution in question are being engaged and the present petitioners cannot stall their engagement nor can they dictate their terms to the Government in order to change the eligibility criteria, which has
176been fixed by the Government strictly in accordance with the policy of the academic authority, i.e., NCTE. There is no justification for this Court to interfere with the policy of the Government merely on the ground of change in the policy. The Government has taken a different policy decision in order
to implement the scheme floated by the Central Government, the major portion of which is being funded by the Union of India. Moreover, to my mind, keeping in view the facts and circumstances put-forward by both the parties, the prescribed eligibility qualification for engagement of Sikhya Sahayak in the newly floated scheme under the Act, 2009 and the Rules, 2010 are the matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for the Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not
be accepted. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have rightly submitted that the resolution has been issued strictly in accordance with the norms  fixed  by  the  academic  authority  with  regard  to  educational qualification.  Moreover,  it  does  not  appeal  to reasoning  that  the  Sikhya
Sahayaks having qualification of Matriculate would be able to assist the teachers or in other words would be able to teach the students at elementary level-V. Higher qualification is always good for the betterment of the children, and  quality  education  can  only  be  provided  by  a  person  having  higher educational qualification. It does not appeal to reasoning at all that a teacher having qualification of Matric would be able to impart good quality education to the students studying in Class I till Class-VIII. The present petitioners
cannot force the candidates, who are being appointed, to board a sinking ship. It is in the public interest of the State of Orissa that the policy which has been formulated by the Government of India wherein the Government of India is contributing 65% of the funds for the scheme specially floated for appointment of  Sikhya  Sahayak  under  the  Sarva  Sikhya  Aviyan,  which continues without  any interruption and no hurdle can be created by the
petitioners in the policy matter of the Government of India as well as State of Orissa.

14.    I have gone through the law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481,  P.A.Inamadar  v.  State  of  Maharastra,  (2005)  6  SCC  527,  Miss. Alakha Das v. Director, T.E. & SCERT, 1995(II) OLR, 145,Chandramani
Jena and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2007(II) OLR,577, Govinf A.Mane and others v. State of Maharashtra and others,AIR 2000 SC 1576, Minor A.Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303 Gajendra Singh and others v. Ajaya Singh and others, 2010 LAB.I.C., 2388, State
of  Rajasthan  v.  R.Dayal  and  others,  1997  (10)  SCC  419,  and Y.V.Rangaiah and others v. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others, 1983(3) SCC 284.   A reading  of  the aforesaid  rulings  would  show that  they bear  no 177 resemblance to the facts of the instant case and do not in any manner support the point canvassed in the context of the nature and circumstances of the present case.
15.      It is well settled principle of law that Court cannot read anything into a statutory  provision,  which  is  plain  and  unambiguous.  The  language employed  in  a  statute  is determinative  factor  of  legislative  intent.  If  the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. In Ganga Prasad Verma (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, 1995(Supp) 1 SCC, 192, it has been held that where the language of the Act
is clear and explicit, the court must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature.
16.    The State has no competence to make Rules in contravention of the regulations/notifications issued by the Union of India and declared by the academic  authority.  I  am  of  the  considered  opinion  that  in  such circumstances,  the  State  is  fully  justified  in  amending  the  requisite qualification. Moreover, in view of Article 254 of the Constitution, Rules, 1997 have got absolutely no application to the matter in question.
17.     In view of what has been discussed above, I find that no modification is required in the impugned resolution and there is nothing to be set right and in the final analysis, the writ petitions are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
                                                                                  Writ petition dismissed.

Source :

No comments:

Post a Comment