Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA. No. 1663/HR/2013
Reserved on: 19.03.2015
Pronounced on: 25.03.2015
CORAM:HONBLE MRS.RAJWANT SANDHU,MEMBER(A)
HONBLE DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL,MEMBER(J)
Ranjeeta daughter of Sh. Parkash Chander Arya, wife of Sh. Parmahinder Singh Walia, r/o near PNB Locality/Mohalla, Main Road, V.P.O. Fatehpur, District Kaithal, Haryana.
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources & Development, New Delhi.
2. National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, through its Chairman.
3. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi through its Chairman.
4. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi through its Chairman.
Respondents
Present: Sh. A.K. Walia, counsel for the applicant.
Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for the respdts. 1&2.
None for respondent No. 3.
Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for respdt.No. 4.
ORDER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) For setting aside/modifying the impugned minimum eligibility conditions for TGT posts in impugned Advertisement Annexure A-7 and for bringing it into consonance/at par with the guidelines Annexure A-6 issued by respondent No. 2 themselves.
(ii) For directing the respondent No. 4 to accept the application form of the applicant as prayed for on the basis of grounds herein mentioned.
(iii) For staying the recruitment and filling up of vacancies of trained graduate teacher (Group B post) during the pendency of the application.
2. Averment has been made in the OA that the applicant who is a resident of the State of Haryana, has obtained her B. Sc Degree from Purvanchal University, Jaunpur in 1999 with 45% marks (Annexures A-1 & A-2). She obtained the B. Ed Degree from Kurukshetra University in June, 2009 securing first division (Annexure A-3). The applicant also appeared in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) in July, 2013 and qualified the examination with 62.67 % marks for becoming teacher for classes VI to VIII (Elementary Stage) (Annexure A-5)..
3. The CTET examination and eligibility for appointment in various schools is subject to guidelines issued by respondent No. 2, NCTE from time to time. NCTE issued notification No. 61-03/20/2010-NCTE dated 23.8.2010 vide which it prescribed minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher in Classes I to VIII in schools as BA/B.Sc with at least 45% marks and B. Ed. KVS, Respondent No. 4 who is governed by respondent No. 2 is also covered under CTET exam conducted by respondent No. 3 as per the guidelines issued by respondent No. 2, had advertised the filling of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) vide impugned advertisement No. 7 (Annexure A-7). The applicant applied before the last date for online registration i.e. 28.8.2013, but her form was not accepted online.
4. It has further been stated that the impugned advertisement Annexure A-7 prescribed minimum eligibility condition as 50% marks in Graduation alongwith qualification of CTET which is in violation of the guidelines issued by NCTE (Annexure A-6). The applicant had qualified CTET exam prescribed by respondents No. 2 & 3 for becoming eligible to teach in the schools covered under CTET. These schools cannot prescribe more stringent independent eligibility condition other than those laid down by respondents No. 2 & 3. The minimum eligibility criteria for TGT posts as per advertisement (Annexure A-7) is thus not only in violation of the guidelines (Annexure A-6) but also is in contravention of minimum qualification as prescribed by respondent No. 3 for CTET in the notice (Annexure A-4). Thus, the impugned advertisement (Annexure A-7) is liable to be set aside/modified qua the minimum eligibility condition for TGET so as to bring it in consonance with the guidelines dated 23.8.2010 issued by respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-6). The applicant was rendered ineligible despite being eligible as per guidelines issued by NCTE (Annexure A-6) and has lost her valuable right of applying and competing with other candidates for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in KVS. The respondent No. 4 had not issued any roll No. or admit cards to the eligible candidates till date and the applicant can still apply for these posts as her right is protected by the guidelines Annexure A-6. Hence this OA.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, it has been stated that the policy decisions of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan are taken by Board of Governors (BOG) of KVS consisting of eminent Educationists and Administrators from all over India. The service conditions of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan employees are governed by the Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalayas. The educational qualification prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education is the minimum qualification and the answering respondent has prescribed qualification of 50% marks in BA/B.Sc for Trained Graduate Teachers with a view to have better qualified teachers who can provide quality education to the students. Law is well settled that the Government/organization can prescribe even higher qualification for appointment of teachers as the qualification prescribed by the NCTE is the minimum qualification and there is no bar for prescribing higher qualification.
6. It has further been stated that as per the Recrutiment Rules for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Maths), a person is eligible for appointment to the post if he/she has acquired the following qualifications: -
Essential:
i) Four years integrated degree course of Regional College of Education of NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate;
Or Bachelors Degree with at least 50% marks in the concerned subjects/combination of subjects and in aggregate as under:-
Bachelor Degree in Maths with any two of the following subjects:-
Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science, Statistics
ii) Pass in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), conducted by CBSE in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
iii) Proficiency in teaching in Hindi and English medium.
Desirable:
Knowledge of computer applications.
Applicant has acquired her B.Sc Degree securing less than 50% marks, as such she was not eligible for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Maths.
7. It is also stated that the rules framed by the NCTE are applicable for the candidates for acquiring the CTET qualification conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The respondent organization is an Autonomous Body under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and is not bound to adopt the rules framed by the NCTE for conducting Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) as the recruitment rules for recruitment in the respondent organization are approved by its Board of Governors. Further, the condition of acquiring CTET qualification is applicable for the candidate to apply in the respondent organization as per its recruitment rules. Thus, the advertisement issued by the answering respondent is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules approved by its Board of Governors and the respondents have not violated any rules while issuing the advertisement No. 7 as alleged by the applicant.
8. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard when learned counsel for the applicant pressed that KVS could not go beyond the NCTE guidelines while prescribing the eligibility criteria for selection of TGTs. He drew attention in this regard to Advertisement No. 7 issued by respondent No. 4 (Annexure A-7) through which eligibility criteria as 50% marks in BA/B.Sc had been prescribed for selection as TGT. He stated that as per NCTE guidelines issued vide Annexure A-6 for selection for teachers in teaching classes (VI to VIII), BA/B.Sc with at least 45% marks and B. Ed Degree was required. He pressed that the KVS was violating NCTE guidelines and hence the eligibility criteria prescribed vide advertisement No. 7 be quashed.
9. Sh. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for KVS, respondent No. 4, stated that the NCTE had prescribed the minimum eligibility criteria and the KVS was not debarred from prescribing higher eligibility criteria for the teachers to be selected by KVS as this would be in the interest of the students. Learned counsel also referred to Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai & Ors., JT 2008(2) SC 479 wherein it had been held as follows:-
19. A perusal of the NCTE Act shows that this Act was made to regulate the teachers training system and the teachers training institutes in the country. It may be mentioned that there are two types of educational institutions (1) ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools, intermediate colleges and universities and (2) teachers training institutes. The NCTE Act only deals with the second category of institutions viz. teachers training institutes. It has nothing to do with the ordinary educational institutions referred to above. Hence, the qualification for appointment as teacher in the ordinary educational institutions like the primary school, cannot be prescribed under the NCTE Act, and the essential qualifications are prescribed by the local Acts and Rules in each State. In U.P. the essential qualification for appointment as a primary school teacher in a Junior Basic School is prescribed by Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. A person who does not have the qualification mentioned in Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules cannot validly be appointed as an Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress in a Junior Basic School.
10. We have given our careful consideration to the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to cite any rules/judgement that prevents an Autonomous Organization such as the KVS from prescribing qualifications higher than those prescribed by the NCTE for selection of teachers of various categories. Hence, we conclude that there is no merit in the OA and the same is rejected. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
(DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL)
MEMBER(J)
Dated: . .2015
ND*
1
OA. 1663/HR/2013