Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sharuti Poddar vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 31 March, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.3442/2014
Reserved on: 16.09.2015
Pronounced on: 31.03.2016
Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
1. Shruti Poddar,
D/o Sh. Pawan Poddar
D-96A, Mahendru Enclave
Near Model Town-III
Delhi-110033.
2. Vikrant Kumar Maurya,
S/o Shri Gaya Prasad Maurya
Room No. 3, Kaveri Hostel
JNU, New Delhi
Delhi-110067
-Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Deepak Kumar)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Through its Chairman
18, Jeet Singh Marg
New Delhi-110016
2. Ministry of Human Resource and
Development, Through
Secretary, Curzon Road Barracks,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh with Shri Amit Sinha)
ORDER
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
MA No.2942/2014 has been filed by the applicants under Rule 4 (5)
(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1987, 2 OA No.3442/2014 seeking permission to join together in filing a single original application, is allowed.
2. The two applicants of this OA are visually impaired persons, and are aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in denying to them the opportunity to appear in the job interview for the position of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT, in short), in Hindi and Social Studies respectively, in spite of their having successfully cleared the written examinations conducted pursuant to the Recruitment Notice issued by the respondents in Employment News dated July 20-27, 2013, and also having rejected their request to conduct their interview, vide their representation dated 11.06.2014, without passing any order on such request.
3. The applicants are Visually Handicapped (VH) category persons. Applicant No.1 is a visually impaired person suffering from 100% disability due to retinitis pigmentosa. After completing her Bachelor of Arts Degree from Delhi University, she was admitted to the Bachelor of Special Education Degree for visually impaired persons. In addition, the applicant had qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET, in short) also, when it was held in July, 2013. Applicant No.2 is also a visually impaired person suffering from 100% disability, and after passing his BA Degree from Delhi University, with History and Political Science as his subjects, he was also admitted to Bachelor of Special Education Degree for visually impaired persons, which he passed in First 3 OA No.3442/2014 Division in the examination held in 2012. He also qualified the CTET in January, 2013.
4. The respondents issued Advertisement for recruitment for various teaching posts for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, in which the posts of TGT Hindi were at Sl. No.42, including three vacancies for VH category, and TGT Social Studies posts were at Sl. No.43, in respect of two VH category vacancies, and the pre-requisite qualifications prescribed for these posts were as under:-
"(a) Four year integrated course in regional college of education of NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate Or Bachelor degree with at least 50% marks in the concerned subject/combination of subjects and in aggregate;
(b) Pass in the central teacher eligibility test (CTET) conducted by CBSE in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE for the purpose;
(c) Proficiency in teaching in Hindi and English Medium."
5. The applicants, who applied against these posts, were issued examination Roll Numbers, and appeared in the examination conducted by the Respondent No.1 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS, in short) on 14.12.2013 and 15.12.2013 respectively, cleared their written examinations, and were even issued interview call letters dated 06.05.2014 thereafter. The applicant No.1 appeared for such interview on 02.06.2014, was asked to fill up forms to verify her qualification/credentials. She duly filled up those forms, but was informed at the interview that she cannot appear for such interview, because she possesses a Special Bachelor of Special Education Degree, 4 OA No.3442/2014 which distinction from a simple Bachelor of Education Degree was neither a part of the Advertisement issued by the Respondent-KVS, nor mentioned in the interview call letter. The applicants have claimed that since these particular posts have been identified and reserved for visually challenged candidates, therefore, not allowing them to appear at the interview was wrong and illegal, and they represented on 11.06.2014. However, without providing them an opportunity to appear at the interview, the Respondent-KVS declared the results, thereby rejecting the representation of the applicants, without having replied to the same.
6. The applicants first filed Writ Petition No.5985/2014 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, challenging the impugned actions of the respondents, but vide order dated 08.09.2014, the Writ Petition was withdrawn, with liberty being granted to them to approach this Tribunal, and hence this OA.
7. The applicants have assailed the denial of their rights under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act, in short) to them in completion of the process of recruitment by the Respondent-KVS even though three vacancies of TGT Hindi, and two vacancies of TGT Social Studies, had been reserved for the visually impaired persons, under the provisions of Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.
8. The applicants have assailed any distinction being sought to be made by the respondents between the qualifications of Bachelor of 5 OA No.3442/2014 Education, and Bachelor of Special Education, when the post concerned had already been identified and reserved for VH category persons under Sections 32 & 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.
9. It was submitted that in the case of Social Jurists vs. Government of NCT & Another, WP (C) No. 6771/2008 in its order dated 16.09.2009 (Annexure A-9), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has already observed that the Special Bachelor of Education Degree is equivalent to General Bachelor of Education degree. They have further submitted that even the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE, in short), a statutory body incorporated under the NCTE Act, 1993, has recognised Bachelor of Special Education as included in the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher.
10. It was submitted that the Bachelor of Special Education Degree is actually higher in content than the General Bachelor of Education Degree, inasmuch as the Bachelor of Special Education is a Degree Programme for one year after the main examination for entrance being prescribed as graduation, and the candidates successful at that are eligible to impart education at Secondary School level. It was submitted that the contents of this Bachelor of Special Education Degree are broader, since it trains the handicapped candidates to impart education to children with special needs and physical disability, in addition to enabling them to impart training for general category of children also, thus making them capable for performing a dual role, as opposed to a 6 OA No.3442/2014 candidate with General Bachelor of General Education Degree only, who is not trained to impart education to children with special needs, and physically disabled children. It was further submitted that the submission of the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI, in short), a statutory body under RCI Act, 1992, in this regard was noted while deciding the above cited Writ Petition No. 6771/2008 in Social Jurists vs. Government of NCT & Another (supra). It was further submitted that for the purpose of granting admission to higher courses, even the University of Delhi recognizes the Bachelor of Special Education Degree as being equivalent to Bachelor of General Education. It was submitted that the Disabilities Act, 1995 (ibid) is a ground-breaking legislation in recognizing the multi-faceted nature of disabilities, beyond mere medical intervention, and Sections 32 & 33 of that Act have empowered the appropriate Government to identify those posts which can be reserved for people who are disabled, and identify the people eligible to function against those posts.
11. Therefore, the applicants had challenged the actions of the respondents on the ground that the NCTE, which is a statutory body under the NCTE Act, 1993, itself recognizes through its Notification dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 the Bachelor of Special Education as a qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher in a school, including the Kendriya Vidyalayas, as defined in Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. They had also taken the ground that under the said Right to Children to Free and 7 OA No.3442/2014 Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Section 2 (n) (iii) read with Section- 2(p), the Respondent-KVS could not have denied the applicants an opportunity to even appear at the interview, only on the ground that they possess a Bachelor of Special Education Degree, and not a Bachelor of General Education Degree. They have further taken the ground that this action is against the Section 23(1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (supra) readwith Rule 17 of the Right to Education Rules framed under that Act.
12. It was further submitted that the respondents had created an artificial distinction, without any authority of law, and that too while denying an opportunity to the applicants to even appear for an interview, which is violative of the rights of the persons who are blind, or with low vision, under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. They had further taken the ground that these actions of the Respondents are in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India also, as they, in effect, take away the fundamental rights of the applicants to carry out any employment/occupation, by denying to them such protection as is available to them under the Disabilities Act, 1995 (ibid). They had further taken the ground that any ill perceived distinction between the Degrees of Bachelor of Special Education and Bachelor of General Education could not have been used to discriminate against the applicants, and, in fact, the Bachelor of Special Education Degree imparts higher capability upon the candidates concerned, to enable them to teach both the general children as well as children with disability in 8 OA No.3442/2014 special needs. They had further taken the ground that after having specifically identified certain posts of TGT, Hindi, and TGT, Social Studies, as being suitable for the candidates who were blind, or persons with low vision, the impugned action in discriminating between the two degrees, and excluding the applicants to appear at the interview, was a denial of the implementation of Sections 32 & 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 (ibid).
13. The applicants had further taken the ground that while it is the State's responsibility to provide equal opportunities and make special provisions for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream, that itself had been sought to be diluted by the respondents through their impugned actions. In the result, the applicants had prayed for the following reliefs and Interim Relief:-
8. Relief Sought "A) To issue appropriate directions to the respondents organization to conduct interviews of the applicants in accordance with the terms of the advertisement for recruitment for the teaching and miscellaneous teaching posts for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 pursuant to written examination held by the respondents as well as in compliance of notification No.F.No.61-
03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S) dated 23.8.2010 as partially amended by notification no.61-01/2011/NCTE(N&S) dated 29.7.2011 issued under Right to Children of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2010.
B) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this petition, ad-interim relief be granted and the respondent be restrain from taking any further action/steps with respect to the recruitment process in respect of the posts of TGT, Hindi and Social Studies, the two posts forming the subject matter of this petition. In the alternative direct the respondent organization to set aside two vacancies in respect of the applicants pending outcome of the interview.
9OA No.3442/2014 C) Pass any other further relief which this Honorable Court, in the facts and circumstances of the matter deems fit."
9. Interim Order, if any prayed for:
As prayed for in Prayer B above."
14. At the time of issuance of notice on 25.09.2014, the Bench had ordered in regard to the prayer for Interim Relief that any appointment made by the Respondents in Physically Handicapped category will be subject to the outcome of this OA.
15. The respondents filed their counter reply on 02.02.2015. In this they had submitted as follows, which was emphasized even during the arguments from their side, and, therefore, we may reproduce the paragraphs 4 to 7 of the counter reply as it is:-
"4. That the applicants in the aforesaid OA have stated that they are visually challenged persons and have qualified Special B.Ed. They had applied for recruitment to the posts of Trained Graduate Teaches in Hindi/Social Studies in response to the advertisement dated 20-26 July, 2013 issued by the respondents. They qualified the written examination held in December, 2013 and were shortlisted for interview which was scheduled to be held on 24.05.2014 and 02.06.2014 respectively but were not allowed to appear in interview as they have the professional degree of Special Bachelor of Education. They have also stated that the results were declared without giving them the opportunity to appear in interview. In this connection, it is submitted that the respondents issued an advertisement for recruiting of teaching and misc. Teaching posts for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 inviting online applications from Indian Nationals. As per the Recruitment Rules, the Central Eligibility Test (CTET) Paper-II (Class VI to VIII) qualified candidates were eligible to apply. Apart from this, possessing of professional qualification of B. Ed (Not Special B.Ed.) was the essential professional qualification as indicated in the PORTAL through which the candidates were required to apply.
5. That the applicants herein, having professional qualification of Special B.Ed, applied for the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi/Social Studies) by filling in the wrong information of Special 10 OA No.3442/2014 B.Ed against the column meant for B.Ed. As such, their online applications were not rejected by the computer. All the candidates who applied online were allowed to appear in the written examination conducted by the respondents in December, 2013 at all India level.
6. That in the advertisement, it was mentioned that the respondents shall take the exercise of verification of eligibility with the original certificates at the time of interview. The candidates were shortlisted for interview based on their performance in written examination. At the time of verification of information filled in by the candidates, it was observed that some of the candidates having professional qualification of Special B.Ed had also applied by filling in wrong information in their Online applications against the column meant for B.Ed. and secured admission for appearing in written examination and were finally shortlisted for interview. Such candidates were not allowed to appear in interview being ineligible.
7. That in the meantime, a candidate for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher sent a representation dated 21.05.2014 to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) seeking clarification regarding eligibility of the candidates having professional qualification of Special B.Ed for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. The National Council for Teaching Education (NCTE) vide its letter No.F.48-1/2014/NCTE/N&S(Pt.II)/NCTE A88821 dated 09.06.2014 has clarified to the candidate that there is no provision to recruit the candidates having B.Ed (Special Education) at TGT level, i.e., Secondary/High School (Classes IX&X). A copy of the aforesaid letter No. F.48-1/2014/NCTE/N&S(Pt.II)/NCTE A88821 dated 09.06.2014 from NCTE endorsed to the respondents is annexed herewith as Annexure-R-1."
16. In view of these submissions, it was submitted that Respondent- KVS had rightly rejected the candidature of the applicants for the posts of TGT (Hindi/Social Studies), and that the OA was not maintainable. They had also taken the objection that the OA is not maintainable for misjoinder of necessary parties, as the Ministry concerned had been unnecessarily, and without any cause of action, impleaded as party Respondent No.2, and also because Respondent No.1-KVS cannot sue or be sued through its Chairman, and can sue and can be sued only 11 OA No.3442/2014 through its Commissioner, while the applicants had wrongly chosen to file this case by naming the Chairman of KVS, who is the Minister, as Respondent No.1.
17. They had further taken the preliminary objection that the OA is not maintainable, as the applicants had not challenged the result of the selection process, and the main relief and the interim relief being the same, the applicants were not entitled to any interim relief, and even the interim relief granted by this Tribunal deserves to be vacated.
18. It was submitted that there is no illegality and/or infirmity in the impugned actions of the respondents, and no cause of action had accrued to the applicants to file the present OA. It was submitted that there was no separate reservation for persons with disabilities, and that the applicants had filled in wrong information in respect of their professional qualifications for the purpose of securing admission for appearing in the written examination. It was further submitted that it was not the answering respondents who had stopped the applicants from participating in the interview process, but that action was taken due to the directions issued by the NCTE, which had clarified that there was no provision to recruit the candidates having B. Ed (Special Education) at TGT level, where Secondary/High School (Classes IX & X) are taught.
19. It was submitted that after the applicants had secured admission by filling in wrong information, of having the professional qualification of Special B. Ed, against the Column meant for B. Ed, and had appeared in 12 OA No.3442/2014 the written examination conducted by the respondents in December, 2013, they came to be shortlisted for the interviews, as per their position in merit in the written examination, and the cut-off marks fixed by the respondents for calling the candidates for interviews. It was further submitted that the applicants had not followed the instructions contained in the PORTAL for properly filling up their applications Online.
20. The respondents had further justified their actions stating that the result for the post of TGTs was declared only after receipt of clarifications from the NCTE, and since, as per the clarification provided by NCTE, the applicants were not eligible for appointment in the Respondents' Organization, they could not be given an opportunity to appear at the interview, which opportunity was rightly denied to them, in view of the clarifications received from the NCTE. It was submitted that while reservation being provided in any organization is a separate issue, but the eligibility of the candidates for the posts applied for is a separate and major issue, and that the applicants of this O.A. were not eligible for appointments to the posts of TGTs in view of the clarification issued by the NCTE.
21. It was further submitted that it is not the Respondent-KVS who had made the distinction between the degrees of B. Ed, and Special B. Ed., but that it was the NCTE which had clarified the issue, on the basis of which candidates having professional qualification of Special B. Ed. had been declared ineligible for appointment as TGTs in the Respondents' organization. It was submitted that the issue is not as to 13 OA No.3442/2014 whether the professional qualification of B. Ed is higher or Special B. Ed is higher, as that matter could not have been decided by the respondents themselves, nor lends itself for any judicial determination.
22. It was further submitted that since the Respondent Organization- KVS does not impart education only to the children with special needs, and there may be only one or two students with special needs, this aspect must have weighed with NCTE in taking the decision that the persons with special B. Ed were not required to be appointed in the Respondent Organization-KVS. The Respondent-KVS had clarified that they had gone strictly by the clarification issued by NCTE, and had rightly rejected the candidature of the applicants. It was further submitted that when the distinction between the Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Special Education had been clarified through Annexure R-1 by the NCTE, it would not be for the answering Respondent-KVS to not to follow that clarification. It was further submitted that the Rules framed by the University of Delhi, and by the RCI, are not applicable to the Respondents' Organization-KVS, which is rather bound by the clarification issued by NCTE, and it was, therefore, prayed that the OA being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed with costs against the applicants.
23. At Annexure R-1, the respondents had produced the clarification issued by NCTE dated 09.06.2014, which stated as follows:-
"No. F.48-1/2014/NCTE/N&S(Pt.II)/NCTE A88821 June, 2014 To, Shri Karan (alias) Kermpal, 14 OA No.3442/2014 House No.1492, Ward No.30, (Near Dronacharya Public School) Didar Nagar, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136119.
Sub: Representation in respect of adherence of Minimum qualifications notified by NCTE for recruitment of School Teachers T.G.T. Sir, I am directed to refer to your representation dated 21/05/2014 stating that Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan has disqualified you for the post of T.G.T. (Trained Graduate Teacher) on the ground that you are having B.Ed. (Special Education) instead of B.Ed. (General).
2. In this connection it is informed that the NCTE notified (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, Notification 2001, Dated 3rd September, 2001 which inter-alia provides the minimum academic & professional qualifications for teachers at Secondary/High School (Classes IX & X) and Senior Secondary (Classes XI&XII) level, which is as under:-
LEVEL MINIMUM ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL
QUALIFICATIONS
II Secondary/High School Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its
Equivalent.
OR
Four years' integrated B.Sc., B.Ed. or an equivalent course.
III Senior Secondary/ Master's Degree in the relevant subject with Bachelor
PUC/Intermediate of Education (B.Ed.)
OR
Two year's integrated M.Sc.Ed. course or an equivalent Course.
3. In view of the above, it is evident that there is no provision to recruit the candidates having B.Ed. (Special Education) at T.G.T. level i.e. Secondary/High School (Classes IX &X).
Sd/-
(Dr. S.K. Chauhan) Research Officer"
24. The applicants filed a rejoinder on 20.03.2015 more or less reiterating their contentions, as made out in the OA. It was submitted that the case of the respondents in their counter affidavit is premised on one single internal communication of the respondents, which was not correct. In saying so, in Para-5 of the rejoinder, the applicants had made the following submissions, which may be reproduced in full as below:-
"5. Respectfully, this premise of the respondent runs afoul of their own stand in the counter affidavit, confirms the case of the applicant, as 15 OA No.3442/2014 well as stand in contravention of law. The whole clarification in the letter is erroneous in as much as:
a. The letter pertains to granting equivalence to TGT teachers for classes XI (sic. IX)-X. However, the case of the applicant is in respect of TGT post for classes VI-VIII. This stand of the applicants is affirmed by respondents in the counter affidavit in Para 4. As such, the respondents themselves had sought candidates qualified with CTET Paper-II (for classes VI-VIII) in the advertisement. Therefore, even as per the respondent TGT candidates were advertised for classes VI- VIII. The letter relied upon by the respondent pertains to classes IX-X and thus not applicable in the present circumstances. Even this letter considers equivalent qualifications with General B.Ed as a pre-requisite in respect of classes IX-X. b. Moreover, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in its list of recognized posts also consider TGT, Teachers as eligible for classes VI-VIII and not higher classes. A copy of the list of vacancies issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment is annexed as Annexure R-1".
25. It was, therefore, submitted that an internal clarificatory letter issued by the NCTE to the answering Respondent-KVS cannot run afoul of a Notification issued by NCTE itself in implementing the provisions of Right to Education (RTE, in short) Act, 2009, and granting equivalence. It was submitted that when the NCTE had already clarified through its 2010 and 2011 Notifications (ibid), the aspect of equivalence of professional qualifications of B. Ed. to Special B. Ed., those Notifications cannot now be overruled by a single clarification produced by the respondents. It was further submitted that the respondents are duty bound to recognize and adhere to the Notifications issued under the Disabilities Act, 1995 (ibid), and that NCTE itself could not reprobate by issuing the clarificatory letter dated 09.06.2014 (Annexure R-1), and not following the earlier Notifications issued by it. It was submitted that the TGT positions were advertised for selection of candidates eligible to teach classes VI-VIII, as, if that had not been done, then CTET Paper-II, which 16 OA No.3442/2014 pertains to teaching in classes VI-VIII, would not have been prescribed as a qualifying paper even by the respondents.
26. It was further submitted that the clarificatory letter dated 09.06.2014 (Annexure R-1) relied upon by the respondents also only states that those holding special B. Ed. Degrees may not be recruited to teach classes IX and X, but the TGT Teachers have to teach classes VI- VIII, for which the NCTE had already granted equivalence. It was, therefore, submitted that this clarificatory letter (Annexure R-1) cannot apply to the case of the applicants herein, more so because the letter itself stands having been issued in contravention of the 2011 Notification issued by the NCTE itself, and it was reiterated that a letter cannot override the Notifications issued under the RTE Act. All the other contentions and submissions of the respondents were denied and it was prayed that the OA be allowed.
27. Along with the rejoinder, the applicants had filed an Annexure-C containing the list of posts identified for being held by Persons with Disabilities (OH including CP & LC,VH and HH) in Group C, through which the applicants had tried to show that they were qualified for being appointed for teaching senior secondary classes.
28. Heard. The case was argued more or less on the lines of pleadings as already noted by us in great detail above. We have also given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case.
17OA No.3442/2014
29. The whole issue concerns as to whether the applicants, who are suffering from 100% VH disability, and have obtained a Special B. Ed. Degree only, can be recruited against the vacancies notified by the respondents, against which the candidature of the applicants has been denied, and they have not even been interviewed for the purpose of the posts concerned.
30. As per the Degree Certificate issued by the Delhi University, produced at Annexure A-2, the applicant No.1 had qualified for the degree of Bachelor of Education (Special Education for Visually Impaired), and similarly the applicant No.2 had also obtained a similar degree. Therefore, one thing is certain that both of them are fully qualified and competent to impart special education to the visually impaired persons.
31. In the Advertisement, at Annexure A-3 of the OA, in respect of the posts so advertised for TGT (Hindi) and TGT (Social Studies), for which the two applicants before us were candidates, the Educational and other Qualifications and General Instructions were prescribed as follows:-
"I. EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS FOR POST CODE 41 TO 46 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 Bachelor's Degree with at least 50% marks in the concerned subjects/combination of subjects and in aggregate. The electives 18 OA No.3442/2014 subjects and Languages in the combination of subjects are as under:
Post Code Post (Subject) Subject (s)
41. Not reproduced
here
42. TGT (Hindi) Hindi as a
subject in all the
three years.
43. TGT (S.St.) Any two of the
following:
History,
Geography,
Economics and
Pol. Science of
which one must
be either History
or Geography.
44 to 46 Not reproduced
here
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.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
-The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfill all eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission at all the stages of the examination will be purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed eligibility condition(s).
- Mere issue of Admit Card to the candidate will not imply that his candidature has been finally cleared by the KVS.
- Only Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) pass candidates are eligible to apply for the posts of TGT (English/Hindi/Sanskrit/Maths/Science/Social Studies) and Primary Teacher.
- The KVS takes up verification of eligibility conditions with reference to original documents only after the candidates have qualified for interview.
- Since the posts advertised are Group 'B' posts, there is no reservation for Ex-servicemen.
- Fee once paid will NOT be refunded under any circumstances.
- No fee is required to be paid by SC/ST and Persons with disability candidates.
- The vacancies may vary. They may increase or decrease. 19 OA No.3442/2014
- 5% relaxation in CTET marks has been given to the candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC and persons with disability category. Candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC and persons with disability categories who have passed CTET with 82 marks or more are eligible to apply for the posts of TGT (English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Maths, Science and Social Studies) and Primary Teacher as per their eligibility for the post."
32. The respondents have relied upon the clarification issued by the NCTE to one of the other candidates, not before us, in which, Para-2 had prescribed the Minimum Academic and Professional Qualifications, as have been already reproduced by us above, and NCTE had then gone on to hold that there is no provision to recruit the candidates having B. Ed. (Special Education) at T.G.T. level i.e. for teaching Secondary/High School (Classes IX&X). Though in their rejoinder the applicants have taken the ground that the above letter cited by the respondents pertains only for granting equivalence to TGT Teachers for classes IX&X, and that the case of the applicants is only in respect of TGT post for Classes VI- VIII, and since the posts of TGT candidates were advertised for classes VI-VIII, and the clarificatory letter of NCTE pertains to teaching of classes IX-X, it cannot be made applicable in the instant case.
33. It was further submitted that in terms of the NCTE's clarificatory letter relied upon by the Respondent-KVS, the equivalence of the qualifications of B. Ed. degree to Special B. Ed. has not been denied, and the latter degree can certainly be called to equal to General B. Ed. Degree, and sufficient for the purpose of teaching even classes IX&X also. 20 OA No.3442/2014
34. Also, it is the stand of the applicants that since in the case of the relevant Post Codes, posts of TGTs had been reserved for the VH category also, and within the VH category itself, there is no distinction in between the persons having just more than 40% Visual Handicap, and those having 100% Visual Handicap, the respondents cannot be allowed to deny to the applicants' appointment in their organization.
35. The subjects of Hindi and Social Studies are such in which the Teacher concerned may not have to resort to writing on the Blackboard for much of his teaching requirements, and, therefore, we do not find that it can be held that Visually Handicapped persons like the applicants, even though they are having 100% Visual Handicap, would not be able to teach Hindi and Social Studies subjects. If it was a case of Science, or Maths, or any other subject, in which extensive use of writing on the Blackboard by the Teacher was necessarily required for teaching the students, it may perhaps be held that 100% Visually Handicapped persons may not be able to perform such a task of teaching those subjects. It is also acceptable that 100% VH candidates may perhaps not be able to teach classes IX-X, even in the simple subjects, but the posts in question appear to be concerned with only teaching upto Class- VIII.
36. The sole contention of the respondents has been that they have acted under the directions of NCTE which was not made a party- respondent by the applicants in the present OA, and did not file a separate reply. However, it may be noted here that the NCTE has been 21 OA No.3442/2014 established under the NCTE Act, 1993 and it came into existence in 1995. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 12 (d) of the NCTE Act, the NCTE first published Regulations 2001 for Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools on 03.09.2001, which was amended in 2003 vide Notification No.83 dated 29/05/2003, and subsequently amended in 2005 vide Notification No.121 dated 30/08/2005. These Notifications stipulate the minimum academic and professional Qualifications for the recruitment/ appointment of Schools Teachers from Pre-School Classes to XII Standard.
37. Thereafter, in exercise of its powers conferred under sub-section (1) of the Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), and in pursuance of the 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 was authorized to be the Academic Authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII, in schools as referred to in clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act, 2009. The NCTE has since laid down the minimum qualifications vide notification dated 25/08/2010, subsequently amended vide Notification dated 02/08/2011. 22 OA No.3442/2014
38. Therefore, it is evident that the essential qualifications prescribed for appointment of teachers for class I to V, and VI to VIII, as stipulated in the NCTE Notification dated 25/08/2010 (as amended from time to time) are a must. However, the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers for Pre-School, and for classes IX to XII, are stipulated in the NCTE Regulations dated 03/09/2001 (as amended from time to time).
39. The qualifications pertaining to Special Education e.g. D.Ed. (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education) have been stipulated in the Notifications dated 25/08/2010 and 02/08/2011 for recruitments of teachers for Class I to VIII in the schools coming under clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act, 2009.
40. However, no provision had been made earlier in the NCTE Notification dated 03/09/2001 to recruit the candidates having D.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education) as Teachers for Secondary/High School and Senior Secondary levels, for the classes IX-X and XI-XII. The clause III (i) of the NCTE Notification dated 02/08/2011 stipulates as under:
"(i) Training to be undergone:- A person.
(a) With D.Ed. (Special Education) or B. Ed. (Special Education) notification shall undergo after appointment an NCTE recognized 6-months Special Programme in Elementary Education."
41. Therefore, though the qualifications pertaining to Special Education, i.e. D.Ed. (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education) have been stipulated in these Notifications for recruitments of Teachers 23 OA No.3442/2014 for classes I to VIII, in the Schools referred to in section 2 (n) of RTE Act, 2009, but, still, they are subject to the condition that such teachers with Special Education Degrees will undergo a special programme of six months' duration, approved by NCTE.
42. As a result, now the qualifications pertaining to Special Education i.e. D.Ed. (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education) have been stipulated in the Notifications dated 25/08/2010 and 02/08/2011 for recruitments of Teachers for classes I to VIII in the schools. However, there is no provision in the NCTE Notification dated 03/09/2001 (as amended from time to time) to recruit the candidates having D.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education) for teaching the students at Secondary/High School and Senior Secondary School (Classes IX to XII).
43. Therefore, it is clear that there is no bar for Teachers having D.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education) Degree to be recruited for teaching classes I to VIII in Respondent-KVS, provided that, under the terms of the NCTE Notification dated 02/08/2011 mentioned above, after such appointment, they are made to undergo an NCTE recognized six months' training programme, which, according to the NCTE, would render them eligible to teach non-handicapped children also. Since in the instant case, the posts concerned, against which the applicants had applied, appear to be concerned with only teaching upto Class VIII, they would qualify, with the above stipulation being followed after their appointment. 24 OA No.3442/2014
44. Resultantly, the OA is allowed, and the respondents are directed to conduct the interviews for the applicants in respect of the Visually Handicapped quota category posts, and consider their cases as per Rules. However, it is made clear that the appointments of the applicants will only be prospective, from the date of their actual appointment, and that they shall not be eligible to claim any benefit, seniority or back wages for any past period, prior to the date of their actual appointment. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.