Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Sunder Solanki & Ors vs State & Ors on 16 December, 2016
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9953 / 2015
1. Shyam Sunder Solanki s/o Shri Devi Lal, aged about 44
years, R/o Solanki Bhawan, Ratanada, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
2. Randheer Singh s/o Shri Mod Singh Shekhawat, aged about
49 years, R/o H.No.123, New BJS Colony, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
3. Pradeep Mohan Singh Udawat s/o Shri Mohan Singh Udawat,
aged about 49 years, R/o H.No.79, New BJS Colony, Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
4. Anjana Dave w/o Shri Brij Bhushan Trivedi, aged about 46
years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Paota, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
5. Pravej Kosar Khanam s/o Shri Amanullah Khan, aged about
53 years, R/o I/s Nagori Gate, Near Gopal Bhawan, Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
6. Bhanwar Lal Acharya s/o Shri Mishri Mal Acharya, aged about
50 years, R/o Kamala Nehru Nagar, Chanana Bhakar, Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
(2 of 17 )
[CW-9953/2015]
7. Anuradha Saxena w/o Shri H.N.Saxena, aged about 59
years, R/o Sector 14, Hiran Magari, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Kailash Chandra Daiya s/o Shri Gugan Ram Daiya, aged
about 45 years, R/o C-76, Sector 4, Sanik Basti, Churu,
Rajasthan.
9. Smt. Akanksha Meena w/o Shri Manoj Kumar Meena, aged
about 35 years, R/o D-100, Agarse Nagar, Churu, Rajasthan.
10. Smt. Uma Sarswat w/o Shri Kishan Sharma, aged about 48
years, R/o E-170, Agarsen Nagar, Churu.
11. Ashok Kumar Pareek s/o Shri Ramdeo Pareek, aged about
48 years, R/0 A-58, Agarse Nagar, Churu.
12. Dharamveer Mahich s/o Shri Tanu Ram Mahich, aged about
40 years, R/o B-7, Agarse Nagar, Churu.
13. Sewa Ram s/o Shri Sedu Ram, aged about 45 years, R/o
Magal Colony, Ward No.5, Churu.
(3 of 17 )
[CW-9953/2015]
14. Satyanarayan Swami s/o Shri Rameshwar Das Swami, aged
about 50 years, R/o C-157, Sector 11, Sanik Basti, Churu.
15. Nisha Ajmera D/o Shri Bajrang Lal Ajmera, aged about 50
years, R/o Opposite Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Churu.
16. Amar Singh Lamba s/o Shri Dharma Ram Lamba, aged
about 45 years, R/o C-15, Sector 1, Sanik Basti, Churu.
17. Bajrang Lal Meena s/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, aged
about 43 years, D-212, Sorab Sadan, Agarsen Nagar, Churu.
18. Kamal Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Har Dutt Sharma, aged
about 42 years, 48, Aashirvaad, Parsuramnagar, Churu.
19. Ravindra Sharma s/o Shri Girish Chandra Sharma, aged
about 54 years, R/o Partibha Nagar, Churu.
20. Smt. Prasanna Meena w/o Shri Ajeet Prakash Meena, aged
about 48 years, R/o E-205, Agarsen Nagar, Churu.
21. Hans Raj Meena s/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, aged about
50 years, R/o Ward No.3, Ratannagar, Churu.
(4 of 17 )
[CW-9953/2015]
22. Kishan Singh s/o Shri Chetu Singh, aged about 49 years,
R/o D-101, Agarsen, Churu.
23. Dinesh Kumar Sharma s/o Khem Chand Sharma, aged
about 57 years, R/o 48, Aashirvaad Parsuramnagar, Churu.
24. Ranjeet Singh s/o Shri Sumer Singh, aged about 46 years,
R/o D-146, Agarsen Nagar, Churu.
25. Sant Kumar s/o Shri Shiv Karan Singh, aged about 45
years, R/o VPO Khasholi, Churu.
26. Bansidhar Prohit s/o Shri Harbhagwan Das, aged about 56
years, R/o Chenpura Padha, Jaisalmer.
27. Bhanwar Singh Chodhary s/o Shri Mohan Ram Chodhary,
aged about 55 years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, 174B, Jhalamand
Circle, Jodhpur.
28. Navneet Kumar s/o Shri rem Lal, Aged about 52 years, R/o
24, Raj Enclave, NR 21, C.H.B., Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
(5 of 17 )
[CW-9953/2015]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Department of Personal, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education Bikaner.
4. National Council for Teachers Education, through its Member
Secretary, National Council for Teachers Education, Hans
Bhawan Wing-II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
----Respondents
__________________________________________
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur ]
Mr. D.S.Sodha ] for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General with
Mr. Vikas Choudhary, for the respondents.
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Order (6 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] Per Hon'ble Mathur,J.
16/12/2016 Exercising powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan framed the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Principal, Vice Principal, Senior Lecturer and Lecturer in the District Institute of Education and Training) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2005') laying down the procedure for special selection and special conditions of service pertaining to the various posts. As per the Rules of 2005, appointments to the posts of Principal, Vice Principal, Senior Lecturer and Lecturer at the District Institute of Education and Training is required to be made by way of selection from among the persons holding the post referred in column (2) of Schedule-I appended with the rules. The appointments under the Rules of 2005 are for a specific tenure.
The eligibility for appointment to various posts under the Rules of 2005 is a per column (3) read with column (5) of Schedule-I appended with the rules. The post of Lecturer in Schedule-I is placed at serial No.4 and the eligibility to be considered for appointment on this post is that the person desirous must be working as Lecturer in Senior Secondary School or equivalent post (RPSC selected or DPC confirmed) (7 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] with Post Graduation in addition to Masters Degree in Education with five years teaching experience as lecturer. While making consideration for appointment on the post of Lecturer, preference shall be given to the persons having Ph.D. and experience of research in education, training, management and evaluation, developing learning material (print and audio visual) and curriculum and text book development.
In the instant petition for writ the grievance of the petitioners is that the qualificational eligibility prescribed under the Rules of 2005 to be considered for appointment as Lecturer is in conflict with the eligibility prescribed for appointment in Teachers Training Institutions under the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014.
The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1993') was enacted by the Parliament for establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith.
(8 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] As per clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act of 1993 'teacher education' means programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre- primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools, and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education.
The term 'teacher education qualification' as per clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act of 1993 means a degree, diploma or certificate in teacher education awarded by a University or examining body in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1993.
According to clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act of 1993 'recognised institution' means an institution recognised by the Council under Section 14.
Section 3 of the Act of 1993 provides for establishment of National Council for Teachers Education and its functions are given in Section 12 of the Act of 1993.
As per clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act of 1993, it shall be the duty of the Council to take all steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of (9 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] performing its functions under the Act, it may coordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country.
As per clause (d) of Section 12 of the Act of 1993, it may lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions.
As already stated, 'recognised institution' means an institution recognised by Council under Section 14 of the Act of 1993. Section 14 aforesaid provides a complete process for recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.
Section 32 of the Act of 1993 empowers the Council to make regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1993 including the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as teacher under clause (d) of Section 12.
Section 12 of the Act of 1993, as already stated, pertains to functions of the Council to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions.
(10 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] The National Council for Teacher Education, while exercising powers conferred by sub-section(2) of Section 32 of the Act of 1993, framed the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 2014').
As per regulation 3, the Regulations of 2014 are applicable to all matters relating to teacher education, programmes for preparing norms and standards and procedure for recognition of institutions, commencement of new programmes and addition to sanction intake in existing programmes including recognition for commencement of a new teacher education programme which shall be offered in composite institutions interalia.
Regulation 12 empowers the Chairman of the Council, subject to rectification by the Council for relaxation of the provisions in the regulations on recommendations of the Central Government or the State Government or Union Territory Administration concerned, for removal of any hardship caused to adhere the provisions of the regulations. The Appendix-2 of the Regulations of 2014 lays down norms and standards for Diploma and Elementary Teacher Education Programme leading to Diploma in Elementary Education. As per clause (4) of Appendix-2, the academic staff with elementary teacher education programme may have Principal, Lecturer, Health and (11 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] Physical Education Instructor and Librarian. The essential qualification to be considered for appointment as Lecturer, as per Appendix-2, is that the incumbent desirous must have Masters Degree in Education with 55% of marks.
The District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) is an institution established by the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan to extend teachers training. The DIET is a recognised institution as per Section 2(i) read with Section 14 of the Act of 1993, as such, it is abide by the provisions of the Act of 1993 and the rules and regulations framed therein. As already stated in introductory para, the Governor of Rajasthan while exercising powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the Rules of 2005 and under Schedule-I appended with the Rules, eligibility is prescribed for appointment on various posts created under the rules aforesaid. For the post of Lecturer, as already stated, the qualificational eligibility given is Post Graduation with Masters Degree in Education with five years teaching experience as lecturer. While making consideration for appointment on the post of Lecturer, preference shall be given to the persons having Ph.D. and experience of research in education, training, management and evaluation, developing learning material (print and audio visual) and curriculum and text book development.
(12 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] The petitioners are the persons who are eligible to be considered for appointment as Lecturers with DIET and they are also having Masters Degree in Education with 55% of marks. Their grievance is that under the Rules of 2005 the educational eligibility prescribed to be considered for appointment as Lecturer is in conflict with the minimum eligibility prescribed for appointment as Lecturer under the Regulations of 2014. According to the petitioners, the eligibility to be considered for Lecturer in a recognised institution, as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1993, the eligibility cannot be less than the eligibility prescribed under the regulations framed as per Section 32 of the Act of 1993. Under the Rules of 2005, the eligibility given is not in consonance with the eligibility prescribed under the Regulations of 2012, as much as, there is no requirement to have 55% marks in Masters Degree in Education. According to the petitioners, in light of the eligibility given under the Rules of 2005, a person having Masters Degree in Education can be considered for appointment as Lecturer with DIET irrespective of the fact that he may not be having 55% marks in the qualification aforesaid as required in accordance with the Appendix-2 of the Regulations of 2014.
Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the Rules of 2005 are framed in accordance with the guidelines provided by the NCTE in the selection process and the priority (13 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] has been given to the candidates who are having marks more than 55% in Post Graduation/M.Ed. The stand of the respondents, as stated in reply to the writ petition, is as follows:-
"4. That in reply to the averments made in para no.4 of the writ petition, suffice it to state that so far as present case is concerned, answering respondents are following the provisions of the Rules of 2013 in their letter and spirit, and the Rules of 2013 are framed in accordance with the guidelines provided by the N.C.T.E. In the selection process, priority has been given to the candidate who are holding more than 55% marks in post-graduate/M.Ed., as would be evidence from the check-list prepared for selection process in question, a copy whereof is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-R/1.
8. That in reply to the averments made in para no.8 of the writ petition, suffice it to state that so far as present case is concerned, answering respondents are following the provisions of the Rules of 2013 in their letter and spirit, and the Rules of 2013 are framed in accordance with the guidelines provided by the N.C.T.E. In the selection process, priority has been given to the candidate who are holding more than 55% marks in post-graduate/M.Ed., as would be evident from the check-list prepared for selection process in question (Annex.R/1).
12. That the averments made in para no.12 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner they have been stated. It is respectfully submitted that the State Government was fully conscious while (14 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] inserting clause of experience gained by academic works in the State Government School and the State Government has purposely included persons of such categories of employments, which are connected and related to school education. Under the Rules of 2013, eligibility criteria for the post of Lecturer are that a candidate should be working as Lecturer in Senior Secondary School or equivalent post (RPSC selected or DPC confirmed). The academic qualification and minimum experience prescribed is post graduate with M.Ed. degree with 5 years teaching experience as Lecturer. The Rules of 2013 provides preference to the holder of the Ph.D. and to the candidates having experience of research training, training management and evaluation, developing learning material (print and audio visual) and curriculum and text book development. Merely because the petitioners do not fulfill the requisite criteria as per the Rules of 2013, it cannot be said that the Rules of 2013 are violative of the NCTE guidelines, or for that matter, the Constitution of India.
13. That in reply to the averments made in para no.13 of the writ petition, suffice it to state that so far as present case is concerned, answering respondents are following the provisions of the Rules of 2013 in their letter and spirit, and the Rules of 2013 are framed in accordance with the guidelines provided by the N.C.T.E. In the selection process, priority has been given to the candidate who are holding more than 55% marks in post-
graduate/M.Ed., as would be evident from the check- list prepared for selection process in question (Annex.R/1)."
(15 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the rival parties.
It is not in dispute that the DIET is a 'recognised institution' as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1993. It is also a position accepted that the respondents, while making appointments to various posts created under the Rules of 2005, are supposed to adhere the minimum qualificational eligibility prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education. The Council under the Regulations of 2014 prescribed qualificational eligibility to hold the post of Lecturer and i.e. Masters Degree in Education with 55% of maximum marks. Under the Rules of 2005 the eligibility given to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in a 'recognised institution' is Masters Degree in Education only. The provision under the Rules of 2005 is not referring the requirement of having 55% marks in the examination concerned.
In view of the provisions of the Act of 1993 and also looking to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kailash Chandra Harijan & 10 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2006(4) WLC (Raj.) 337, the Regulations of 2014 are having binding effect. In the case aforesaid a Division Bench of this Court held that the regulations given by the (16 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] National Council for Teachers Education are having binding effect and further the non-adherence of the same is not permissible. While arriving at the conclusion aforesaid the Division Bench examined provisions of the Act of 1993 and also the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The Division Bench also examined the legislative intent while enacting the Act of 1993 by taking into consideration the education policy introduced in the year 1986 and also the entries 65 and 66 of list-I of VII Schedule of the Constitution of India.
In view of the fact that the regulations framed by the National Council for Teachers Education are binding upon the respondents, while making appointments of teachers to a recognised institution, we are of considered opinion that non- prescription of the requirement of having 55% marks in Masters Degree in Education Examination is in contravention of the Regulations of 2014.
In view of it, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The qualificational eligibility wherever prescribed in the Rules of 2005 for the purpose of appointment to the post of Lecturer, is required to be read as M.Ed. With 55% of the maximum marks. No appointment to the post of Lecturer shall be given under the Rules of 2005 to a person who is not having Masters Degree in Education with 55% of marks. If appointments have already (17 of 17 ) [CW-9953/2015] been accorded to any person, who is not having 55% of maximum marks in M.Ed., then the appointment given to him shall be withdrawn.
No order to costs.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. MathuriaKK/PS