Delhi High Court
Ataul Haque vs The Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 9 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001IIIAD(DELHI)159, 90(2001)DLT188, 2000(57)DRJ749
Author: O.P. Dwivedi
Bench: O.P. Dwivedi
JUDGMENT O.P. Dwivedi, J.
1. All intervener applications are allowed.
These two writ petitions raise a common question for consideration viz. whether candidates who have passed B.Ed. are qualified/eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi?
2. Briefly stated the circumstances under which this controversy has arisen are as follows:
On the request of MCD, the Delhi subordinate Service Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued an advertisement in the newspaper "The Hindustan Times" dated 21.9.2000 for recruitment of 1500 Assistant Teachers (Primary), Hindi. Recruitment rules, copy of which was sent to DSSSB, prescribe the following qualifications for primary teachers:
A(i) Higher Secondary pass of recognised Board/University with an elective subject in the Matric level.
(II) Two year Teacher training certificate from the recognised institution OR B(i) Intermediate or equivalent from a recognised Board/University with an elective subject in the required language at the Matric level.
(ii) One-year Teacher Training certificate from a recognised institution.
Note: The candidate applying for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), Hindu must have passed Hindi as an elective subject at the Matric level.
4. These qualifications for primary teacher were approved by UPSC vide letter dated F.3 24(10)/73-RR dated 9.7.80 long back in the year 1980 and have continued to be in force since then. It will be noticed that B.Ed. is not specifically mentioned as one of the qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in MCD. It appears that in practice MCD has been recruiting B.Ed. candidates as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the past either because of non-availability of ETE/JBT pass candidates or because of a mistake impression that B.Ed. is higher qualification and therefore B.Ed. degree holders automatically qualify for recruitment as Assistant Teacher (Primary). Even in the last selection of the Assistant Teacher (Primary) which was made in the year 1998, Corporation had treated B.Ed. candidates as qualified for being appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary). So a large number of B.Ed. candidates responded to the advertisement dates 21.9.2000 and we are told that number of such candidates is around 20 to 30 thousand out of a total number of 60 thousand applicants. In he advertisement dated 21.9.2000 it was notified that the written examination for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) shall be held on 12.11.2000. But, on 10.11.2000 a corrigendum was published in the newspaper "The Hindustan Times" to the effect that B.Ed. or NIT candidates are not eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and therefore no admit card will be issued to such candidates and if by oversight any such candidate receives admit card, such candidates are advised not to appear for the examination. Some of such, B.Ed. pass candidates have filed writ petition No. 6798/2000 through Mr. Ataul Haque, Advocate as a PIL challenging the corrigendum dated 10.11.2000 published in the newspaper "The Hindustan Times" as being discriminatory in nature. Several B.Ed. pass candidates sent letters to the Court through Mr. R.P. Aggarwal which was treated as PIL and registered as CW. No. 6796/2000. The common plea in these petitions is that B.Ed. pass candidates are not only qualified but better qualified than JBT/ETE candidates who are merely diploma holders. Therefore, according to the petitioners the corrigendum dated 10.11.2000 is unjustified, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature which must, therefore, be quashed by issuing appropriate writ or order and the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates be allowed to appear in the written examination for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the MCD. As against this, the respondents' stand is that under the Recruitment Rules 1980, B.Ed. is not specifically mentioned as a qualification for primary teacher MCD. Moreover the B.Ed. degree holders are specially trained to teach secondary classes from VI onwards whereas ETE/JBT diploma holders are specially trained to teach at the primary level. So B.Ed. cannot be said to be the requisite qualification for primary teacher under the Recruitment Rules 1980.
5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned Counsels for the parties, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of what these courses namely ETE/JBT on the one hand and B.Ed. on the other hand are aimed at and whether they operate at the same level or at different levels. We have to examine the question of edibility/suitability with reference to a particular job/post namely primary teacher who have to teach children from classes I to V. If this category of students of Classes I to V is specially the focus of attention in any of these courses, naturally the candidates having passed that course would be eligible/suitable for being employed as Assistant Teacher (Primary) to the exclusion of others.
6. National Education Policy of 1986 laid emphasis on "child centered" approach for teaching at primary level. Part V of N.E.P. 86 deals with the reorganisation of Education at different stages. Clause 5.6 deals specifically with early childhood care and education.
Clause 5.6 thereof reads as under:
"A warm welcoming and encouraging approach, in which all concerned share a solicitude for the needs of the child, is the best motivation for the child to attend school and learn. A child-centered and activity-based process of learning should be adopted at the primary stage. First generation learners should be allowed to set their own pace and be given supplementary remedial instruction. As the child grows, the component of cognitive learning will be increased and skills organized through practice. The policy of non-detention at the primary stage will be retained, making evaluation as disaggregated as feasible. Corporal punishment will be firmly excluded from the educational system and school timings as well as vacations adjusted to the convenience of children."
Clause 5.13 which deals with the "SECONDARY EDUCATION" reads as under:
5.13 Secondary education begins to expose students to the differentiated roles of science, the humanities and social sciences. This is also an appropriate stage to provide children with a sense of history and national perspective and give them opportunities to understand their constitutional duties and rights as citizens. Access to secondary education will be widened with emphasis on enrolment of girls, SCs and STs, particularly in science, commerce and vocational streams. Boards of Secondary Education will be reorganized and vested with autonomy so that their ability to improve the quality of secondary education is enhanced. Effort will be made to provide computer literacy in as many secondary level institutions as possible so that the children are equipped with necessary computer skills to be effective in the emerging technological world. A proper understanding of the work ethos and of the values of a humane and composite culture will be brought about through appropriately formulated curricula. Vocationlisation through specialised institutions or through the refashioning of secondary education will, at this stage, provide valuable man power for economic growth."
7. Clearly, the reorganisation of the education system at different stages is aimed at educating the child appropriately at different levels of his mental growth. It is pertinent to mention here that there are three tiers of education system in schools and requisite qualification for them are as under:
(1) Nursery (Pre-primary/KG/Prep) Qualifications: NIT certificate from reorganized Board/Institute. (2) Primary Classes from I to V. Qualification: JBT/ETE or equivalent qualification.
(3) Class VI to X. Qualification TGT/B.Ed.
8. The syllabi of these different courses NIT, JBT, ETT and B.Ed. are so formulated that they focus specially on the children of that specific age group/class.
9. The National Education Policy of 1986 propounded the setting of District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) for primary teacher from classes I to V. The curriculum prescribed for ETE teachers has the following courses:
I. FOUNDATION COURSES AND OTHER RELATED AREAS
1. Philosophical Perspective Education.
2. Sociological Perspective of Education.
3. Child Development
4. Process of Children's Learning
5. Guidance and Counselling
6. School Organisation and Management
7. Early Childhood Care and Education.
8. Education of Children with Disabilities.
9. Educational Technology
10. Non-formal and Adult Education.
11. Population Education.
12. Value Education.
II PEDAGOGICAL COURSES IN DIFFERENT SCHOOL SUBJECTS
1. Teaching of Mother Tongue (Hindi).
2. Teaching of Mathematics.
3. Teaching of Environmental Studies (Sciences)
4. Teaching of Environmental Studies (Social Studies)
5. Teaching of Work Experience.
6. Teaching of Art Education.
7. Teaching of Health and Physical Education.
8. Teaching of English Language.
III SCHOOL EXPERIENCE PROGRAMME
1. Co-curricular activities
2. Community Work.
3. Games and Sports.
Semester-wise Distribution of Courses for ETE is as under:
S.NO. COURSE TITLE OF THE COURSE MAX. MARKS TOTAL CODE MARKS SEMESTER I
1. 01 Philosophical 10-40 50 Perspective of Education
2. 02 Child Development 10-40 50
3. 03 Educational Technology 10-40 50
4. 04 Teaching in Hindi(l) 10-40 50
5. 05 Teaching of Mathematics(l) 10-40 50
6. 06 School Experience 50 50 Programme Total 100-200 300 SEMESTER II
7. 07 Sociological 10-40 50 Perspective of Education
8. 08 Teaching of EVS (Science) 10-40 50
9. 09 Teaching of EVS (Social 10-40 50 Science)I
10. 10 Teaching of Health & 20-30 50 Physical Education I
11. 11 Teaching of Work 30-20 50 Experience I
12. 12 School Experience 50 50 Programme.
Total 130-170 300 SEMESTER III 13. 13 Process of Children's 10-40 50 learning 14. 14 Teaching of EVS (Science) II 10-40 50 15. 15 Teaching of EVS 10-40 50 (Social Science) II 16. 16 Teaching of Art 30-20 50 Education I 17. 17 Teaching of Health & 20-30 50 Physical Education II 18. 18 Teaching of Work 30-20 50 Experience II 19. 19 School Experience 50 50 Programme Total 160-190 350 SEMESTER IV 20. 20 Teaching of Hindi (I) 10-40 50 21. 21 Teaching of Mathematics-II 10-40 50 22. 22 Teaching of Art 30-20 50 Education (II) 23. 23 School Organisation and 10-40 50 Management 24. 24/25 Guidance & Counselling 10-40 50 /Early. 26/27 Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)/ Education of Children with Disabilities/Teaching of English 25. 28/29 Non-Formal Education 10-40 50 and Adult. Education/Population Education/Value Education 26. 31 School Experience 50 50 Programme. 27. 32 Practical Work E-To A (Comprehensive Evaluation in grades) Total 80-270 350 Grand Total 470-830 1300
Besides, the practice of teaching is to be undertaken as per the schedule given below:
SEMESTER-I Micro Teaching 10 Lessons.
Teaching of Hindi-I 15 Lessons.
Teaching of Maths-I 15 Lessons.
SEMESTER-II
Teaching of EVS-I (Science) 15 Lessons.
Teaching of EVS-I (Social Science) 15 Lessons.
Teaching of Health & Phy. Education-I 5 Lessons.
Teaching of W.E.I 5 Lessons.
SEMESTER-III
Teaching of EVS-II (Science) 10 Lessons.
Teaching of EVS-II (Social Science) 10 Lessons.
Teaching of Art Education-I 5 Lessons.
Teaching of Work Ex.-II 5 Lessons.
Teaching of Health & Phy. Education-II 10 Lessons
40 Lessons.
SEMESTER-IV
Teaching of Hindi-II 16 Lessons.
Teaching of Mathematics-II 16 Lessons.
Teaching of Art. Education-II 8 Lessons.
40 Lessons
B.Ed. curriculum on the other hand comprises the following papers:
COURSE I MARKS
Besides ideas in Education Theory 100
COURSE II
Educational Psychology 100
COURSE III
Modern Indian Education 100
(A) Its development & recent history.
(B) Its organisation and practise.
(C) Health Education.
COURSE IV 100
Methodology of teaching (two teaching subjects as specified in the prospectus).
COURSE V 100 Compulsory Elective Any one of the following: (a) Career Guidance (b) School Evaluation (c) Organisation & Administration of Pre-school Education. (d) health & Physical Education in India. (e) Social & Adult Education. (f) History of Education in India. (g) Audio-Visual Education. (h) School Library Organisation. (i) Basic Education. (j) Organisation of Co-curricular Activities.. (k) Education of Backward children. (l) Primary Education in India. (m) Education for Mental Health. (n) Art Education. (o) Computer Education (p) Gender School and Society.
Note: 25 marks in each of the papers I, II, III and V and 30 marks in paper IV are allotted for the sessional work done during the session.
10. It will thus be seen that whereas the ETE/JBT curriculum is framed in such a way that one single teacher is able to teach all the subjects to a particular class of students, in B.Ed. curriculum the emphasis is on the specialisation in two subjects. The ETE/JBT courses are designed specially keeping the children of classes I to V in mind which is not the case with B.Ed. curriculum. A primary teachers has to undergo teacher training in primary classes that is classes I to V whereas a B.Ed. degree holder is required to have teaching experience of secondary classes i.e. from VI to X. In the curriculum framework for quality teacher eduction framed by National Counsel for Teachers Education, an autonomous body, it has been clearly mentioned in Clause 2.7 that the curriculum for primary teacher has been formulated specially be enable the teachers to teach primary classes i.e. from I to V whereas in Clause 2.9 which deals with teachers education for secondary stage it has been observed that for teaching at the secondary level educational qualification which is most sought after is B.Ed. which in fact is meant for this stage alone. The subject--contents as well as teaching methodology is different for ETE diploma holder and B.Ed. degree holder. The teaching practice for primary teachers and secondary teachers is also of different duration and different levels. The two qualifications operate in different fields and at different levels. It will, therefore, be wrong to say that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than ETE/JBT in the same sense as B.A. is higher than intermediate. B.A. degree is considered to be higher than intermediate because for passing B.A. one has necessarily to pass intermediate but in order to obtain B.Ed. it is not necessary to pass ETE/JBT first. These two qualifications are specifically meant for different levels of students and there is no question of one being higher than the other.
11. Similarly question arose before High Court of Bombay in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., . Schedule B, Part I of the Recruitment Rules, prescribes D.Ed. as the requisite qualification for primary teachers, whereas Schedule B, Part II prescribes B.Ed. as the requisite qualification for higher secondary teachers. Question as to whether B.Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible for the post of primary teachers came up for decision in several cases. Some Division Benches of the High Court of Bombay took the view that B.Ed is higher qualification than D.Ed. and therefore B.Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible to be appointed as primary teachers. But in the case of Nandani Arunkumar Kalaskar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 4644/98 another Division Bench took a contrary view and held that B.Ed is not the requisite qualification for primary teachers. Because of these conflicting views the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The main contention of the petitioners who were holding B.A. and B.Ed degrees was that they were having more than the requisite qualifications for being appointed as primary teacher because according to them D.Ed is only a diploma course in education which is inferior to B.Ed., a degree course. So according to them they were not only qualified but better qualified for the post of primary teachers. As against this, the contention of the respondents was that the D.Ed syllabus has been specifically designed to meet the requirement of teaching the students of primary school whereas B.Ed. is geared to meet the teaching needs of the students of secondary level. The respondents contended that in primary eduction integrated teaching approach has been accepted by the council and the D.Ed syllabus has been framed in such a way that a teacher holding this qualification is in a position to teach all the subjects that are taught in primary standard. The teaching method is also suitable to the students falling in the age group up to 14 years, specially considering their hostility towards school. It was contended by the respondents in that case that the syllabus of D.Ed contains special training programme on early childhood education and non-formal education etc and that the D.Ed. are taking to primary school for practical sessions. After considering the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, Full Bench held that B.Ed. is not the requisite qualification for the primary teachers and the syllabus of D.Ed is better suited for imparting education in primary school whereas the syllabus of the B.Ed is better suited for teaching higher secondary level. The Full Bench held that D.Ed, B.Ed. qualifications are to operate in separate and distinct fields and therefore there is no question of considering one qualification higher than the other. Therefore it is not possible to accept the argument that B.Ed degree is higher than the D.Ed which is a diploma course. Full Bench clearly held that for teaching primary standard D.Ed is the requisite qualification and the B.Ed. degree holder cannot be treated as equivalent thereto. This Full Bench decision speaks directly on the point before us. The question of the eligibility/suitability of candidates for being appointed as primary teachers is not to be answered on the basis of educational or academic achievements. A renowned Agro-Scientist need not necessarily be a good gardener. The suitability of the candidate for a particular job must depend on his education, training and experience with reference to that specific job. There must be a reasonable nexus between the qualification prescribed for a particular post and the object to be achieved viz; teaching primary classes and looking to the curriculum, teaching practice, training, etc. of ETE/JBT and B.Ed. candidates we think that the former qualifies the test of suitability/eligibility for primary teachers.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to some decisions but most of these decisions have no direct bearing on the facts before us. In the case of Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1990 (2) SLR page 458, it was observed that B.Ed. is higher qualification than Oriental Teachers Training course. So the petitioner cannot be said to be unqualified for the post of Hindi teacher for which only a diploma course Oriental Teachers Training is required. The said case appears to have been decided on the presumption that B.Ed is a higher qualification without considering the course contents or the teaching methodology of the two courses nor was the validity of suitability/eligibility criterion tested with reference to specific job requirement.
13. In the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors., the facts were that in response to the advertisement for filling up 66 posts of Peons in the District and Sessions Court, Nagpur as many as 14,965 applications were received. The advisory committee while shortlisting candidates for interview excluded from consideration all those candidates who were having qualification higher than the 7th standard on the ground that those who have studied above 7th standard might not take proper interest in the work of Peons. Supreme Court found this criteria of shortlisting to be unreasonable and observed that a higher qualification by itself cannot be a disqualification. Obviously those who had passed 8th standard and above were having higher qualification than of those who have studied up to 7th standard only. Therefore, the exclusion of better qualified candidates simply on the ground that they will not take interest in the work of Peon could not be held to be reasonable. That is not the case here. As already observed B.Ed. cannot be said to be higher qualification than ETE/JBT for the reasons already given because the two operate in different fields and at different levels.
14. In the case of Arun Tiwari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors., , the fact were that the State of M.P. in order to fill up about 7000 posts of Assistant Teachers under the "Operation Blackboard Scheme" during the 8th plan period from 1992-97, invited candidates who were holding Basic Training Certificate or B.Ed. degree. The contention of the petitioner before the Supreme Court was that the prescription of BTC/B.Ed. is unreasonable and discriminatory because there are other equivalent qualifications namely Montessori, Mahila Bal Sevika Prasikshan Pramanpatras and Diploma T. So the candidates holding such qualifications should not have been left out. After considering the respective submission of parties counsel, the Supreme Court was of the view that this question has already been considered by the State Council for Education Research and Training and found that BTC is a superior course to diploma T. This recommendation of the SCERT was accepted by the State. Supreme Court observed that "a higher qualification which is prescribed for a particular scheme cannot be considered as violative of Article 14". In the present case neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement dated 21.9.2000 prescribed B.Ed. to be the requisite qualification for appointment as assistant teacher, primary nor B.Ed can be said to be a higher qualification for the reasons already given. So this judgment is also of no help to the petitioners.
15. The decision reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Y.V. Satya Narayan Rao and Ors., 1993 SCC (L&S) page 465, involved the interpretation of rule of preference of Master degree holder over Bachelor degree holder for recruitment to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer. The fact that the Master degree in Engineering is higher than the Bachelor degree was not in dispute before the Court. As already stated the dispute was regarding the interpretation of preference rules and not about the eligibility of BE/ME candidates. So this decision is also of no help to the petitioner.
16. The Full Bench decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of Smt. Jayshree (supra) with which we respectfully agree, fully supports the respondents. We, therefore hold that B.Ed. is not the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of assistant teacher, primary, MCD.
17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Venkatraman, vehemently contended that notwithstanding the existence of Recruitment Rules, 1980, the MCD has been recruiting primary teachers from amongst the B.Ed. degree holders till as late as 1998 so now the respondents are estopped from de-barring the petitioners from forthcoming competitive examination for the posts of assistant teacher, primary. It is no doubt true that the MCD has been recruiting such candidates to the post of primary teacher in the past. It may be that in past the MCD was not getting sufficient number of candidates holding ETE/JBT diplomas and therefore they recruited some B.Ed. degree holders also to the post of primary teachers. It may also be that the MCD itself was not clear on the points as to whether B.Ed. is requisite qualification of the post of assistant teachers, primary and therefore on the basis of past practice they continued to recruit B.Ed. candidates for such posts. But a wrong practice of however long duration it may be cannot acquire legitimacy. On Realizing that B.Ed. is not the requisite qualification for the post of primary teachers, MCD can very well stop them from appearing in forthcoming competitive examination. The contention of the learned Counsel for the MCD that there cannot be any estoppel against law, in the circumstances, must be upheld.
18. From a perusal of the record, we find that the doubts as to the suitability/eligibility of B.Ed degree holder to the post of primary teachers began to surface in late 1996 when the Chief Minister in his meeting dated 5.10.96 with the Director of Education, MCD and other Officers expressed the view that the B.Ed. degree holders did not possess the prescribed qualification of primary teacher diploma as it does not normally involve any primary teacher education and training. The Chief Minister was of the view that the recruitment of B.Ed. degree holder to the post of primary teachers was not according to law.
19. Annexure 'F' to C.M. No. 11082/2000 in CW.No. 6798/2000, contains a note dated 10.10.96 by Sh. Jagdish Sagar, Principal Secretary (UD) regarding the said meeting the Chief Minister had with Director (Education), MCD and other Officers. On the basis of said note, the Commissioner, MCD, put up a proposal contained in his letter No. F.33/Edu./2796/C&C dated 4.12.96 for recruitment of the candidates with professional qualification ETE/JBT from DIETs/Jamia Milia Islamia for appointment as primary teachers. This proposal was accepted by MCD by decision No. 5575/G.W./Corporation dated 4.12.1996 of Corporation.
20. On November, 29, 1996, Dr. B.K. Passi, Vice-Chairman of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) wrote a letter to Sh. A.K. Guha, Director (Pry. Edu.) MCD, intimating that the professional view is that the teaching methodology at the Primary School level is qualitatively different from that of Secondary level. This letter contains an assertion to the effect that "there is a wrong notion that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than the elementary Teacher Training Certificate and that the B.Ed. (Secondary) degree holders are not professionally prepared to teach the primary classes. But the B.Ed. (Elementary) is suitable and appropriate for teaching at the elementary level".
21. On record there is a letter dated 31.8.2000 written by Mr. Amar Singh, Dy. Secretary, DSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Assistant Commissioner (Edn.) MCD whereby later was asked to clarify whether one year B.Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible for recruitment to the post of assistant teacher primary under the recruitment rules. In reply to this letter Mr. K.S. Mehra, Add. Commissioner, MCD sent a D.O.No. Addl.CM(H&E)/2000/DEC/TRE dated 14th September, 2000 to the Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) intimating him that the position in this regard is 'self explanatory'. We fail to understand what the Addl. Commissioner meant by sending such a vague reply. It is distressing to note that the Additional Commissioner wrote/sent such a reply despite the letter dated 29.11.96 from Dr. D.K. Passi, Vice-Chairman, NCTE to the effect that the B.Ed. (Secondary) degree holder are not professionally prepared to teach the primary classes.
22. There is another letter No. F8(1)/Exam Cell/SCERT/1152 dated 17.11.2000 written by Dr. Bhupendra Singh, Jt. Director-Cum-Controller of Exams, SCERT, to the Dy. Education Officer, Teacher Recruitment Cell, Education Department, MCD, intimating that--
"I am to inform you that ETE curriculum has been specially developed by SCERT to prepare teachers for elementary stage of education with the help of experts in the field of primary education. It is based on the development of competencies, skills, values, professional attitude which an elementary school teacher is required to essentially possess to perform his/her duties most effectively in primary schools to psychologically deals with small children affectionately as a guide, friend and teacher. One of the most important requirement of ETC curriculum is that every teacher trainee is required to undergo School Experience Programme of three months duration every year in MCD/NDM primary schools in first year and elementary Schools of Delhi Govt. in second year of the Course. The teacher trainees are exposed to challenges which they are expected to face real environment existing in MCD/NDMC Govt. schools at elementary level. The ETE students are best suited for job of primary school teachers in MCD/NDMC/Delhi Govt. Schools as they have been specially trained to perform their duties most effectively in such schools. The B.Ed. students who are specially trained for secondary and Senior Secondary level of Education are best suited for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers/Post Graduate Teachers in Secondary and Sr. Secondary Schools. They may not be suitable for teaching young children of primary schools as they have not been trained to psychologically deal with young children of primary stage."
23. It will thus be seen that the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) and State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) both have taken a consistent stand that B.Ed. candidates are not suitable for teaching primary classes for whom ETE/JBT courses are specifically designed.
24. Question therefore arises whether it is permissible for the Court to interfere when the professionals, who are specialist in the field have taken a particular stand in the matter?
25. We think the answer must lie in the negative. In the case of University of Mysore, H.H. Anniah Gowda v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. reported in 1965 SC 491, University had appointed a Board of appointments to select candidates to the post of Reader. The recommendations made by the Board were accepted by the University and the appointments were accordingly made. These appointments were challenged before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India on the ground that candidates did not possess the requisite qualification. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Court should not interfere in such matters if there is no allegation of mala fides against persons who constituted the Board. Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it will be wiser and safer for the Courts to leave the decision to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Court generally can be. In the case of M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , it was observed that the executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Court cannot and should not outstep its limit, unless policy framed is absolutely capricious not being informed by any reason whatsoever or offends any constitutional provisions.
26. In the present case the corrigendum dated 10.11.2000 issued in the Hindustan Times de-barring B.Ed. candidates from appearing in the competitive examination is based on sound professional advice, as already noticed. Both the NCTE as well as SCERT which are autonomous bodies at national and State level specialising in the filed of educational research and training have consistently taken the stand that B.Ed. is not the requisite qualification for the post of primary teacher (MCD). Therefore, in our view it is not open for us to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India.
27. The position of NIT (Nursery Teachers Training) diploma holder is no better. In their application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC being CM.No. 11377/2000 in CW.No. 6796/2000, the NIT diploma holder have pleaded that they have filed writ petition bearing No. 7238/2000 titled Sita Devi and ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., which is pending before the learned Single Judge. A copy of the said writ petition is annexed with CM.No. 11377/2000. In the said writ petition they have admitted in the opening para and in paras 3, 5, 8a, 8c and 10 that Nursery teachers are specially trained to teach pre-school classes like nursery and KG and also trained to teach class 1st and 2nd of the primary school. Clearly they have not been trained nor they are competent to teach classes III, IV and V which are also primary classes. So they cannot be considered for the post of primary teacher who have to teach classes I to V. It seems that the field of nursery teacher and primary teacher overlap to some extent inasmuch as both are competent to teach classes 1st and 2nd. But that by itself does not entitle the NTT diploma holders to complete for the post of primary teachers who have to teach classes I to V. While working as nursery teacher they may occasionally be asked to teach classes 1st and 2nd also but they cannot be placed in the category of primary teachers unless and until they have necessary education and training to teach all classes of primary level i.e. from classes I to V. From their own admission, it is clear that they are not competent to teach all the primary classes from I to V for which group ETE/JBT courses are specifically designed. Therefore they cannot be held to be eligible for recruitment to the post of primary teacher (MCD).
28. A fervent plea was made on behalf of both the NIT diploma holders as well as B.Ed. degree holders that disqualifying them for the post of primary teacher would severaly restrict their chances of employment/promotion. It is for the authorities concerned to frame appropriate rules creating better avenues for employment/promotion. This Court cannot re-frame or re-write the rules in this regard in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
29. In the result both these writs fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim stay granted on November 10, 2000 also stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
30. Writ Petitions dismissed.