Bombay High Court
Virendralal B. Vaishya vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)BOMCR551, [2003(97)FLR21], 2003(2)MHLJ64
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: H.L. Gokhale, Nishita Mhatre
JUDGMENT Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. The controversy involved in both these petitions is whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in service in the school where he was working on contract basis. This controversy has arisen because of the petitioner's qualifications which, according to the respondents, are not equivalent to the B.A. B.Ed. degrees that are a prerequisite for being regularised in service as a teacher.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows :--
The petitioner was initially appointed in the Government High School, Fudam-Diu by the Collector as an Assistant Teacher on daily wage basis. The period of appointment was of 89 days. After the expiry of this period pf 89 days, the petitioner was appointed afresh on the same basis for the period from 15th March 1995 to 30th April 1995. Again a break in service was given and the petitioner was appointed for a further period of 89 days from 26th June 1995. This process of being appointed afresh for a period of 89 days continued for three years. On 24th September 1997, the petitioner was appointed for the last time on the same basis for a period of six months upto 14th March 1998. During this period, the juniors of the petitioner were regularised in service. However, the petitioner's services were continued on contract basis.
3. The petitioner, therefore, filed Original Application No. 75 of 1998 before the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 15th January 1998 claiming regularisation in appointment and for a direction against the respondents to treat the petitioner as a trained Graduate teacher in the prescribed pay scale. By virtue of an interim order, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till disposal of the Original Application. On 12th March 1999, the said Original Application was disposed of. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the qualifications of the petitioner were not suitable or equivalent to the B.A. and B.Ed. degrees. The Tribunal negatived the claim of the petitioner that the degree of Rashtra Bhasha Ratna conferred on him by Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha as equivalent to B.A. degree or that the other degree of Visharad conferred upon the petitioner by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was equivalent to the B.A. degree of a recognised University. The Tribunal also did not accept the petitioner's contention that both the Shiksha Alankar degrees which were awarded to the petitioner by the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur and the Shiksha Visharad were equivalent to the B.Ed. degree. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularised in service as he was not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. However, while disposing of the Original Application, the Tribunal directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till such time as he was replaced by a regularly selected candidate.
4. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1545 of 2000 in this Court. While admitting the said Writ Petition, this Court stayed the impugned order and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in any of their High Schools. It appears that this order, passed at the time of admission of the said Writ Petition, was not implemented by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner filed a fresh Original Application before the Tribunal for implementation of the order of this Court. This Original Application was rejected as the Tribunal was of the view that invoking its jurisdiction was not the proper remedy and instead directed the petitioner to file a Contempt Petition to have the order of High Court implemented. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 363 of 2002 challenging this order of the Tribunal. A Civil Application was also taken out by the petitioner in this petition for a direction against the respondents to appoint the petitioner against a vacant post with the school rather than on a daily basis for a period of 89 days. This Civil Application and the two Writ Petitions are being heard together.
5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Gangal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was suitably qualified for being appointed on a regular basis as an Assistant Teacher and, therefore, to keep him on a contract basis over a period of three years was wholly unjustified especially since the services of the persons junior to him in service had been regularised. Mr. Gangal submitted that the petitioner had obtained Rashtra Bhasha Ratna as well as the Visharad which degrees were equivalent to the B.A. degree. He submitted that the Rashtra Bhasha Ratna was considered equivalent to the B.A. degree in the case of one H.I. Dal who was promoted as an Assistant Teacher from the post of Primary School Teacher and in the case of J.N. Oza who was appointed to the post of Head Master, High School.
6. Mr. Gangal then submitted that by letter dated 23rd September 1997, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) Languages Division, had informed the Department of Education, Administration of Daman and Diu that the Madhyama Visharad Examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and Ratna Examination by Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha have been recognised by the Government of India as equivalent to the B.A. degree and, therefore, to deny the petitioner regularisation on the basis of these degrees was wholly unjustified. The learned Counsel further tried to substantiate his case by placing reliance on a Circular issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu on 9th August 1971 to the Headmasters of all Non-Government Middle and Secondary Schools, informing them that the Ministry of Education, Government of India had accorded recognition to certain Hindi examinations for the purposes of employment to certain posts. According to the submission of Mr. Gangal, this Circular supports the petitioner's case that Madhyama Visharad and the Ratna are degrees which were considered as equivalent to the B.A. degree. He further placed reliance on the order of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short "NCTE") which specified that the NCTE Act, 1993 did not envisage granting recognition to examining bodies for conduct of examinations and award of degrees/diplomas and, therefore, the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not required to seek recognition from NCTE for conducting their examinations in the courses offered by them. However, the Act required that the NCTE recognises institutions running teachers training course.
7. The learned Counsel further submitted that the B.Ed. degree course was equivalent to Shiksha Visharad awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as also the Shiksha Alankar awarded by the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur. He submitted that the course conducted by both these institutions was as rigorous as that for the B.Ed. degree as it included : (a) Principles of Education, Methods and Practice of teaching; (b) Education psychology and statistics; (c) India and Western History of Education and current problems of Indian Education; (d) School Administration guidance and Health Education; (e) General Teaching Methods and History of Hindi language and literature and (f) Religious education, culture and current social work behaviour besides two subjects for practical teaching experience, the petitioner having appeared for Mathematics and Science. He, therefore, submitted that appointing the petitioner purely on a temporary basis for short periods at a time, great prejudice had been caused to him and it was necessary to regularise his service. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Recruitment Rules for Assistant Teachers specified three conditions for appointment; (1) Degree from a recognised University or equivalent; (2) Degree or Diploma in Teaching/Education prescribed for II grade Teachers/Teacher Educators and (3) Proficiency in the medium of the institution. Therefore, according to learned Counsel, the petitioner having obtained his M.A. degree subsequently from the Bhavnagar University, which is a recognised University, in July, 2002, he now satisfies the first criterion. As regards the second criterion, the learned Counsel submitted that the rule did not stipulate that the degree or diploma in teaching should be from a recognised university or its equivalent (as distinct from the first condition for graduation) and since the petitioner had the degree in education from the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, he satisfied the second condition also. There was no difficulty regarding the third condition as the respondents did not note any lack of proficiency qua the petitioner in the medium of instruction. In support, Mr. Gangal placed reliance on several judgments including the judgments in Ram Swarup v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1979 SCC (L and S) 35; Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, and Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 SCC (L and S) 1055.
8. As against this, the respondents submitted through their learned Counsel Mr. Kulkarni that the qualifications of the petitioner did not amount to degrees from a recognised University or the equivalent. He submitted that NCTE was required the recognise these degrees, and the degrees conferred upon the petitioner were only in respect to the Hindi language and, therefore, they could not be treated as equivalent to the B.A. B.Ed. degrees which was the qualification required for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher. As regards the appointment of H.I. Dal as Primary School Teacher and then his promotion to Assistant Teacher, it was submitted that he had been appointed on the basis of the Rules and the Policies then prevalent. Similarly, in the case of J.N. Oza, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu had approved of its appointment and, therefore, he had continued in service. The learned Counsel further submitted that it was only because of the petitioner's initial representation to the Collector, Diu on 22nd November 1993 wherein he had falsely stated that he had passed B.Sc. degree with Maths, Science and English in Second Division that the respondents had issued him a letter for appointing him as an Assistant Teacher on a short term contract basis. He submitted that this representation made to the Collector, Diu being utterly false, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in these petitions. He further submitted that the University Grants Commission (for short "UGC") had not recognised the Hindi Sahitya Sanstha, Prayag as one of the Universities under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act. The Rashtriya Patrachar Sanstha, Kanpur was also not recognised by UGC as it had not been constituted by an Act of Parliament and, therefore, could not confer any degrees. He, therefore, submitted that the degrees which the petitioner was conferred were not equivalent to the B.A. B.Ed. degrees and that, therefore, the petitioner had no right to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a regular basis. Mr. Kulkarni placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation and Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9; Union of India and Anr. v. Yogendra Singh, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 226; Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., and Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar and Ors., .
9. On perusing the petitions and annexures thereto, we find that the documents on which reliance is placed by the petitioner do not support his case inasmuch as the degrees which he had obtained viz., those of Madhyama Visharad and Rashtra Bhasha Ratna cannot be considered to be equivalent to the B.A. degree. Reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the Circular No. 38 of the Director of Education, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu dated 9th August 1971 is misplaced. The annexure to the said Circular specifies that the standard of the Madhyama Visharad examination which is conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to the standard of Hindi prescribed in the equivalent Hindi examination of the B.A. degree and not that it is equivalent to a B.A. degree from a recognised University. Similarly, the standard of Rashtra Bhasha Ratna degree conferred by the Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Simiti, Wardha is also equivalent to the standard of Hindi in the B.A. examination. Therefore, it can hardly be said that B.A. degree which is a prerequisite for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher had been obtained by the petitioner by appearing for equivalent examination. The petitioner has contended that the course of Shiksha Alankar degree which he attained in May 1994 from Rashtriya Patrachar Sanstha, Kanpur was as rigorous as a course for B.Ed, degree. It does appear that for this Kanpur degree, the petitioner was required to appear for two additional subjects other than the regular subjects. The mark sheets issued to him by the Rashtriya Patrachar Sanstha shows that the petitioner was required to appear for the Maths examination as well as the Science examination for practical teaching purposes. However, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner was required to answer any theory papers for Maths and Science and/or was only required to conduct the practical course for teaching of Maths and Science. Reliance placed on the letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources, Department of Education dated 23rd September 1997 also does not take the petitioner's case further as this letter specifically states that if no separate qualification for the Hindi level had been prescribed, the certificate or degree issued by the voluntary organisation such as Hindi Sahitya Sammelan or the Rashtriya Patrachar Sanstha could not be treated as equivalent to similar certificates or degrees awarded by a University of State Education Councils. The letter further states that the examinations conducted by these two organisations although recognised by Government of India as equivalent to the B.A. degree, this recognition is applicable for the level of Hindi only and not in any other case. This means that it is only for the purposes of teaching Hindi that these examinations would be equivalent to an ordinary B.A. degree of recognised University.
10. Further, the order of NCTE dated 27th February 2001 states that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not required to seek recognition from NCTE for conducting examinations for Shiksha Visharad. However, this does not in any way throw any light on the fact as to whether the NCTE has accorded equivalence to the degrees of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan with a B.A. degree of a recognised University. However, the order makes it clear that the NCTE Act requires recognition by NCTE for institutions running teachers training courses. It has not been brought to our notice that such recognition has been accorded either to Rashtriya Patrachar Sanstha, Kanpur or to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan for its teachers training course. Therefore, the petitioner's case that NCTE had accorded equivalence is not correct. The petitioner has failed to establish the equivalence of the degrees which the petitioner possesses with that of B.A. or B.Ed. degrees.
11. We are, therefore, in agreement with the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had initially been appointed on a short term basis only because of the mis-representation made in his letter to the Collector, Diu asking for appointment by stating that he had obtained a B.Sc. degree in Maths, Science, English and Hindi. In all probability, the petitioner would not have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher even on a short term basis if he had not stated incorrectly that he had obtained his B.Sc. degree. We do not find that there is any equivalence between the Madhyamam Visharad of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and the Rashtra Bhasha Ratna of Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha with B.A. degree from a recognised University. The petitioner has failed to establish that the Shikshan Alankar from the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was equivalent to the B.Ed. degree from a University. The submission of Mr. Gangal that the Recruitment Rules for B.Ed. do not require a degree or diploma in teaching from a recognised institution cannot be accepted as this would lead to ludicrous results. An encumbant to the post of Assistant Teacher would be emboldened to produce certificates from any unrecognised establishment professing to confer the degree without undergoing the rigorous training required for the B.Ed. degree. We have, therefore, to hold that the petitioner did not have a right to be appointed on a regular basis as an Assistant Teacher.
12. The judgments cited on behalf of the respondents are apposite. The qualifications for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher are prescribed by the respondents taking into account the fact that imparting education is of prime importance and must be done by a person suitably qualified. It is not the function of this Court to specify the qualification for being so appointed. If expert bodies like the NCTE of UGC do not consider the degrees of the petitioner as being conferred by recognised institution, it would not be proper for us to confer equivalence. This is because the NCTE would have obviously considered the rigorous training which a B.Ed. degree holder would be required to undergo.
13. We have been informed that the petitioner has completed his M.A. from the Bhavnagar University in July, 2002. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents, fairly stated that besides these disqualifications, the respondents have not found anything wrong in the petitioner's service with regard to his conduct or teaching methods. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner having got over one hurdle of having a degree from a recognised University, should be permitted to appear for the selection process when vacancies become next available. The petitioner would be entitled to demonstrate that his degrees of Shikshan Alankar and Shikshan Visharad are equivalent to B.Ed. degree by producing suitable material to the satisfaction of the respondents. In the event the respondents take the view that the second degree is also equivalent, then they will permit the petitioner to appear for the selection process ignoring the age bar. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any continuity in service or to claim any backwages, if selected. Petitions rejected. No order as to costs.
14. In view of the Writ Petitions being rejected, nothing survives in Civil Application No. 908 of 2002 which is disposed of as infructuous.
15. Certified copy expedited.