Patna High Court - Orders
Parmanand Pintu vs The Union Of India on 29 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8346 of 2019
======================================================
Parmanand Pintu & Ors.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India & Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Manoj, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Madhaw Prasad Yadav (Gp20)
For Union of India : Mr. Anshuman Singh, CGC
For NCTE : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
For NIOS : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH
SHARMA
ORAL ORDER
11 29-08-20221. Heard the parties.
2. The present batch of cases, during the course of arguments, it has been pointed out by Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India that the right of children to free and compulsory Education Amendment Act, 2017 was notified on 9th August, 2017 which added up proviso to Section 23 (2) of the Act of 2009 as under:-
"Provided further that every teacher
appointed or in position as on the
31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.8346 of 2019(11) dt.29-08-2022 2/4 2017."
3. The proviso came into effect from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2017. As per the said Gazette Notification dated 9th August, 2017, the Amendment Act of 2017 came into force on 1st of April, 2015. Accordingly, the four years have been computed from 1st April, 2015 and therefore in the letter issued to the State Government by the Central Government on 3rd August, 2017, the cut of date was notified as 31.03.2019.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India was asked to clarify that if 31.03.2019 has been fixed as a cut off date in terms of the amendment, what will be the position of the candidates, who are to undergo two years training programme to be conducted by the N.I.O.S., which would culminate only after conducting of examination.
5. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while the training was completed by 31.03.2019 and the examinations were also conducted, the result has been declared later on. It is also brought on record that supplementary examination was conducted subsequently by 30.03.2020, result whereof was declared on 22nd May, 2020.
6. Keeping in view, the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vrs. State Patna High Court CWJC No.8346 of 2019(11) dt.29-08-2022 3/4 (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. in 2013 (11) SCC 58, the result which would be declared cannot be given a retrospective effect and, therefore, even if the training was completed up to 31.03.2019 since the result has been declared in March, 2019/May, 2020 i.e. much later than the cut of date of 31.03.2019, the very purpose of undergoing training has been put to naught.
7. Keeping in view above, learned counsel for the Union of India would clarify as to how the proviso added by Amendment of 2017 is to be read down to mean four years from the date the existing teachers are allowed to participate in the training programme as the training/result cannot be retrospective in nature.
8. It has been brought on record by the learned counsel appearing for the N.I.O.S. that in consultation with the Central Government and N.C.T.E. the pre-qualification for appearing in the examination of Dl.Ed has been relaxed by notification dated 27.07.2022 and a candidate who may have not have 50% of marks in the Intermediate would also be eligible to participate in the training.
9. Thus, a situation arises where the pre-qualification for appearing in the examination has been relaxed now in 2022, which was not available in 2017 or in 2019. These aspects Patna High Court CWJC No.8346 of 2019(11) dt.29-08-2022 4/4 required to be examined. However, before this Court deals with these aspects, it would be appropriate for the Central Government to come out with a clarification by way of an affidavit or otherwise.
10. List this case again on 26th of September, 2022 along with C.W.J.C. No. 16214 of 2019.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/-
Item No. 1.1 U