Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Sahi Ram on 1 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 RAJ 1193
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 311/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Secretary,
Sanskrit Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate Sanskrit Education Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Sahi Ram S/o Shri Mukandaram, Aged About 42 Years, C/o Plot
No. 1 Khasra No. 215/143, Kesar Colony, Digari Kalla, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan R/o Village Nangali, Po- Thimoli, Tehsil Ramgarh,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur with
Mr.Anupam Gopal Vyas
Mr.Salman Agha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madhu Lal Devra.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order REPORTABLE Per S. Ravindra Bhat, CJ:
01/08/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan is aggrieved by the direction issued to it by the learned Single Judge to treat the educational qualification held by the writ petitioner (arrayed as respondent) as equivalent to the BSTC degree qualification.
2. The facts are uncontroverted and brief - the writ petitioner-
respondent applied for selection to the post of Primary Teacher (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM) (2 of 8) [SAW-311/2019] Level-I (class 1 to 5). It is not disputed that the writ petitioner was at the relevant time enlisted in the Indian Army; in the course of his employment, he acquired the AEC qualification. A Certificate evidencing that he underwent that course as far back as in 1991 has been produced. The State of Rajasthan rejected his application on the ground that he was ineligible. He approached this Court. The learned Single Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties and considering a previous decision of this Court in Mahendra Kumar Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5420/2014 decided on 10.8.2015), issued the impugned directions.
3. The State contends that the impugned directions are unwarranted since the BSTC qualification is a two year degree course whereas in the present case the writ petitioners hold the qualification in diploma course which was less than a year. It is contended that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is a primary regulatory body for teacher education and that its mandate binds all authorities in regard to qualification of Teachers. Learned counsel relied upon certain correspondence exchanged between Government of Rajasthan and AEC Training College at Panchmarhi to say that no information was available with that institution regarding the JBT equivalence with BSTC. It was thus argued that the observations in Mahendra Kumar Vishnoi's case cannot be considered as binding since the Court took note of a clarification issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. According to the counsel, the decisions of the RPSC do not bind the State of Rajasthan.
4. The counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon several rulings of various High Courts [(Shri Lajja Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM)
(3 of 8) [SAW-311/2019] vs. Municipal corporation of Delhi & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No.6650/2001, decided on 12.02.2002); Daya Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 5257/2011, decided on 20.01.2013); Union Territory, Chandigarh vs Daljit Singh Duhan & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No 12420/2003 decided on 12th August, 2003) and the order of the Supreme Court refusing to entertain Special Leave Petition against he direction in Daljit Singh Duhan's case.
5. It was further submitted that the Union Labour Department, in an exercise carried out with the Directorate General of Employment and Training, issued instructions on 4 th April, 2012 prescribing principles of equivalence. Particular reliance is placed upon the equivalence- with respect to the qualifications for educational instructor (serial No.135(d)) to submit that AEC Certificate is deemed equivalent, which is equivalent to qualification for a primary school teacher.
6. The above narrative would reveal that the question of equivalence of holders of AEC Certificate/Diploma in teaching, has been much limited in various States especially in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana and Rajasthan. The consistent view of the Delhi and Punjab and Haryana High Court has to be that the AEC instructor qualification is deemed equivalent to the essential qualification prescribed for the primary school teacher. In Rajasthan, before the ruling in Mahendra Singh Vishnoi, the Division Bench ruling which was Manoj Kumar Chahar V/s Rajasthan Public Service Commission and ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.110/2013 decided on 29.8.2013) holds sway. The Court had accepted the State of Rajasthan's stand which it presently interpreted (i.e.that AEC instructor's qualification is not equivalent to the BSTC degree (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM) (4 of 8) [SAW-311/2019] qualification). However, the RPSC issued a clarification pursuant to RTI query, which unequivocally admitted equivalence. Consequently, the view of this Court has followed the RPSC's stand or position. In Mahendra Kumar Vishnoi, it was held that the AEC instructor diploma is equivalent to the BSTC qualification.
7. In the opinion of this Court the view of the RPSC and that of the State cannot be at variance. The two authorities cannot speak in different voices over one issue. The State's insistence that NCTE has the last word and that its prescription of qualification for teacher education has to be accepted by all ordinarily would prevail. Yet, one is mindful of the fact that the qualification with which we are concerned today was pursuant to the course that was undertaken prior even to the establishment of the NCTE and even the enactment of the NCTE Act in 1993. Furthermore, the B.Ed. Course itself has undergone metamorphosis; previously the B.Ed. course was of one-year degree course. In these circumstances, the equivalence which the writ petitioner seeks is based upon pragmatic realities.
8. The Central Government was cognizant of these facts when through its Labour Department, the principles of equivalence were evolved. Those principles of equivalence are echoed in at-least two judgments including the Delhi High Court ruling in Lajja Ram (Supra). The principles of equivalence have undergone revision recently in 2012. This is significant because the equivalence was mandated even after the NCTE's establishment. In this regard, it would be important to notice and abstract the relevant portion of the Central Government circular of 4th April, 2012, which reads as follows:
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM)
(5 of 8) [SAW-311/2019] "DGE&t-5/1/2007-VG/OI Govt. of India Ministry of Labour & Employment Derectorate General of Employment & Training 3/10, Jam Nagar House Shajahan Road, New Delhi-110011 Dated - 4th April, 2012 To, Shri PP Singh Lt. Col GSO-1 MT-11, Dte. Gen of Mil Trg (MT)-11 Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) DHQ PO, New Delhi-110011.
Subject- Revision of Directory of equation of service trades with civil trades and guide to registration of defence service applicants for employment-reg. Sir, I am directed to invite your kind attention towards your letter No. A/73174?GS/MT-11 dated 30.03.2012 vide which you have forwarded the draft directory on Army Trades to finalize the Directory of Equation of Service Trades with Civil Trades.
In this context it is stated that measures suggested by this Directorates at Sr. No. 5, 60 and 123 has not been incorporated by your wing. Secondly, copy of instruction for the use of Guide to Army trades in Employment Exchanges, list of Army trades and Index of Army Trade with NCO Codes has not been received with the draft Directory of Army Trades inspite of our written as well as verbal communication. Due to the delay on your part this Directorate is not able expedite the matter inspite of responses received from the Navy and Air force wing.
Keeping the above facts in view, you are requested to do needfull at the earliest possible so as to obtaining approval of the competent authorities at DGE &T. Your faithfully (L.K. Srivastav) Jt. Director of Employment Exchanges Copy to:
Rajeev Sharma Gp Capt, Dir (Trg) for Dte Gen Resttlemeent, West Block No.4, R.K. Puram.
New Delhi-110066"
"INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF GUIDE TO ARMY TRADES IN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES
1. Introduction:. In 2004 DGE & T brought out a Guide giving civil equivalents of Army Trades for assisting Employment Exchanges in rendering effective assistance in placement of ex-servicemen. The Guide was revised in 1985, incorporating the latest changes. Many changes have taken place in contents of Army occupations and many new trades have been introduced in the Army since then. Further, the National Classification of Occupation (NCO) Code published in (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM) (6 of 8) [SAW-311/2019] 1986 has been on the pattern of International Standard classification of Occupation (NCO) Code published in 1986 has been on the pattern of International Standard Classification of Occupation (ISCO) 1966. It has therefore become necessary to provide to the employment exchanges fresh Guide giving civil equivalents of Army Trades.
2. Principles of Equation. In the present 'Guide', an attempt has been made to identify civil equivalents of all individual Army Trades taking into consideration the following factors:-
(a) Job contents of trades in the Army.
(b) Nature, type and length of training received by Army personnel.
(c) Educational and technical attainment of Army personnel.
(d) Occupational suitability of Army tradesmen for particular civil occupation and employbility in civilian trades.
(e) Aspirations of Army personnel in view of their rank and position in the Army."
DIRECTORY OF EQUATION OF ARMY TRADES WITH CIVIL TRADES S.No. Trad R Sevice Qualificatio Old Civil Trade New Rem e a Trade/Group/Bran n NC Equivalent NCO arks n ch/ Civil/Servic O Code No k Occupational Note e Co of NCO de 2004 No. of 19 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 135 Educa (a) AEC Instructor MA or BA Senior 2320.10 tion (Group X):- with B.Ed. Secondary Instru Teaches one or and ctor more academic Secondary (Speci subjects such as School al) English, Hindi, Teacher, Arts.
Geography, Political
Science, Public Senior
Administration, Secondary
Physics, Chemistry, and 2320.15
Mathematics as per Secondary
CBSE curriculum to School
students of Class IX, Teacher,
X, XI & XII at Corps/ Commerce.
Command HRDCs.
Prepare and delivers Senior Sec
lectures, assist and Sec Sch 2320.12
students in co- Teacher,
curricular activities, Science.
sets examination
papers, conducts M Com or B
examinations, Com with
supervises practical B.Ed.
work. Manages
Library, Laboratory,
Resource Room and Msc. MCA or
equipment, In charge Bsc/BCA with
of hostels etc. B.Ed.
Conducts Map
Reading-1, Army
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM)
(7 of 8) [SAW-311/2019]
Certificate of BA/B Middle School 3311.10
Education-1, Army Com/Bsc/ Teacher
English Certificate-1 MCA
classes.
(b) AEC
Instructor (Group
Y):-
Teaches classes in
particular subject
area such as
Science/Arts subject
to the students of
Secondary School
examination as per Language
CBSE curriculum at Teacher,
Corps/ Senior
Division/Brigade Degree in Secondary
HRDCs. Conducts Specified and
test, supervise Language Secondary
examination, School
maintains student's Teacher.
records, In charge of
stores, lab, hostel
etc. Conduct Map
Reading-2 Army
Certificate of
Education-2, Army
English Certificate-2
classes.
(c) AEC Instructor
(Group X or Y):- 10+2 with Primary 3312.10
Teaches Diploma in School
Foreign/regional Teaching/10th Teacher
languages at AEC with art in
Training College & Teaching
Centre, Pachmarhi
and at
Corps/Command
HRDCs including
script, spelling
syntax, grammar &
pronunciation of the
language. Also
conduct exam for the
same.
(d) Unit
Education
Instructor (UEI):-
Teaches
students of primary
or elementary school
in regional language
or English/Hindi in all
subjects at
regimental HRDCs at
unit level. Teaches
Map Reading-3, Army
Certificate of
Education-3, Army
English Certificate-3
to students, allots
and corrects
homework, conducts
and assists tests,
maintains students
records, conduct
sports and extra
curricular activities.
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM)
(8 of 8) [SAW-311/2019]
9. It is quite evident from the above extract that for the purpose of equivalence of qualification to the post of Primary Teacher, a Unit Education Instructor (Serial No.135(d)) holding AEC training certificate/diploma course is deemed adequate; the holder of such qualification is equivalent to a primary teacher's qualification. This being the current reality, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference. There is no significant change in the circumstances.
10. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ 123-Ashutosh/-
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:23:52 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)