Gujarat High Court
Vasava Najanaben Amirbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 26 July, 2018
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14039 of 2011
VASAVA NAJANABEN AMIRBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the PETITIONER(s) No.
1,10,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,11,110,111,112,113,114,115
,116,117,118,119,12,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,13,130,131,
132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,14,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,
149,15,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,16,160,161,162,163,164,1
65,166,167,168,169,17,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,18,180,18
1,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,19,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,19
8,199,2,20,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,3
0,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,
54,55,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,7
7,78,79,8,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,9,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R)(71) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MS RITU GURU AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH H DAVE(5306) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 26/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Bhavyaraj Gohil, learned advocate for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Ritu Guru, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State.
2. In the present petition, the petitioners have prayed, interalia that : "(A) to hold that decision of the respondents to exclude and not permit students who have recognized Degree in Physical Education apart from graduation from appearing in the Teachers' Eligibility Test for Higher Primary Education in the State of Gujarat to be conducted on 28.08.2011 as illegal and unconstitutional;
(B) to direct the respondents to conduct Teachers' Eligibility Test for the petitioners and other identically situated qualified persons, who have recognized Degree in Page 1 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER Physical Education apart from Graduation in the respective subjects at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months;
(C) to direct the respondents to conduct Teachers' Aptitude Test for the petitioners and other identically situated qualified persons, who have recognized Degree in Physical Education apart from Graduation in the respective subjects at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months.
(D) during the pendency and the final disposal of the present petition be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct Teachers' Eligibility Test for the petitioners and other identically situated qualified persons, who have recognized Degree in Physical Education apart from Graduation in the respective subjects at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months;"
3. Somewhere, in the year 2013, the petitioners prayed for permission to amend the petition. The request was granted vider order dated 10.09.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners carried out amendment and incorporated additional prayers by means of Para9 (AA), which reads as under.
"9(AA) Be pleased to direct the respondent NCTE to take decision within a stipulated period of time whether to grant recognition to the Degree of Graduation in Physical Education enabling the candidates with very degree to appear in the TET and put the very degree at par with B.A., B.Sc, and B.Com."
4. To support and justify, the relief as prayed for in the petition, the petitioners have mentioned that they are graduates in B.A. or B.Com. or B.Sc. and after graduation the petitioners have undergone the course of Physical Education and on completion of such course, some of them are conferred Degree of Physical Education, whereas some have obtained certificate or Diploma in Physical Education.
Page 2 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER
5. From the narration of facts by the petitioners, it comes out that all 207 petitioners in the present petition, are not holding degree of Bachelor in Physical Education but many petitioners hold on the certificate or Diploma in Physical Education.
6. The grievance of the petitioners has arisen in the light of the provision under Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Rules or the guidelines framed by the Competent Authority.
7. The petitioners have relied on the provisions under the said Act of 2009 namely Section 7, Section 23, Section 29 as well as ScheduleI framed under Sections 19 and 25 of the said Act, whereby the norms and standards are prescribed.
8. The petitioners have also made reference of the Rules and guidelines framed by NCTE and the minimum qualification laid down by NCTE i.e. minimum qualification that a person, to be eligible for appointment as teacher in Class I to VIII, should possess. In this context, the petitioners have averred and stated in para 5.3 & 5.4 that:
"5.3 On 23.08.2010, in exercise of power conferred by sub Page 3 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, respondent NCTE laid down minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher in Class 1 to 8.
Minimum qualification for being eligible for being appointed in Higher Primary School i.e. Standard 6 to 8 is as under :
"(ii) Class VI VIII
(a) B.A./ B.Sc. and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1 - year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR B.A. / B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in acordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent ) with at least 50% marks and 4year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.EI.Ed) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4year BA/B.Sc Ed. Or B.A Ed./ BSc. Ed.
OR B.A./ B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 - year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND
(b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose."
In view of the minimum qualification so prescribed and extract of the same stated hereinabove, it is very clear that all the petitioners possess minimum qualification to appear in the TET.
The Notification with regard to minimum qualification is already annexed to the present petition by way of AnnexureB. 5.4 The obligation to conduct TET is upon the State Government through its Department of Education. NCTE on itself does not conduct such tests. It only lays down eligibility criteria, qualifications and issues guidelines through notification and otherwise in this regard.
On 11.02.2011, the respondent NCTE issued guidelines for conducting TET to be complied with by respective State Government and the State of Gujarat in the present case.
The important features of the guidelines are
(a) Para3 provides rational for including the TET as a minimum qualification.
(b) Para4 states that the TET examination shall be conducted by suitable professional body designedby the appropriate Government.
(C) Para5 is about eligibility to appear in the TET and same is as under:
"Eligibility Page 4 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER
5. The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:
i. A person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August, 2010.
ii. A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August, 2010.
iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State / UT which has been granted relaxation under subsection (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under the subsection.
(d) Paras6 and 7 provide for structure and content of the TET.
9. Having mentioned the said details, the petitioners made a reference of Government Resolution dated 27.04.2011, whereby the State Government made provision with regard to the eligibility criteria for being appointed as a primary teacher. The petitioners have claimed that according to the said Resolution only those persons, who hold minimum qualification with language Maths and Science, the principal subjects are considered eligible for appearing in "TET". Besides the said details, the petitioners have also averred in paras 5.11 to 5.15 that:
5.11 The petitioners state and submit that they have graduated in the respective subject from the recognized Universities in the State of Gujarat. Thereafter, they have also got degree in physical education as stated in Para2 of the present petition also from the recognized College and the recognized University.
Many of them have been pursuing postgraduation in Physical education from the respective Universities in the State of Gujarat.
The petitioners state and submit that the respondent State of Gujarat has adopted discriminatory attitude without any rational with them and other identically situated students who Page 5 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER have minimum qualification prescribed respondent NCTE to appear in the NET. In other words, students of physical education are yet or permitted to appear in the TET.
It is stated and submitted that TET has nothing to do with in which subject person or a student has minimum qualification. All those, who have minimum qualification, irrespective of their subject of study, has to be permitted to appear in TET. TET is a general examination and not a subject examination and therefore, not permitting petitioner students to appear in the TET that was conducted in the month of June and thereafter in the month of August is arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires, based on nonapplication of mind and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5.12 It is stated and submitted that decision of the respondent State of Gujarat not to allow petitioner students, who have graduated in respective subjects and thereafter have got a degree of physical education and therefore have minimum qualification as per the notification of the respondent NCTE dated 23.08.2010 and the guidelines issued by respondent NCTE on 11.02.2011, therefore, is violative of the provisions of Right of Children to Free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and same is therefore, illegal and unlawful.
5.13 It is stated and submitted that under the Right to Education Act, it is compulsory to have teachers in the subject of physical education. Therefore, those who are qualified to become teachers in physical education, subject to passing of TET cannot be denied online registration and permission to appear in the TET and attain eligibility which is a statutory requirement now to become a teacher. Therefore, refusal to allow petitioners to appear in the TET is absolutely unjustified, without any rational and on the face of it suffers from fatal discrimination. It is therefore violative of the provisions of the Right to Education Act as well.
5.14 It is stated and submitted that respondent State of Gujarat has issued a resolution dated 11.02.2011 laying down Teachers and Headmasters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary School (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2011. As per the very rules and regulations framed under Section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972, petitioners who are otherwise qualified to become primary teachers in Secondary and Higher Second Schools have to pass TAT. There is a different between "TET" and "TAT". As per the Rules TAT has to be conducted in a regular manner so as to make available pool of eligible teachers for being selected as and when required.
However, the respondents are not being conducting even TAT and therefore, denying eligibility to the petitioners to become teachers in Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools, where it is compulsory to have teacher of physical education depending upon the number of students. Therefore, not conducting TAT is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It also denies right to life with dignity guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also denied right to occupation and profession as guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution of Page 6 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER India without any and in absence of any reasonable restrictions. Therefore, not conducting TAT also is violative of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5.15 It is stated and submitted that when the Degree of Physical Education/s possessed by petitioners in additional to the Degree of Graduation in the respective subject/s is accepted as minimum qualification for appearing in the TAT, then not considering them as minimum qualification for conducting TET is also irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. By virtue of the amendment (pursuant to the order dated 10.09.2013) the petitioners have added para5.18 to support and justify the relief (amended relief) prayed in Para 9(AA), which reads thus:
"5.18 In the present petition, State of Gujarat has filed an affidavit that NCTE has not yet taken decision granting recognition to the degree of physical education so as to allow candidate which degree of graduation in physical education to appear in TET.
For last more than a year, respondent NCTE has not been taken decision in spite of the fact that few State in India have requested the NCTE to take a decision as the Degree of graduation in physical education is offered in few States in India.
NCTE is a statutory body and is under obligation even otherwise, independently of any request by the State Government, to take a decision in this regard. Identically degree of graduation in B.Com also was not recognized and having received request from the State Government, a decision was taken by respondent NCTE granting recognition approval to the degree of B.Com.
In decision on the part of respondent NCTE is a statutory failure and failure to perform obligation under the NCTE Act as well as Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009. This failure has resulted into frustration of Right to Education Act and Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
11. Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit and clarified the position with regard to the provision of NCTE Act, the Resolution and the position which obtains after the implementation Page 7 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER of the Act of 2009 (Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009) and the position in the light of the Rules and Guidelines framed by the NCTE and the eligibility criteria prescribed by the NCTE, being the body competent to prescribe rules, regulations, procedure and eligibility criteria for the purpose of the implementation of the said Act. In its affidavit dated 10.01.2012, the respondent No.1 has averred and stated in Para5 (from Page 137 to 138) thus:
"5. I respectfully submit that C.B. Ed. Is not one of the qualification for becoming Primary or Upper Primary Teacher. The Regulations of National Council for Teacher Education (the authority prescribed under the Section 23 of the Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009) dated 23.08.2010 does not mention C.P.Ed. As one of the qualification. The Regulation of NCTE dated 23.08.2010 is annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureR I. The necessary training qualification for becoming teachers in Primary or Upper Primary is either PTC (Diploma in Education) or B.Ed. (Bachelor in Education) and such other qualifications as prescribed in the said regulations. It can be seen that C.P. Ed., B.P.Ed. Or D.P. Ed. is not mentioned there. In fact the NCTE has asked for the opinion of all State Governments to include or not include C.P. Ed./B.P.Ed. And D.P.Ed. also as one of the qualification.
The letter of the NCTE is annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureR II. I submit that the Recruitment Rules of Government of Gujarat dated 27.04.2011 are to this extent, in violation of the regulation of the NCTE. In fact the State of Gujarat has been waiting for the decision of the NCTE on this issue. The decision to modify or not modify our Recruitment Rules would depend on the decision of the NCTE. I respectfully submit that since at present C.P.Ed./ D.P.Ed. Is not included as the qualification in the Regulation of the NCTE, the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET)for this category of candidates cannot be conducted at this stage. I submit that the decision to conduct TET for these candidates would be taken only after the decision of the NCTE on this issue."
12. Respondent No.4 - NCTE has also filed affidavit wherein the NCTE has explained the Page 8 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER position with regard to the persons holding qualification i.e. either Bachelor's degree or Diploma or certificate in Physical Education. Respondent No.4 NCTE has averred clarified and mentioned in its affidavit dated 02.11.2015, which reads as under :
"2. That the answering respondent respectfully submits that the qualifications in Physical Education such as B.P.Ed., D.P.Ed. And C.P.Ed. (which was changed into D.P.Ed. as per Regulations, 2009) are the field specific qualifications required for appointment of Physical Education Teachers. The course content and methodology taught in the physical education programme is related to sports psychology and physiology under which a student is expected to acquire skills of sports and become physically fit and impart the same spirit among their students. The general teachers possessing professional qualifications of B.Ed. D.EI.Ed., D.P.S.E. etc. are taught child psychology, school administration, educational technology coupled with methodology of teaching of school subjects like language, maths, science, social studies and other area specific subjects. The two types of teachers are totally different from each other so far as the study material, methodology and field in which they are expected to work. The two cannot be equated and the TET has not been made mandatory for physical education teachers possessing B.P.Ed., D.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. Qualifications.
3. That, further these qualifications viz. B.P.Ed., D.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. Cannot be treated at part with B.A., B.Sc. B.Com. Because those who posses physical education qualifications are meant for teaching in the field of games and sports and not in general streams. To sum up, it can be said that the B.P.Ed., D.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. Qualification holders cannot be permitted to get appointment as Vidhya Sahayaka being the very canvas of their qualifications is different from that of general teachers.
4. That, a proposal dated 11.08.2011 from the Government of Uttar Pradesh was received by NCTE, New Delhi for inclusion of B.P.Ed./ D.P.Ed./ C.P.Ed. as eligible qualification for appointment of teachers for classes 1 to V by making any amendment in Notification dated 23.08.2010 of National Council for Teacher Education. The NCTE, New Delhi considered the matter and decided that the request of the State of Government of Uttar Pradesh cannot be acceded to."
13. In this backdrop, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondents of not permitting the petitioners to Page 9 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER answer TAT/TET is bad in law. He submitted that so far as TAT is concerned, it is general examination and that therefore, all teachers deserve to be and should be considered to be eligible for answering TAT and the teachers holding degree or diploma / certificate in physical education should not be excluded. He further submitted that the government has, in its reply, stated that the State Government is awaiting decision or clarification from NCTE ad it would be obliged to act in accordance with and in consonance with the instructions and directions issued by NCTE and the criteria determined by NCTE. However, NCTE seems to have not taken any decision or has not conveyed the decision and the decision is not placed on record of present petition. With said submission, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the relief prayed for by the petitioners in present petition may be granted. He placed reliance on the decision in case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 171].
13.1 Per contra, learned AGP reiterated the facts and submissions mentioned in the reply affidavit by respondent No.1 and in the reply affidavit of respondent No.4 NCTE. He submitted that under the provisions of the Act of 2009, the State is Page 10 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER obliged to act in accordance with and in consonance with the rules, guidelines and eligibility criteria which may be determined by NCTE and that the decision by the State is taken in light of the guidelines and directives issued by NCTE and the eligibility criteria fixed by NCTE. He submitted that since the certificate or diploma in physical education (i.e. C.E.Ed./B.D.Ed. or B.E.Ed.) are not prescribed by NCTE as one of the qualifications, the State Government, on its own, cannot consider the said qualification as prescribed qualification or eligibility criteria. He submitted that if NCTE modifies the eligibility criteria and includes the said qualifications as eligibility criteria, then, the State would take necessary and appropriate steps in consonance with and in accordance with the decision by NCTE.
14. I have considered rival submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties and material available on record.
15. It is necessary to mention, at the outset, that the petitioners filed present petition somewhere in or around September 2011 (after 15.9.2011) and essentially prayed that the petitioners should not be excluded and they should be permitted to appear in the teachers' Page 11 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER eligibility test which was to be conducted in August 2011.
15.1 From the relief prayed for in paragraph No.10(A), it becomes clear that the date on which the petition came to be filed, TET which was to be conducted on 28.8.2011 was already conducted and the petition came to be filed after the test was conducted. Despite this fact, the petitioners prayed that they should be permitted to appear in the TET to be conducted in August 2011. At that time, the cause for which the petition was taken out did not survive or exist as on the date when the petition was filed.
15.2 Therefore, the need or occasion to consider/grant the said relief did not survive.
15.3 After the petition came to be filed, other 7 years have passed. Under the circumstances, the relief prayed for in paragraph No.10(A) of the petition does not survive and it is rendered infructuous. Actually, it was rendered infructuous even as on the date when the petition was filed.
16. Now, so far as the relief prayed for in paragraph No.10(B) to 10(E) are concerned, it is relevant to note that in present petition, the Page 12 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER rules and/or guidelines and/or directives framed by NCTE with regard to eligibility criteria are not challenged by present petitioners.
16.1 Besides this, the eligibility criteria for TET/TAT prescribed by the respondents are also not challenged in present petition.
16.2 In this view of the matter, the relief prayed for by the petitioners have to be examined and considered in light of and on the basis of prevailing and existing rules, regulations, guidelines, directives and eligibility criteria determined by NCTE. Undisputedly, the respondent NCTE is the body, authorized and competent, to prescribe Rules, Regulation, guidelines, etc., more particularly eligibility criteria. It is an admitted position that under the said Act of 2009, the respondent NCTE has framed Rules and provided guidelines and prescribed eligibility criteria. It is not in dispute that the qualification in question i.e. the qualification which the petitioners possess, are not included/prescribed by NCTE as eligibility criteria. As mentioned earlier, the eligibility criteria or the guidelines or Rules are not challenged. On the other hand, the petitioners, undisputedly, do not possess prescribed qualification/eligibility criteria.
Page 13 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER 16.3 Consequently, unless and until, the rules, regulations, guidelines, directives and eligibility criteria determined by NCTE are modified by the competent body i.e. NCTE itself, the petitioners cannot be considered eligible and the relief prayed for by the petitioners in paragraph Nos.10(B) to 10(D) cannot be granted.
17. It is also relevant to note that even the resolution dated 27.4.2011 issued by the State Government is not challenged in present petition.
17.1 Besides this, by now, almost 7 years have passed since the said resolution came to be issued and implemented.
17.2 Therefore, otherwise also, there is no ground to upset the position which prevails since last 7 years. Any justification is not made out in the petition to disturb the said resolution. Moreover, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate and establish that said resolution is, in any manner, contrary to or in conflict with the Rules, Regulations or guidelines framed by NCTE or eligibility criteria prescribed by NCTE.
Therefore also, the said resolution, as mentioned above, cannot be interfered with.
Page 14 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER
18. There is one more reason in light of which present petition does not deserve to be considered viz. decision dated 12.2.2014 by this Court in Special Civil Application No.7769 of 2012 and other connected matters.
18.1 In the said decision, the scope of said petitions, the subject matter of said petitions and the relief prayed for in the said petitions, are summarized by the Court in paragraph Nos.1 to 6 of the decision. The said paragraph Nos.1 to 6 read thus: "1. Common question posed for consideration of this Court in this group of petitions is whether after coming in to force the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act for short), the Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) could be said to have been prescribed or recognized as one of the qualifications for appointment of primary teachers?
2. In Special Civil Application No. 7769/2012, Civil Application No. 13703 of 2013 is preferred for interim order to restrain the respondent authorities from making recruitment of Vidya SahayakPrimary Teacher for Classes 1 to 5 as per news paper report dated 25.12.2013 without first holding Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for C.P.Ed. candidates. In the said application, vide order dated 27.12.2013, the Court granted ad interim order restraining the respondents from making any recruitment of Vidya Sahayak Primary Teacher for Classes 1 to
5.
3. The State has, therefore, moved Civil Application No. 502 of 2014 praying to vacate the above said adinterim relief granted by the Court.
4. Since the Court finds that substantial time might be consumed in hearing and deciding the Civil Applications, the Court took up the main petitions for final disposal.
5. The petitioners claimed to have passed H.S.C. And C.P. Ed. Examination from the institutions duly recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) . It is their say that the State Authorities have consistently followed the policy of appointing candidates with C.P.Ed. qualification as Page 15 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER primary teacher for the last more than 20 years along with P.T.C. candidates. It is their further say that the Government have made provision to fill 5% of the vacancies of primary teachers by C.P. Ed. candidates. It is further case of the petitioners that even after the Act , there was no change in such policy of the Government. But suddenly, the Government issued resolution dated 3.5.2012 whereby the qualification of C.P.Ed. is deleted for appointment of primary teachers as a result of which the candidates possessing C.P.Ed. qualification are excluded from being considered for appointment to the post of primary teachers.
6. In the back ground of the aforesaid brief facts, the petitioners have challenged Resolution dated 3.5.2012 of the State Government whereby it deleted the qualification of C.P.Ed. which was prescribed as qualification for primary teaches along with qualification of P.T.C. in its earlier resolution dated 27.4.2011. While challenging the above resolution, the petitioners have prayed to declare them eligible and qualified to be appointed as primary teacher and entitled to clear the TET and prayed to direct the respondents to fill up at least 5% of the posts of primary teachers by the candidates possessing C.P.Ed. qualification at the time of making recruitment of primary teachers."
18.2 The submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners in said petitions are summarized in paragraph No.8. The said paragraph No.8 reads thus: "8 Learned Advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 7769 of 2012 submitted that the qualification of C.P.Ed. has long been recognized for appointment of primary teachers. Mr. Pujara submitted that after the N.C.T.E. issued notification in the year 2001 providing for qualifications for recruitment of primary teachers which included C.P.Ed. qualification, the State not only has followed the notification of N.C.T.E. for the last many years but also made provisions to fill 5% of vacancies of primary teachers with the candidates possessing C.P.Ed. qualification. Mr. Pujara submitted that even after the Act came into force, qualification of C.P.Ed. has continued to be recognized by the N.C.T.E. for primary teachers. Mr. Pujara submitted that the Schedule attached to the Act also provides for appointment of Physical Instructor which could be only from the candidates having qualification of C.P.Ed. Mr. Pujara submitted that N.C.T.E. is academic authority for the purpose of prescribing minimum qualification for primary teachers and vide notification dated 29.7.2011 has continued to recognize C.P.Ed. as qualification for primary teacher. As per the resolution dated 27.4.2011 of the Government, petitioners stood qualified for appointment as primary teacher. However, only on the basis of the communication of the NCTE inviting attention to the letter of the State of UP for inclusion of the C.P.Ed. as qualification for appointment as primary teachers for class Page 16 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER 1 to 5 and relying on the letter of Honble Union Minister, the State Government made change in qualification vide resolution dated 3.5.2012. Mr. Pujara submitted that such change made by the State Authority runs counter to the NCTE notification dated 3rd September 2001 and against its own policy of reserving five percent vacancies in appointment of primary teachers for C.P.Ed. candidates. Mr. Pujara thus urged to allow the petition."
18.3 After considering rival submissions, relevant rules, regulations and eligibility criteria prescribed by NCTE and the provisions under the Act of 2009, this Court observed and held, inter alia, that:
12. For the teachers at elementary level, following were the qualifications prescribed for two different categories of teachers:
First Schedule to the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers) Regulations, 2001 Recruitment qualifications for recruitment of teachers in educational institutions mentioned in Section2 of the Regulations.
LEVEL MINIMUM ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I ELEMENTARY i. Senior Secondary School or Intermediate or its equivalent; and ii. Diploma or Certificate in basic teachers training of a duration of not less than two years OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.EI. Ed.) i. Senior Secondary School certificate of Intermediate or its equivalent; and ii. Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training of a duration of not less than two years.
Second Schedule to the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers) Regulations, 2001.
Qualifications for recruitment of Physical Education in Educational Institutions mentioned in Section2 of the Regulations.
LEVEL MINIMUM ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Page 17 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER i. Elementary (i) Senior Secondary School certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent ; and
(ii) Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent.
14. As per the above Regulation, undisputedly, by notification dated 3rd September, 2001, C.P.Ed. was considered to be the qualification with other qualifications for primary teachers.
15. However, by the Act, the legislature mandated to prescribe minimum qualification by the academic authority and made it compulsory for appointment as teacher. The legislature also provided for relaxation in minimum qualification required for appointment of teacher by the State Government not exceeding five years.
16. As per the provisions of section 38 of the Act, the Central Government then made rules called Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (the Rules). These Rules came into force on 9.4.2010. As per Rule 17 of the Rules, the Central Government was required to notify academic authority within one month from the appointed date for laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Rule 17(2) provides that the academic authority notified under sub rule (1) shall , within three months of such notification, lay down the minimum qualifications for persons to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an elementary school. Subrule (3) of rule17 provides that the minimum qualifications laid down by the academic authority shall be applicable for every school referred in clause (n) of section 2 which includes school established, owned and controlled by the appropriate Government or the local authority. Thus, the minimum qualifications prescribed by the academic authority as notified by the Act and Rules are made compulsorily applicable for appointment of primary teachers in schools run by the State and the authority.
17. It appears that after the Act came into force, the State through its Education Department issued notification dated 15.4.2010 deciding to treat primary education in the State for the classes of 1 to 8 instead of 1 to 7. It was further decided to treat Classes 1 to 5 as lower primary education and classes 6 to 8 as Upper Primary Education. However, it also continued its policy of treating C.P.Ed. as qualification for primary teachers. As per resolution dated 15.4.2010, the State decided to fill up 3% of the posts of Vidya Sahayaks in all the districts from the candidates having qualification of HSC/C.P.Ed. and to fill 2% of the vacancies from the candidates having qualification of HSC/ATD. When the above resolution dated 15.4.2010 was in force, the NCTE issued notification dated 23.8.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 of the Act and laid down the minimum qualification for Classes 1 to 5 and Classes 6 to 8. By the Page 18 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER said notification, it also provided for passing of TET Examination to be eligible for appointment as primary teacher. Such TET Examination was made to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
18. The NCTE then issued guidelines for conducting the TET Examination with its communication dated 11.2.2011 annexure F. In the said guidelines, following is the eligibility prescribed for appearing in the TET.
Eligibility
5. The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the TET:
i. A person who has acquired the academic and professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August, 2010.
ii. A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August, 2010.
iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted relaxation under subsection (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act. The relaxation will be specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government under that subsection.
19. As per the above, person who has acquired qualification specified in notification dated 23.8.2010 of the NCTE would be eligible to appear in the TET Examination. Since C.P.Ed. is not the qualification prescribed in the NCTE Notification dated 23.8.2010 for recruitment of the primary teachers, persons holding qualification of C.P.Ed. shall not be eligible for appearing in the TET Examination.
20. On 27.4.2011, the State through its Education Department issued two different resolutions. First was for fixing norms for recruitment of Vidya Sahayak in furtherance of its policy dated 15.4.2010 for Vidya Sayahak in primary schools and the second resolution was for guidelines for TET Examination as mandated by the NCTE. In the resolution dated 27.4.2011 for recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks in class 1 to 5 while continuing with C.P.Ed. qualification, the State also provided for minimum vacancies of Vidya Sahayak at every districts with the candidates holding C.P.Ed. qualification and also provided for passing of TET Examination.
21. After the State Government issued above resolution dated 27.4.2010 laying down norms for Vidya Sahayaks including C.P.Ed. as one of the qualifications for primary teachers, it issued one more resolution dated 14.7.2011 providing for some amendment as regards norms of recruitment of Vidya Sahayak in upper primary section i.e. classes 6 to 8. It is after the above resolution of State Government, the NCTE issued one more notification dated 29th July, 2011 for amendments in its earlier notification dated 23.8.2010. By this notification dated 29th July, 2011, with other amendments, para 5 of notification was substituted by following para 5(a) and (b) Page 19 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER which reads as under:
5.(a) Teacher appointed after the date of this notification in certain cases: Where an appropriate Government or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).
(b) The minimum qualification norms referred to in this Notification apply to teachers of Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for Physical Education, the minimum qualification norms for Physical Education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulation dated 3rd November, 2001 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable. For teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State Governments and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualifications in respect of such teachers.
22. The State Government through its Education Department then issued resolution dated 3.5.2012 for amendment in the qualification provided in its earlier resolution dated 27.4.2011 for recruitment of teachers in Class I to V. By such amendment, it deleted qualification of C.P.Ed. for primary teachers and also deleted the provisions for 5% vacancies of primary teachers for C.P.Ed. candidates and further deleted provisions for considering marks of C.P.Ed. candidates in TET Examination. This resolution dated 3.5.2012 is the bone of contention in these petitions.
23. Though learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that it is not possible to think about education in primary schools without teachers for physical education and as further submitted by him even as on today in every primary schools, amongst other subjects, physical training (PT) is one of the subjects regularly taught as a part of education. Mr. Pujara submitted that in view of the above indispensable situation of requirement of teacher for physical education,NCTE decided to continue with its earlier notification dated 3.9.2001 which originally provided for C.P.Ed. qualification for teachers in elementary schools and therefore it substituted para 5 of notification dated 23.8.2010.Mr. Pujara submitted that clause
(b) para 5 of of notification dated 29th July,2 011 of NCTE in clear terms provides for minimum qualification for teachers for physical education as per NCTE Regulation dated 3rd November, 2001. By such reading, learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that C.P.Ed. is continued to be recognized as minimum qualification with other qualifications for primary teachers and even the State Government recognized such qualification and, therefore, it provided for 5% vacancies for C.P.Ed. candidates in every district. Mr. Pujara submitted that in view of substitution of clause 5 of earlier notification dated 23.8.2010, the State Government was not justified in making any change / amendment as regards qualification for primary teacher Page 20 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER prescribed by its earlier resolution dated 27.4.2011.
24. Having carefully gone through the provisions of the Act with the Rules and the NCTE Notification dated 23.8.2010 and dated 29.7.2011, the Court finds that the minimum qualification prescribed by NCTE under the Act take absolute field for recruitment of primary teachers after the date of notification issued by the NCTE.
25. As stated above, when the Act mandated by making provisions in section 23 that only those persons possessing such minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority shall be eligible for appointment as teacher unless relaxed by the State Authority, and when rule17 of the Rules makes it compulsory for every school run and controlled by the State Government and the local authority to follow such minimum qualification prescribed by the academic authority, there is no escape from the conclusion that only those persons who possess qualification as prescribed by the academic authority shall be eligible for appointment as primary teacher. C.P.Ed. being not recognized as one of the qualifications for appointment as primary teacher, no person holding C.P.Ed. qualification can claim to be eligible for appointment as primary teacher. As per the legislature intention, when NCTE has laid down minimum qualifications for recruitment of primary teachers, earlier notification of 2001 issued by the NCTE recognizing C.P.Ed. qualification for primary teachers will lose its legal efficacy and cannot be pressed into service. The notification of 2001 issued by the NCTE was on the basis of Regulation of 2001 framed by NCTE in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of the NCTE Act. Now when by the Act, the NCTE has prescribed new minimum qualifications, earlier notification of 2001 not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, cannot hold any field.
26. There is one more reason why C.P.Ed. qualification cannot be considered for recruitment of primary teachers. From clause 5(a) & (b) of notification of the NCTE dated 29 th July,2 011, it appears that the NCTE wanted to apply minimum qualification norms for recruitment process tobe initiated after it prescribed minimum qualification by its notification and, therefore, it provided in para 5 (a) that where an appropriate Government or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of its notification, such appointment may be made in accordance with the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations,2001. By clause (b) it is provided that the minimum qualification norms referred to in this notification apply to teachers of languages, social studies, mathematics,science etc. However in respect of teachers for physical education, the minimum qualification norms for physical education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulation dated 3rd November, 2001 as amended from time to time was made applicable. Therefore, clause 5(b) is required to be read so as to apply to recruitment process initiated prior to notification issued under the Act.
27. The above such being the provisions made in respect of Page 21 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER advertisement already issued for appointment of primary teachers prior to NCTE notification issued after coming into force of Act, the submissions made by the learned advocate Mr. Pujara that the C.P.Ed. qualification has still continued to be recognized by virtue of para 5(a) and (b) cannot be accepted.
28. Learned advocate Mr. Champaneri and learned AGP Mr. Raval were right in submitting that considering the schedule attached with the Act, the legislature has not intended to appoint any teacher for physical education for Classes 1 to 5 and therefore provision is made for part time instructors for health and physical education only for Classes 6 to 8.
29. In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. HA Shah, Under Secretary, Education Department as also in the affidavit of Mr. Bipinchandra M. Ninama, Administrative Officer (Legal) Directorate of Primary Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, the State Authorities have come out with clear stand that the considering the provisions made in the schedule for teacher student ratio in different subjects for classes 1 to 5 and the provision of Part Time Instructor only in classes 6 to 8 and C. P.Ed. Having not been prescribed by NCTE as qualification for primary teacher, the cannot be considered eligible for appointment as teacher.
30. Learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the claim of the petitioner for head teacher in Special Civil Application No. 1941 of 2012 has held and observed in oral order dated 10.7.2012 in para 4.0 as under:
4.0 Affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 wherein it is stated that the C.P.Ed/B.P. Ed/D.P.Ed, are not one of the qualifications even for becoming primary or Upper primary teacher. The Regulations of National Council for Teacher Education dated 23.08.2010 does not mention C.P.Ed, B.P. Ed/D.P.Ed as one of the qualifications.
The necessary training qualification for becoming teachers in Primary/Upper Primary is either PTC ( Diploma in Education) or B.Ed ( Bachelor in Education) and such other qualification as prescribed in the said regulations. Since at present C.P.Ed/B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed is not included as the qualification in the Regulation of the NCTE for appointment of teacher, it is not possible to prescribe these qualifications for Head Teachers because the Head Teacher shall have to inspect the teachers teaching in the class as well as he has to evaluate the result of each teacher of the school and hence, petitioners cannot be allowed to appear for the said examination. Hence, petitioners having possessed degree of B.P. Ed and D.P.Ed is not entitled for the post of Head Teacher as the petitioners are not having required qualification to fill up the form. The contention raised by the petitioner is misconceived. All the qualifications are required to be decided by the expert committee and this Court cannot substitute such onion. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
31. Above said view of learned Single Judge was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1062 of 2012vide oral judgment dated 28.2.2013. Observation made in para 4 are quoted as under:
Page 22 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER
4. In the field of education, what will be the proper qualification should be left to the academicians and this Court cannot sit in appeal over such decision, nor this Court will substitute its own wisdom as against the wisdom of the educationists. When the authorities, on account of the certain qualifications recognized by the NCTE, has not included the qualification of C.P.Ed./B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed., as qualifications for Head Teacher, the decision cannot be said to be arbitrary, which may call for interference.
32. The contention of Mr. Pujara in connection with clause (b) of para 5 of notification of NCTE dated 29th July, 2011 is not acceptable also for additional reason that the NCTE has made TET Examination compulsory for the persons eligible as per the norms of qualification for appointment as a teacher in exercise of the powers under sec.23 of the Children Education Act, the petitioners since not fulfilling minimum qualification prescribed by NCTE vide notification dated 23.8.2010 are not eligible to appear in TET Examination.
Consequently, they shall not be eligible for appointment as a teacher after NCTE prescribed minimum qualification. The Court finds that since the resolution dated 3.5.2012 annexure K is in consonance with NCTE notification dated 29th August, 2010 followed by notification dated 29th July, 2011 and State Government is just implementing authority as stated in the affidavits filed by the learned Under Secretary and Administrator on behalf of the State Authority, decision taken by the State Government to exclude the qualification of C.P.Ed. for recruitment of teachers for classes 1 to 5, the prayers of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
33. In the case of reported in 2013(10) SCC 519, Honble the Supreme Court held and observed in paragraph 22,25 and 31 as under:
22. We have elaborately referred to various statutory provisions which would clearly indicate that the UGC as an expert body has been entrusted by UGC Act the general duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. It is also duty bound to perform such functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India. The UGC has also got the power to define the qualification that should ordinarily be required for any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University and to regulate the maintenance of standards and coordination of work and faculties in the Universities.
25. UGC, in exercise of its powers conferred under clauses
(e) and (g) of Section 26(1) of the UGC Act, issued the UGC (Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for Maintenance of Standards of Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. Clause 3.3.1 of the Regulation specifically states the NET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and for appointment of Assistant Professors in the Universities/ Colleges/ Institutions. Clause 4.4.1 stipulates that before fulfilling the other prescribed Page 23 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER qualifications, the candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by the UGC. Therefore, the power of the UGC to prescribe, as it thinks fit¸ the qualifying criteria for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination etc. cannot be disputed. It is in exercise of the above statutory powers, the UGC has issued the notification for holding the NET on 24th June, 2012.
31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any qualifying criteria, which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
34. In light of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petitions are dismissed. Rule in each of the petitions is discharged. Interim relief if any stands vacated.\
35. Since the main petitions are dismissed. Both the Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. Adinterim relief granted in Civil Application No. 13703 of 2013 shall stand vacated.
36. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Pujara, Mr. Vijay Raval and Mr. Suthar for the petitioners requests to extend interim relief granted in Civil Application No. 13703 of 2013 to enable the petitioners to approach the higher forum. Learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval has objected to such request. The Court finds that interim relief which was granted and prevailing till today cannot be continued. However, considering the claim of the petitioners on 5% of the vacancies of primary teachers, the Court finds that for about 10 days, the State authorities could be directed not to finalize recruitment of primary teachers if Page 24 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER initiated to the extent of 5% of the vacancies of primary teachers. The State Authorities are therefore directed not to finalize recruitment of primary teachers to the extent of 5% of the vacancies of primary teachers till 25.2.2014.
19. From the said decision, it comes out that in view of the provision under the Act of 2009 and the regulations framed thereunder, more particularly National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers) Regulations, 2001 and other relevant provisions, the Court observed, declared and held that, according to relevant provisions, only those persons who possess such minimum qualification as laid down by academic authority shall be eligible for appointment as teachers (unless relaxed by the authority) and that only those persons who possess qualification as prescribed by the academic authority shall be eligible for appointment as primary teacher and that no person holding C.P.Ed. Qualification can claim to be appointed as primary teacher. The Court also observed in the decision that when the person is not eligible for appointment as primary teacher, question of considering such person as eligible for TET/TAT does not arise.
19.1 In this context, it is relevant and necessary to recall that in its affidavit dated 2.11.2015, the respondent No.4 NCTE has clarified and declared that not only D.P.Ed and C.P.Ed but also Page 25 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) cannot be treated at par with B.A., B.Com. or B.Sc. and said qualification are not prescribed as eligibility criteria/prescribed qualification.
19.2 Thus, when NCTE has not prescribed D.P.Ed. Or C.P.Ed. And even B.P.Ed. as prescribed qualification for appointment as primary teacher, the question of considering petitioners who, according to their claim, do not hold prescribed and recognized qualification and do not possess or fulfill prescribed eligibility criteria but they hold qualification i.e. D.P.Ed. or C.P.Ed. or B.P.Ed. Which are not recognised, cannot be considered and they cannot be declared eligible for TET/TAT unless the academic body modifies the rules, regulations and the prescribed eligibility criteria.
20. In view of the fact that the issue raised by the petitioners and the subject matter of the petition is covered by the decision dated 12.2.2014 in Special Civil Application Nos.7769 of 2012 and connected matter which was taken in appeal before Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1330 of 2014 which came to be dismissed by Hon'ble Division Bench, present petition does not deserve to be entertained at this stage.
Page 26 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER
21. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note and mention that learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the decision in case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. (supra).
21.1 However, in light of the facts of present case, more particularly in view of the fact that the provisions under the Act of 2009, the guidelines and directives issued by NCTE and the eligibility criteria as well as qualifications prescribed by NCTE which have material bearing in respect of the dispute and issue involved in present petition were not under consideration the said decision does not render assistance to the case of present petitioners because the facts of present case, more particularly the provisions which have material bearing on the subject matter of present petition, are materially different from the provision considered by Apex Court in the said decision. The relevant provisions under the Act of 2009 as well as rules framed under the Rules and the guidelines issued by NCTE with regard to the qualification and eligibility criteria prescribed by NCTE which are applicable in present case are materially different from the provision which were under consideration in the cited decision and the Rules/guidelines/criteria applicable in present case were not under Page 27 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER consideration in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. (supra). Therefore, the said decision would not render assistance to the petitioners.
22. It is also necessary and appropriate to note that which qualification (degree / certificate / diploma) should be considered as eligibility criteria and should be included in the list of eligibility criteria/prescribed qualification for appointment as primary teacher and for qualification to appear in TETTAT is a matter which falls within purview of academic body.
22.1 Even otherwise, such decisions have to be left to the better wisdom, experience and discretion of the academicians who are best persons to decide such issues.
22.2 This Court would not enter into the said subjects and would not issue any direction to include particular degree or certificate or diploma as eligibility criteria for appointment and/or for TET/TAT or for any other purpose.
22.3 Such decisions can be taken only by the academic body.
22.4 For the said reason also, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
Page 28 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER
23. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted at this stage, more particularly until the guidelines, directives, rules and regulations as well as prescribed qualification and eligibility criteria are not modified by the academic body.
23.1 However, so far as the relief prayed for in amended paragraph No.9(AA) is concerned, it would be appropriate to observe and clarify that the respondent NCTE would do well to expeditiously take necessary and appropriate decision with regard to the petitioners' request to grant recognition to the degree of graduation in physical education and diploma / certificate in physical education and to put said degree at par with B.Sc. B.Com. B.A. and to clarify that the persons holding degree of graduation in physical education would be eligible to appear in TET/TAT. For the said purpose, it would be in fitness of things that the respondent No.4 NCTE should take up the issue and examine the request by present petitioners in paragraph No.9(AA) and take necessary and appropriate decision and issue necessary guidelines and directions, as may be considered fit and necessary, as expeditiously as possible.
Page 29 C/SCA/14039/2011 ORDER With aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J) KDC/Salim Page 30