Dismissed

Sarita Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC25 May 2018SPLA/474/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition seeking to quash the notice of appointment of Assistant Teachers holding B.Ed. (Special Education). The court upheld the lower court's view that B.Ed. (Special Education) is not an equivalent of the prescribed Diploma in Elementary Education for Classes I to V under NCTE Regulations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sarita Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

1/5

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 474 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Sarita Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Upadhyay,Santosh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18 April 2018 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the advertisement dated 23 January 2018 issued by the Secretary, Controller of Examination for appointment of Assistant Teachers has been dismissed.

¶7

The petitioner admits that the qualifications that have been prescribed for appointment of Assistant Teachers for Class I to V are as follows:-

¶8

1. Minimum Qualifications:-

¶9

(i) CLASSES I – V

¶10

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

¶11

¶12

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.

¶13

¶14

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El. Ed.)

¶15

¶16

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)

¶17

2/5

¶18

AND

¶19

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose".

¶20

The petitioner possesses B.Ed (Special Education) degree and it is sought to be contended that it is equivalent to diploma in elementary education. This contention has not been accepted by the learned Judge.

¶21

In paragraphs 9 and 11 of the judgment, the learned Judge has considered this issue and has rejectd the submission. The same paragraph are reproduced:-

¶22

So far as qualification required for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Classes-1st to 5th is concerned, the NCTE Regulation dated 23.8.2010 is specific. Although two years diploma in elementary education is a relevant qualification for appointment to the post, but the qualification of Bachelor in Education ( Special Education) is clearly not specified as an acceptable qualification for appointment to the post. A perusal of the notification would further go to show that one year B. Ed. Programme (Special Education) together with a graduation degree is recognised for appointment to the post of teacher in Classes- 6th to 8th, but there is no stipulation of the like nature in respect of teacher to be appointed for Classes 1st to 5th. So far as petitioner's contention that two year diploma in elementary education is equivalent to Bachelor's degree in Education (Special Education) is concerned, there are no specific pleading made in that regard. Law is settled that it is for the State or the appropriate authority to determine equivalence of the courses. There is no equivalence granted by the State of Bachelors degree in Education (Special Education) as being equivalent to two year diploma in elementary education. Such argument otherwise does not appear to be correct, inasmuch as diploma course and degree course have distinct course content, and unless provided otherwise a two year Bachelor degree cannot be equated with two year diploma.

¶23

3/5

¶24

The State has filed a counter affidavit in which a stand is taken in para-13 that the B. Ed. (Special Education) is not treated as a valid qualification in terms of NCTE Regulation for appointment to the post in question. The petitioner's argument, in that regard, therefore, cannot be accepted.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Clause-3 of the NCTE Regulation which deals with the training to be undergone. It is stated that those who possess qualification of B. Ed. are also eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher for Classes 1st to 5th till 1.1.2012, provided after the appointment such person completes six months specified training. The stipulation in the notification was clearly available only till 1.1.2012 and not thereafter. No notification has been brought on record, extending the benefit even after 1.1.2012. So far as para (b) of clause-3 is concerned, it refers to grant of six month training to D. Ed. (Special Education) and B. Ed. ( Special Education) after appointment. Clause-3 (b) does not specify the qualification for appointment to the post of teacher for Classes- 1st to 5th. It merely states that a person possessing D. Ed. (Special Education) or B. Ed. ( Special Education) who is appointed as teacher for class1st to 5th could be sent for six month specified training where after they acquire eligibility for such appointment. The Court finds substance in the argument of Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi that eligibility for appointment is provided in Clause-I of the notification. In case the argument of petitioner is accepted, then Clause-3(b) would provide for eligibility to the post of Assistant Teacher, even though it is not provided in clauseI. It would be relevant to notice that in the Rules of 1981 amendments have been introduced by way of 16th Amendment Rules, 2012. Rule-8, which deal with the academic qualification, has been amendment. Post of trainee teacher is created for which qualification prescribed is B.Ed. in (Special Education) and under Rule 14(1) (c) of 1981 such trainee teacher becomes entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Class 1st to 5th. Qualification of B.Ed. (Special

¶26

4/5

¶27

Education), ipso facto, is not prescribed/ provided for appointment to the post of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of a Junior Basic School for teaching upto Classes 1st to 5th .

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher for Classes 1 to 5 and the view taken to the contrary by the learned Judge is not correct. In this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Notification of the NCTE Regulation to contend that the B.Ed (Special Education) should be treated as equivalent to diploma in elementary education because it is recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India.

¶29

Sri Sanjai Chaturvedi appeared for Basic Siksha Adhikari states that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

¶30

Paragraph 2 of the Notification is reproduced below:-

¶31

“2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education. For the purposes of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed (Special Education), a course recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.”

¶32

This submission cannot be accepted. It does not provide that diploma in elementary education can be treated as equivalent to B.Ed (Special Education).

¶33

A bare perusal of the minimum qualification prescribed by the NCTE Regulation indicates that a candidate should have two year diploma in elementary education but the petitioner does not possess diploma and what she contends is that the B.Ed (Special Education) which is of two years diploma should be treated as equivalent to diploma in

¶34

5/5

¶35

elementary education.

¶36

We see no good reason to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any Authority has treated B.Ed (Special Education) as equivalent to diploma in elementary education.

¶37

There is, therefore, no error in the judgment and order of the learned Judge.

¶38

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶39

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 Sartaj

¶40

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶41

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Sarita Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sarita Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kishore Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Mithlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Singh @ Ram Babu Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Jai Shankar Gautam Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Hari Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others