IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11409 of 2006 ACHRYA AND FAZIL SANGHARSH MORCHA & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with CWJC No.11501 of 2006 ACHARYA AND FAZIL SANGHARSH MORCHA & OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioners : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate M/s Bijay Kumar Pandey, Sanjay Kumar, Ajay Kumar Sharma, Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocates For the respondents-State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General-III Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate For N.C.T.E. : Mr.S.N.Pathak, Advocate ----- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 11th September, 2008 Since both these two writ petitions involve identical issues, these were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. We heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, the senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General-III for the State. 3. The legality and constitutional validity of Rule 4 sub- rule (v) of the Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik and Uchchatar - 2 - Mdhyamik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Seva Shartein), 2006, (for short, „Rules, 2006‟) published on 11th July, 2006 has been put in issue, principally clause (Kha) thereof. 4. The challenge is founded on the ground of unreasonableness by excluding the holders of Acharya and Fazil degrees, who, according to the petitioners, all along have been treated equivalent to trained graduates by the circular of the State Government issued in the year 1968. 5. It is also submitted that Rule 4 (v) is violative of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as provisions of the Bihar Rajkiyakrit Madhyamik Vidyalay (Seva Shartein) Niyamawali, 1983 framed under Bihar Arajkiya Madhyamik Vidyalay (Prabhand Awam Niyantran Grahan) Adhiniyam, 1981. 6. The respondents have sought to justify Rule 4 (v) on the ground that National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993, (for short, „NCTE Act‟) having come into force, it is incumbent upon the state government to prescribe qualification for recruitment of teachers in conformity with the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. 7. It appears that in exercise of the powers conferred under NCTE Act, the regulations have been framed entitled “National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools), Regulations, 2001 (for short, „Regulations, 2001‟). These regulations are applicable - 3 - for recruitment of teachers in all formal schools established, run or aided or recognized by Central or State Government and other authorities for imparting education including secondary and senior secondary stages. It provides for qualifications for recruitment thus: “Qualifications for Recruitment (i) The qualifications for recruitment of teachers in educational institutions mentioned in Section 2 above shall be as given in the First and Second Schedules to these Regulations. The qualifications prescribed in the First Schedule shall apply for recruitment of teachers for teaching school subjects. The qualifications prescribed in the Second Schedule shall apply for recruitment of teachers for physical Education. (ii) For recruitment of teachers for co-curricular activities such as work experience, art education, etc. existing qualifications or such other qualifications as may be prescribed by the concerned government shall apply.” 8. The Schedule appended thereto provides the following eligibility for recruitment to the teachers. Secondary/ High School Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) or its equivalent OR Four years‟ integrated B.Sc. B.E.d or an equivalent course. Senior Secondary/ PUC/ Intermediate Master‟s Degree in the relevant subject with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) or its equivalent. OR Two years integrated M.Sc.Ed. Course or an equivalent course. 9. We may say without any hesitation that the Rules, 2006 meet the requirement of eligibility prescribed in the Regulations, 2001. It is pertinent to notice that by Rule 17 of the Rules, 2006, all rules then existing have been repealed. Obviously, in view thereof, - 4 - neither circular of 1968, nor Rules, 1983 can be of any help to the petitioners. 10. As a matter of fact, there is nothing unreasonable in the Rules, 2006 that provide for the recruitment of oriental teachers that the candidates must have B.Ed qualification either from a recognized institution prior to the coming into force of NCTE Act or after coming its force, a B.Ed. degree from the recognized institution thereunder. In our view by not providing this eligibility would have been violative of the provisions contained in the NCTE Act and the regulations framed thereunder. 11. Writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil