CWP No.11773 of 2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11773 of 2007. Date of Decision:18.8.2008. Deepak Sharma and others ............. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. ..............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Dr.ML Sachdeva., Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.KS Dadwal,Addl.AG Punjab for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.PS Khurana,Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr.RK Chugh,Advocate for respondent no.5. ***** JASWANT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of ten CWP bearing Nos.11773, 12946, 12949, 13682, 14600, 14872, 16273, 16609,17293 of 2007 and CWP No.10580 of 2006, as common questions of fact and law are involved. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of counsel for the parties, facts are being taken from CWP No. 11773 of 2007. By filing present writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider them eligible for appointment to the posts of Elementary Trained Teachers as they have passed ETT Course from the Institute for Teachers of Visual Handicapped, Jamalpur, District Ludhiana, and their diplomas have been considered equivalent to ETT Course of State of Punjab and National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as NCTE). CWP No.11773 of 2007. 2 Briefly, the facts are that all the petitioners have passed Senior Secondary Certificate (10+2) Examination from the Punjab School Education Board and some of them have even passed B.A./B.Com./B.Sc. examinations from different Universities. The petitioners have further got diplomas in Special Education i.e. Mental Retardation, Language, Hearing Impairment, Vocational Training and Employment etc., equipping them to teach physically handicapped students. Government of Punjab in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, issued advertisement dated 26.6.2007 inviting applications for appointment of 1569 teachers in the Primary Schools in Rural Areas by the respective Zila Parishads in Punjab. It was provided that last date for submission of applications was 20.7.2007 and the category wise comparative merit list will be displayed on the notice boards of Zila Parishads on 3.8.2007 and further that the final list of selected candidates will be displayed on the notice boards on 10.8.2007 and thereafter the selected candidates could collect appointment letters from the respective Zila Parishad Offices from 17.8.2007 onwards. Recruitment of these teachers in Primary Schools is governed by statutory rules known as the Punjab Panchayati Raj Primary Teachers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006 Rules). Petitioners considering them eligible, applied in response to the advertisement but their applications were not accepted because they did not fulfill prescribed qualification of statutory rules. In some cases, their applications were accepted and their names existed in the comparative merit list of the districts but they were excluded from the final select list on the ground of being ineligible. Hence the present writ petition. CWP No.11773 of 2007. 3 Respondents, upon notice, have filed reply and have stated that the petitioners do not possess the essential qualification prescribed under Rule 10 of the 2006 Rules for being appointed as teachers by the Zila Parishads. It is averred that the petitioners have passed a training course from an Institute which imparts special training to the teachers to give education to visually handicapped children, whereas the schools which have been transferred and for which recruitment is being made by the Zila Parishads are meant for normal students in a general school for which ETT/B.Ed. qualification have been prescribed in the 2006 Rules. It is relevant to mention here that while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 3.8.2007,this Court had directed the respondents to provisionally accept the application forms of the petitioners and consider their claims in the process of selection. Their result, however, was to be declared only on an express order by this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a memorandum of understanding had been signed on 19.1.2005 between the NCTE and Rehabilitation Council of India ( hereinafter referred to as RCI), operative initially for a period of three years whose one of the aims was to promote and sustain the inclusive education among teacher education and thus treat the teachers with diplomas in special education to be worthy enough to teach in general schools. To support this he relied on a letter dated 6.7.2006 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Course Coordinator, Training Centre for Teachers of the Visually Handicapped, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, confirming the equivalency of diplomas in special education (visually impaired) with ETT and JBTs of Punjab. He further relied on a letter dated CWP No.11773 of 2007. 4 19.5.2006 (Annexure P/5) issued by RCI, stating that the RCI approved diploma in special education at primarily level is equivalent to Elementary Teachers Training for primary teachers. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents stated that the posts in question are governed by 2006 Rules and petitioners do not possess the prescribed essential qualification and hence are not eligible to be considered for appointment. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and are of the considered view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of merit and hence deserve to be rejected. It is undisputed that the posts of Primary Teachers are governed by 2006 Rules. Rule 10 of the 2006 Rules lays down the essential qualifications which read as under:- “Qualifications.-(1)- No person shall be appointed to the Service, unless he,- a) possesses a Diploma in Elementary Teachers Training Course (hereinafter called the ETT) recognised by the School Education Board of any State Government or the Central Government or a certificate of an equivalent course from the Defence Services of the Union of India; b) is a domicile of the State of Punjab or Union Territory of Chandigarh; and c)obtains a minimum score of 100, as per the criteria laid down in the example given in sub-rule (3) of rule 11 of these rules. (2)In case of non-availability of ETT candidates, the candidates having B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and B.Ed. Qualifications from a recognized university or institution will be considered for appointment to the service. However, such candidates shall have to undergo orientation training of six months within a period of five CWP No.11773 of 2007. 5 years from the date of joining the service. (3)No person shall be appointed to any post in the service by direct appointment unless he possesses a certificate of having passed Punjabi language in Matriculation Examination.” It is further undisputed that petitioners do not possess a diploma in Elementary Teachers Training Course ( for short ETT Course). The main plank on which the petitioners are trying to build their case is that the Diploma in Special Education, which they possess is equivalent to ETT Course. In the present case since the petitioners were relying on the participation of NCTE in recognising equivalence of their diplomas with the ETT Course and on the other hand the State counsel refuted the same, the Court on the last date of hearing had impleaded NCTE as respondent no.5 so as to seek clarification on the issue of equivalence. At the time of hearing, it was undisputedly made clear that the NCTE vide its letter no.49-2/2005/NCTE(acad.) dated 30.10.2006 addressed to all the Secretaries of School Education of All States/UTs on the subject of equivalence had clarified that persons who have obtained special teacher training qualification from institutions recognized by RCI but not recognized by NCTE are not eligible for appointment as teachers in general schools. A copy of the letter dated 24.1.2008 addressed to the Director of Public Instructions (EE),Chandigarh,Punjab forwarding the letter dated 30.10.2006, is taken on record as Annexure mark “A”. It is a settled principle of law that it is not for the Courts to determine the equivalence of degrees/diplomas, which is best left for the Expert bodies to determine. In view of this opinion of the NCTE, a statutory body of CWP No.11773 of 2007. 6 Government of India created under the NCTE Act,1993 and occupying the field of teachers training and recruitment qualifications for teachers in different levels in schools, and the settled law, the claim of the petitioners must fail. Accordingly, the ten writ petitions mentioned above are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 18.8.2008 (Jasbir Singh) joshi Judge