CW 7204/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1- Civil Writ Petition No.7204/2007 Rajesh Kr. Koli & (10) Ors Versus State & (4) Ors. 2- Civil Writ Petition No.7205/2007 Kailash C.Jat & Jagdish Singh Versus State & (4) Ors. 3- Civil Writ Petition No.7435/2007 Dinesh C.Sharma & (4) Ors Versus State & (4) Ors. 4- Civil Writ Petition No.7973/2007 Daulatram Pandey & (2) Ors Versus State & (4) Ors. 5- Civil Writ Petition No.7408/2007 Kamla Devi Yogi & (4) Ors Versus State & (3) Ors. Date of Order ::: 11/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ashok Gaur, Mr. Vijay Choudhary & Mr. JK Yogi, for petitioners Mr. Mahesh C.Gupta, Addl.Govt. Counsel, for State Mr. SN Kumawat, for respondent PSC Mr. Sanjay Pareek, for respondent NCTE Since all these petitions involve identical controversy, hence were heard together at joint request and are being disposed of by this order. CWP-7204/07 (Rajesh Kumar Koli & (10) Ors) & 7205/04 (Kailash C.Jat & Jagdish Singh Vs. State & (4) Ors) since contained of relevant pleadings are taken as leading case for consideration in dealing with cognate matters. Facts in brief - post of Primary & Upper Primary School Teacher (for short “Teacher”) to be filled up by direct recruitment is included in Schedule-I U/r 266(3) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (“Rules, 1996”) - last amendment CW 7204/07 //2// whereof was made vide Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2006 vide notification dt. 28/06/2006 in exercise of powers U/s 102 read with S.89 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – amended Cl.(3) to R.266 of Rules, 1996 duly substituted to earlier clause (3) being relevant herein reads ad infra: “(3) Primary & Upper Primary School Teacher (100% by direct recruitment). (a) General Education Level-(i) Primary i) Senior Secondary School Certificate 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.El.Ed.) Level – (ii) Upper Primary (Middle School Section) (i) Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent; and (ii) Diploma or certificate in elementary basic teachers training of a duration of not less than two years. OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or its equivalent” Posts of Teachers were advertised by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (“respondent- PSC”) vide advertisement dt.30/10/06 (Ann.10) – in pursuance whereof, all petitioners herein claiming themselves as eligible submitted their CW 7204/07 //3// applications to appear in written examination which they all qualified but were restrained from participating in course of counselling initiated by PSC, however, there was no letter of rejection but later on pendente instant petitions, respondent-PSC informed one of petitioners (Rajesh Kumar Koli) that since he has not qualified Bridge course, his selection stands cancelled. All the petitioners while holding academic qualification did their Two years Diploma Training from either Vidhya Bhawan Kala Sansthan, Udaipur or Udyog Shikshan Prashikshan Vidhyalya Parashuramdwara, Jaipur (for short, “Vidhya Bhawan” & “Parashuramdwara”) - both of which are Government institutions imparting Two years' Diploma Course and along therewith they appeared in Bridge Course introduced & conducted by State Government which was qualified by each of them prior to 1997. Dispute herein since relates to their training which has not been considered by State Government to be equivalent to Basic School Training Course (for short “BSTC”), is confined to limited consideration thereto. Before examining it further, it is appropriate to first have factual matrix herein below. CW 7204/07 //4// BSTC has always remained one of qualifications for the post of Teacher. State Government consistently issued circulars – few whereof have been placed on record – dt.24/11/82 (Ann.8), 10/08/87 (Ann.9) & 10/05/94 (Ann.3) to show that State Government always considered Two years diploma from Government institutions (Vidhya Bhawan/Parashuramdwara) as equivalent to BSTC and held such diploma holders as eligible for the post of Teacher. It appears that State Government introduced Bridge Course and pursuant to Order dt.10/05/94, applications were invited vide order dt.02/11/94 (Ann.5) from such holders of 2 years diploma Course acquired from Govt. institutions (Vidhya Bhawan/ Parasramdwara) so as to qualify Bridge course for making them eligible for appointment to the postof Teacher and vide notification dy.01/06/06 (Ann.6) State Government made declaration that those who qualified Bridge course pursuant to Circular dt.02/11/94 (Ann.5) be considered as holder of BSTC and eligible for the post of Teacher. Sole case of petitioners herein is that once they hold academic qualification & 2 years' diploma from Vidyabhawan/Parasramdwara with bridge course, which has been declared by CW 7204/07 //5// respondents vide notification dt.01/06/06 (Ann.6) holding them as eligible for the post of Primary/Upper Primary School Teachers, respondents were not justified in holding them in-eligible and their action is wholly arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents (State & PSC) have filed their separate reply, wherein it has been inter-alia averred that qualification & recognition can be considered only by National Council for Teacher Education (“NCTE”) and present diploma/certificate from Government institutions (Vidhya Bhawan/Parasaramdwara) with bridge course are not recognized by NCTE for appointment to the post of Teacher; in absence whereof, petitioners cannot be considered eligible for the post of primary/upper primary School Teacher pursuant to advertisement (Ann.10). Respondent PSC has also filed its separate reply to CWP-7205/07 (Kailash C.Jat & Jagdish Singh Vs. State) and in para 4 it has been inter-alia averred that Two years Diploma acquired from Vidhya Bhawan & Parasaramdwara with bridge course is not equivalent to BSTC and is not recognized by State Government as well as CW 7204/07 //6// NCTE for recruitment & appointment to the post of primary/upper primary school Teacher. Since NCTE has also been impleaded as party respondent in some of instant petitions, this Court directed NCTE to clear its position – in pursuance whereof, an affidavit on its behalf was filed on 19/11/08 in CWP-7205/07 (Kailash Chand Jat & Jagdish Singh Vs. State) - para 3 whereof reads ad infra: “3. That NCTE has started recognizing teacher Education institutions from the session 1996-97. The recognition status of degree, diploma, certificate, etc., awarded prior to this date by University/ State Government may be got verified from the concerned University/State Government or Association of Indian Universities 16, Kotla Marg, New Delhi. The same information has been supplied to one Shri Dinesh Chandra Sharma, which has been sought under RTI Act on 13/11/2007. A photo copy which is a true & correct photocopy of the original, of the letter dated 13/11/2007 is submitted herein & marked as Annexure R-1.” From para 3, ibid, it is clear that prior to academic session 1996-97, it is for respective University/State Governments to take their own decision for grant of equivalence or eligibility for making such diploma holders eligible under Scheme of Rules, 1996 and as regards State CW 7204/07 //7// Government, no document has been placed on record to show that State Government has ever taken its policy decision at any stage holding that holders of Two years diploma Certificate from the Government institutions (Vidhya Bhawan & Parasramdwara) with bridge course introduced by State Government, itself, are considered as ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher or did not fulfill academic qualification U/r 266(3) of Rules, 1996. Government Counsel and so also Counsel for PSC jointly urged that since their qualification is not recognized by NCTE and so also by State Government; as such cannot be considered as eligible and their candidature has rightly been rejected pursuant to advertisement dt.30/10/06 (Ann.10). I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Facts narrated (supra) almost are not in dispute. All the petitioners herein initially did their Two years diploma from Government institutions (Vidhya Bhawan/Parasaramdwara). At relevant point of time, State Government considered them to be eligible for the post of Teacher as it is evident from CW 7204/07 //8// Circulars dt.24/11/82 (Ann.8) & 10/08/87 (Ann.9) being relevant are quoted ad infra: "बमांक प.12(15)िशक्षा-।/82/ िदनांक 24 नवम् बर 1982 िवषय: दो वषȸय संः थागत एस.टी.सी.के िविशं ठ पाठयबमो को िनयुिक् त हेतु पाऽता । उक् त िवषय के सम् बन् ध में लेख है िक िशक्षा िवभाग के सऽ 1982-83 से एस टी सी का दो वषȸय संः थागत पाठयबम ूारम् भ िकया है इसमे अल् प भाषा संः कृत उƭोग व पूवर् ूाथिमक के अध् यापको के ूिशक्षण के िलऐ िविशं ट पाठयबम ः वीकृत िकये है इस िविशं ट पाठयबमो का ूिशक्षण िƮतीय वषर् में होगा तथा ूथम वषर् में इन चारो िवƭालयो के कक्ष 1 से 5 तक के सामान् य िशक्षक ूिशक्षण ही िकए जाने की व् यवः था की गई है सऽ 1982-83 में इन िविशं ट एस टी सी पाठयबमो में ूवेश लेने वाले ूिशक्षणािथर्यो को ः पं ट नहीं है िक इस िƮ वषȸय अूिशक्षÖ र् में उ× âतीणर् होने के पँ चात उन् हे िनयुिक् कत हेतु िकन पाऽ माना जावेगा इस सम् बन् ध में िनदȶशानुसार यह ः पं ट िकया जाता है िक इन चारो िविशं ट एस टी सी पाठयबमो के दो वषȸय संः थागत पाठयबमो में उ× तȸण होने वाले ूिशक्षणािथर्यो को राजकीय /पंचायत सिमित व अन् य मान् यता ूाप् त ूाथिमक िवƭालयो में तृतीय वेतन ौृंखला के सामान् य अध् यापक के Ǿप में िनयुिक् त हेतु पाऽ माने जावेंगे इन ूिशक्षणािथर्यो को अल् प भाषा संः कृत उƭोग व पूवर् ूाथािमक के तृतीय वेतन ौृंखला के पदो पर िनयु िक् त हेतु ूाथिमकता दी जावेगी ।" *** "बमांक ए.139/14/मािव/ूा.िश./87/8305 जयपुर िदनांक 10-08-87 िवषय: राजकीय उƭोग ूिशक्षणालय परशुरामपुरा जयपुर एवं िवƭाभवन कला संः थान, उदयपुर की मान् यता के सम् बन् ध में उपरोक् त िवषय में िवभाग के ध् यान में लाया गया है िक पंचावत सिमितयां Ʈारा राजकीय िशक्षक ूिशक्षण उƭोग िवƭालय परशुरामƮारा जयपुर एवं िवƭाभवन कला संः थान उदयपुर से दो वषȸय ूिशक्षण ूाप् त ूिशक्षणािथर्यो को अध् यापको के पद पर िनयुिक् त नहीं दी जा रही है । अत: इस संबंध में िः थती ः पं ट की जाती है िक उक् त दोनो परीक्षाओ को राÏ य सरकार ने बी.एस.टी.सी. के समकक्ष माना है तथा उक् त दोनो संः थानो में ूिशक्षण ूाप् त अध् यापक पंचायत सिमितयो में सामानय अध् यापक के पद पर िनयुिक् त के पाऽ है । " Later on, some dispute arose which went upto CW 7204/07 //9// Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Shyam Lal Joshi (1994(1) SCC 593), wherein it was observed that holders of National Trade Course Certificate were eligible for the post of Craft Teachers and they cannot be considered eligible for the post of General Teachers and however can be considered after they acquired prescribed training under relevant Rules. In the light of judgment of Apex Court (supra), services of such like Primary school Teachers being holders of qualification of NTC were terminated – against which they approached this Court by way of writ petitions which were decided by common judgment in Kesarlal Kumawat Vs. State (1994(2) WLC 650) wherein it was observed that granting equivalence is a policy decision of State Government and can be interfered with only if there is a violation of statutory provisions and finally observed that matter be referred to an expert body (SIERT), which may examine the syllabus of BSTC course and these two institutions (Vidhya Bhawan and Parasuramdwara) and may submit its report and if the SIERT comes to the conclusion that education imparted by Govt. institutions (Vidhya Bhawan & Parasuramdwara) is lacking from the syllabus as required for trained teacher, a condensed/ CW 7204/07 //10// abridged course shall be proposed by the SIERT which should be of six months' training and such applicants have to undergo such training and on its successful completion they can be considered equivalent to the BSTC so as to make them eligible for the post of teacher. It appears that after the dispute was resolved by this Court in Kesarlal Kumawat Vs. State (supra), expert body (SIERT) submitted its report and taking note whereof, State Government introduced Bridge Course and vide order dt. 02/11/94 (Ann.5) issued pursuant to Govt. order dt.10/05/94, applications were invited from such holders of 2 years Diploma course acquired from Government institutions (Vidhya Bhawan/Paras ramdwara) so as to qualify Bridge course and make them eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher. Vide notification dt.01/06/06 (Ann.6) of State Government, those who qualified Bridge Course pursuant to Circular dt.02/11/94 (Ann.5) were considered as holders of BSTC and eligible for the post of Teacher. Circular dt.01/06/06 (Ann.6) – being relevant, extract whereof is quoted ad infra: "िॄज कोसर् - िवशेषािधकारी िशक्षा मुप-।। िवभाग राज. जयपुर के पऽांक पऽ 32(9)/ िशक्षा -193 िदनांक 10-5-94 Ʈारा िवƭा भवन कला संः थान उदयपुर में ूिशक्षण ूाप् त तथा वतर्मान में ूिशक्षण रत आशाथȸ की सामान् य एस.टी.सी. के समकक्ष करने हेतु िॄज कोसर् CW 7204/07 //11// कराये जाने की ः वीकृित ूदान की गई है। उक् त िॄज कोसर् में उ× तीणर् होने पर िवƭाभवन कला संः थान उदयपुर में उƭोग ूिशक्षण ूाप् त आशाथȸ सामान् य एस.टी.सी.के समकक्ष माने जावेगें अत: ऐसे आशाथȸ तृतीय ौेणी अध् यापक पद हेतु ही योÊ य होगें" Thus, vide notification dt.01/06/06 (Ann.6) State Government made declaration that those who have qualified bridge course pursuant to their circular dt.10/05/94 were considered as holders of BSTC and eligible for the post of Teachers and this fact remained uncontroverted from record that two years diploma/certificate holders from Govt. institutions (Vidhya Bhawan/ Parasramdwara) after having qualified bridge course as per declaration of State Govt. vide notification dt. 01/06/06 (Ann.6) they were made eligible for the post of Primary/Upper School Teachers. After qualification was substituted vide notification dt.28/06/06 (supra) U/r 266(3) of Rules, 1996 or prior thereto, no such policy decision was placed on record, being contrarily taken by State Government. As regards petitioners herein, after qualifying Bridge course conducted by State Government, certainly they became holders of qualification of BSTC in addition to academic qualification, and so, became eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher in terms of CW 7204/07 //12// R.266(3) of Rules, 1996. Submission made by Counsel for respondents that it is not recognized by NCTE, is of no merit, after NCTE having filed its affidavit pointing out that NCTE started granting recognition to Teachers' Education institutions from academic session 1996-97; and for recognition of all degrees/diploma, certificates awarded prior thereto session 1996- 97, it was for respective State governments or Universities to grant recognition – in absence of contrary policy decision of the State Government, while per contra, State Government through its Circulars dt.01/06/06 (Ann.6) (supra), took its policy decision that such holders of diploma having acquired from Government institutions (Vidhya Bhawan & Parasramdwara) plus bridge course conducted by Government, are eligible for the post of Teacher; in such circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that holding petitioners in- eligible on the premise of their training being not recognized by NCTE is not legally sustainable and action of respondents deserves to be set aside. However, it is to be mentioned that Scope of NCTE Act, 1993 came up for CW 7204/07 //13// consideration recently before Apex Court in Basic Education Board Vs. Upendra Rai (2008(3) SCC 432) wherein it has been observed that NCTE only regulates qualification of Teachers' Training institutes and not with regard to ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools, intermediate colleges & universities. Relevant observations are thus: “19. A perusal of the NCTE Act shows that this Act was made to regulate the teachers training system and the teachers training institutes in the country. It may be mentioned that there are two types of educational institutions - (1) ordinary educational institutions like primary schools, high schools, intermediate colleges and universities and (2) teachers' training institutes. The NCTE Act only deals with the second category of institutions viz. teachers' training institutes. It has nothing to do with the ordinary educational institutions referred to above. Hence, the qualification for appointment as teacher in the ordinary educational institutions like the primary school, cannot be prescribed under the NCTE Act, and the essential qualifications are prescribed by the local Acts and Rules in each State. In U.P. the essential qualification for appointment as a primary school teacher in a Junior Basic School is prescribed CW 7204/07 //14// by Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. A person who does not have the qualification mentioned in Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules cannot validly be appointed as an Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress in a Junior Basic School.” Thus, eligibility of primary/upper primary School teacher has to be decided by State Government and not by NCTE. As already observed (supra), no contrary policy decision of the State Government holding that diploma holders from Government institutions (Vidhya Bhawan/ Parasramdwara) with bridge course as ineligible for the post of Teacher is on record – in absence whereof, petitioner cannot be considered to be ineligible for the post of Teacher under Rules, 1996. Two letters placed by respondents along with affidavit also refers to directions of NCTE holding them to be ineligible but there is no such contrary decision of State Government in this regard – in absence whereof, very decision taken by respondents in holding petitioners herein as in-eligible, being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution is not legally sustainable and also of R.266(3) Rules, 1996. CW 7204/07 //15// Consequently, these writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to consider candidature of petitioners holding them as eligible for appointment to the post of Primary/Upper Primary School Teachers, pursuant to advertisement dt.30/10/06 (Ann.10) and if find place in order of merit, they may be considered for appointment from the date their juniors were given appointment alongwith consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay, assignment of seniority in order of their merit etc, except pecuniary benefits for intervening period during which they have not actually worked. All exercise be completed to ensure compliance within three months. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.15/7204CW07-BSTC(5).doc