AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The first respondent intended to fill large number of posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) of various categories. The process of selection was entrusted to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short, DSSSB), the fourth respondent. Advertisement Nos.02/17, 04/17 and 01/18 were issued in this behalf in the years 2017 and 2018. Educational qualifications for the posts are also stipulated in the advertisement. One of the posts was Assistant Teacher (Primary) and 1394 vacancies were notified. One of the qualifications prescribed for that post is pass in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the fifth respondent.
The applicants in this batch of OAs contend that they could not pass the CTET on account of the fact that the fifth respondent did not hold the examination for that purpose in the academic years 2016 and 2017. Since they were of the view that their applications would not be considered, they filed this batch of OAs claiming reliefs in this behalf. Barring minor variations, the prayer in the OAs is - (a) to declare that the applicants are entitled to be considered for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary); (b) to direct the respondents not to insist on holding the CTET qualification; and (c) to allow them to acquire the qualification of CTET, whenever the examination is conducted by the CBSE.
The applicants contend that they would have certainly possessed the qualification of CTET, had the 5th respondent conducted the examination, and their failure to hold the qualification is not on account of any fault or negligence on their part.
It is also pleaded that the CTET came to be prescribed as an essential qualification in view of the mandate contained in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the Act), and though the in-service teachers are also required to acquire that qualification, the first respondent has been extending time for that purpose, year after year. They contend that the Government of Haryana has virtually done away with the said qualification, and under these circumstances, there is absolutely no basis for the respondents 1 and 3 in insisting on the possession of the CTET qualification, in the context of selection and appointment to the posts of Teachers notified in the advertisement. It is also stated that an examination was held by the 5th respondent after the advertisement was issued, and that some of the applicants have cleared the same.
Detailed counter affidavits are filed by respondents 1 to 3, on the one hand, and the respondent No.4, on the other. In their reply, respondents 1 to 3 stated that the OA is not maintainable, since admittedly the applicants do not hold the prescribed qualifications. They further contend that unless a candidate holds the prescribed qualification as on the date of application, the question of his or her case being considered, does not arise. It is also stated that the CBSE has been conducting tests leading to the issuance of CTET certificate, year after year, between 2011 and 2016, and thousands of candidates have qualified therein. According to them, whatever be the circumstances under which the applicants could not secure the qualifications, their cases cannot be considered, particularly when large number of qualified candidates are available.
Arguments on behalf of the applicants were advanced by Shri Naresh Kaushik, Shri Ajesh Luthra and Shri Anuj Aggarwal. They submit that though CTET is prescribed as an essential qualification, the fact that the applicants did not have an opportunity to qualify therein on account of the failure of the 5th respondent in holding the examination for the past two years, cannot be ignored. They submit that just as the Teachers who were already in service, are given an opportunity to get qualified in CTET over the period, they too can be given an opportunity to clear the test, as and when the examination is held. Reliance is placed upon certain notifications, and orders passed by the Delhi High Court.
Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma and Shri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that time and again, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that under no circumstances a candidate can be exempted from holding the essential qualification. According to them, the CTET is a qualification which was prescribed on account of the mandate contained under the Act, and no appointments can be made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act.
Quite a large number of posts of Teachers, in as many as 65 categories, are proposed to be filled up. Respective code numbers were assigned to them. The number of posts notified in various categories runs into thousands. The qualifications prescribed for these posts are, to a large extent, post-specific. However, one qualification which is common to all, is the one referable to CTET. The relevant stipulation reads as under:
"Essential:-
xxx xxx xxx
Pass in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
xxx xxx xxx"
This was prescribed in the light of the requirement contained under Section 23(2) of the Act. The relevant provision reads as under:
"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers
(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:
Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.
Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as on the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017."
From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that a candidate must possess minimum qualifications laid down by the academic authority authorised by the Central Government by notification, for being appointed as a teacher. The provision for relaxation is made in respect of the teachers who are already in service. The 5th respondent is the agency to conduct the examination leading to the conferment of CTET certificate. The plea of the applicants is that they could not clear the CTET on account of the fact that the 5th respondent did not hold the test during the years 2016 and 2017.
Before dealing with other aspects, an important fact needs to be taken into account. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, the particulars of the tests that were conducted by the 5th respondent over the past several years, are furnished as under:
Paper-I
Sl. No
Year
Regd.
Appeared
Qualified
% Qualified
1
June 2011*
794080
715050
97919
2
Jan. 2012 (Annual report 2012-13
483304
400775
21402
5.34
3
Nov. 2012 (Annual report 2012-13)
322187
271351
2481
0.91
4
July 2013 (Annual report 2013-14)
346996
286538
33184
11.58
5
Feb. 2014 (annual report 2013-14)
279954
230910
7839
3.39
6
Sept. 2014 (Annual report 2014-15)
232530
206145
24629
11.95
7
Feb. 2015 (Annual report 2014-15)
239961
207522
37153
17.90
8
Sept. 2015 (Annual report 2015-16)
250075
218843
40776
18.63
9
Feb. 2016* (Annual report 2015-16
747480
610695
114223
18.7
* Combined result of Paper I and II
Paper-II (SST and Math-Science)
Sl. No
Year
Regd.
Appeared
Qualified
% Qualified
1
June 2011*
794080
715050
97919
2
Jan. 2012 (Annual report 2012-13)
679748
584477
37561
6.43
3.
Nov. 2012 (Annual report 2012-13)
618436
524432
37561
7.16
4.
July 2013 (Annual report 2013-14)
704156
590087
44170
7.49
5.
Feb. 2014 (annual report 2013-14)
631341
519817
5589
1.08
6
Sept. 2014 (Annual report 2014-15)
526583
459268
12843
2.80
7
Feb. 2015 (Annual report 2014-15)
561706
470032
43034
9.16
8.
Sept. 2015 (Annual report 2015-16)
559239
484470
79572
16.42
9.
Feb. 2016* (Annual report 2015-16)
747480
610695
114223
18.7
* Combined result of Paper I and II
It is evident that lakhs of candidates were qualified in the CTET between June, 2011 and February, 2016.
It is fairly well settled that once an employer prescribes a set of qualifications for selection and appointment to a particular post, the question of permitting any candidate, who admittedly does not possess the essential qualification, to apply, does not arise. Public interest is of paramount consideration than the sympathy towards those who could not possess the qualification.
Even if it is a fact that the 5th respondent did not hold the examination leading to conferment of CTET in the years 2016 and 2017, it hardly constitutes any basis to exempt the applicants herein from holding the prescribed essential qualification. Once it is a requirement under the Act, the individual hardships hardly matter. Added to that, lakhs of qualified candidates are available and have applied. The applicants would acquire the right to be considered only when they possess the qualifications, and it is no part of the obligation of the respondents 1 to 4 to verify and ascertain as to why the applicants did not acquire the qualification.
Reliance is placed upon certain notifications issued by the respondent No.1, exempting the in-service teachers from holding the qualification of CTET. The teachers who are already in service constitute a class by themselves, and the applicants cannot insist upon similar benefits being extended to them. If such a course is permitted, the very stipulation of CTET, in compliance with the requirement of the Act, becomes redundant. When the effort of the State is to improve the quality of teachers and thereby, teaching, in the schools, individual hardships do not matter.
Reliance is also placed upon an order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.189/2016. That was a case in which a candidate responded to an advertisement issued for the post of Special Education Teacher, and though the result of her appearance in the CTET was not declared, she mentioned in the application that she is CTET qualified. She failed in the examination, and made a representation with the request to grant two years‟ time for acquiring CTET qualification. Apprehending that the request may not be acceded to in view of certain clauses contained in the guidelines of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, she filed an OA in this Tribunal, with a prayer to quash clause 4 of the guidelines, which prohibited relaxation. A direction was also sought to consider her case. The Tribunal has set aside the aforesaid clause, but refused to grant any specific relief to the applicant. Thereupon, she filed a writ petition. It is under those circumstances, that the High Court made the following observations:
"6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied if a time limit is fixed to enable the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as per procedure laid down in the Guidelines.
Counsel for the respondents enter appearance on an advance copy.
We find the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner to be fair and just. Accordingly, we direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to comply with the order dated 12.02.2015. We also direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties."
From a perusal of the above, we do not find any specific finding to the effect that it is not necessary for a candidate to hold CTET qualification. Therefore, the observations of the High Court are of hardly any help to the applicants herein. Through a catena of judgments, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the essential qualifications prescribed for appointment cannot be relaxed.
Another aspect is that in case the condition is relaxed in favour of the applicants, it would lead to two anomalies. First is that the candidates who are otherwise qualified, would face competition from unqualified candidates. The second is that the relaxation cannot be in respect of the applicants alone. If at all, it is to be granted, it should be also in favour of those who, though similarly situated as the applicants herein, did not apply, being convinced that they are not qualified. Added to that, the stipulation as regards possessing the qualification of CTET is not only in respect of a post in question. Hundreds of vacancies of Teachers of other categories have been notified. The relief, if granted on the lines prayed for by the applicants, must be extended to those categories also. Lakhs of unemployed candidates participated in the written test. If the relief as prayed for is granted, the entire exercise has to be redone. That would lead to disastrous consequences, in flagrant violation of a statutory requirement.
We do not find any merit in the OAs. They are accordingly dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.