AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief (s):-
“i-Respondents may kindly be directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner within a time frame.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner qualified Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-III Eligibility Test conducted in 2011 and was declared selected vide Annexure P/1. A dispute had arisen regarding the eligibility of candidates possessing B.Ed. degree, which was considered by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the case of Sanyogita Thakur and others Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.P. No.4529/2013, decided on 21.03.2013), in which it has been held that candidates with B.Ed. qualifications were entitled to consideration and counseling for appointment, and relaxation had been granted through a Central Government notification. Pursuant to the said directions and instructions issued by the Public Instructions Department, the petitioner, being a graduate with a B.Ed. degree and having qualified the eligibility examination, was found entitled to appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-III. A list of eligible candidates (Annexure P-3), who had approached the Court was prepared, but despite this, no action was taken in the petitioner’s case, whereas similarly situated candidates were granted appointments.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Sanyogita Thakur (supra), it has been settled by this Court that the process of counseling for recruitment for remaining posts of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-III shall be completed and merit list shall be prepared. Central Government notification is also there, wherein it has been categorically prescribed that relaxation has been granted and under the relaxation, the candidates, who are having B.Ed. degree, are suitable for appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg -III. Learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner fulfills all qualifications and vacancies are available, denial of appointment is arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when other similarly placed candidates have already been appointed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-III.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that although the petitioner was declared successful in the Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) for Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, she was not appointed because she did not possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed for the post. It is submitted that mere qualification in the T.E.T. examination does not confer any right of appointment. The State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 17 read with Section 95 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the M.P. Panchayat Adhyapak Cadre (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008, amended the eligibility criteria through a Gazette Notification (Annexure R-1). As per the amended Schedule-II, essential qualification for the post of Sahayak Adhyapak/Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III is Higher Secondary Examination with at least 50% marks along with two years Diploma in Education (D.Ed.). Since the petitioner possesses a B.Ed. degree instead of the mandatory D.Ed. qualification, she is not eligible for appointment.
Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Premlata Baishaya vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 805/2017, decided on 05.12.2017), wherein a similarly situated petitioner possessing a B.Ed. degree challenged non-appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that no evidence was produced to show that persons holding B.Ed. degrees had been appointed to the said post. It is also submitted that the School Education Department issued guidelines prescribing that the minimum qualification for the post is Higher Secondary qualification along with a two-year Diploma in Education and successful clearance of the T.E.T. examination. Since the petitioner does not possess the D.Ed. certificate, she is not entitled to appointment under the applicable rules and guidelines. Furthermore, the recruitment process was initiated during 2010–2011, while the present petition seeking appointment was filed only in the year 2019, after a delay of about 7–8 years. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches also. Lastly, it is settled law that mere inclusion in a selection list or qualification in an examination does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Hence, the petition deserves dismissal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by filing rejoinder denied the respondents’ claim that she was ineligible due to possessing a B.Ed. instead of a D.Ed. degree. It is further submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment in Sanyogita Thakur (supra), wherein similarly situated B.Ed. candidates were granted the benefit of appointment based on the Central Government notification dated 21.11.2011 granting relaxation in qualifications. The petitioner further relied upon the order passed in the case of Poonam Shukla and others Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.P. No. 6711/2013 decided on 20.09.2013], wherein this Hon’ble Court directed that the benefit of Sanyogita Thakur (supra) judgment be extended to the petitioner as well. Despite such directions, the respondents failed to appoint the petitioner for more than 10 years without justification. So far as the delay is concerned, it is submitted that there is no delay on the petitioner’s part, as the respondents were required to comply with the Court’s directions.
Learned counsel for the respondents by filing additional reply submitted that the petitioner, in the rejoinder, failed to disclose the name of any B.Ed. qualified candidate, who was appointed to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. The petitioner deliberately avoided addressing the Government Notification dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure R/1) and the order passed in the case of Smt. Premlata Baishaya (supra), supports the respondents’ stand regarding the required qualification. The petitioner wrongly interpreted the order passed in the case of Poonam Shukla (supra). It is submitted that the Court merely directed that the decision rendered in Sanyogita Thakur (supra) be applied mutatis mutandis and did not direct appointment of the petitioner. Further, the order passed in Sanyogita Thakur (supra) did not mandate appointment of persons lacking the prescribed qualifications.
Reliance is further placed on the order dated 08.08.2023 passed in CONC No. 590/2019 (Smt. Manjula Mishra Vs. Mr. Shobhit Jain), wherein this Court clarified that the order passed in Sanyogita Thakur (supra) only directs preparation of a merit-based select list and does not direct for order of appointment of unqualified persons. Lastly, the respondents contended that the petitioner suppressed material facts by not disclosing the earlier filing of W.P. No. 6711/2013 in Paragraph 2 of the present writ petition. On this ground also, the petition was stated to be liable for dismissal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Public employment must be made available to all eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed qualifications. The Supreme Court in the case of Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 711] has held as under:-
"36.We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 399 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this inflexible rules of principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or Lack public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master or norms. degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed for ever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled upon by such degree holders? what happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no court can afford to ignore. we end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post.
38.This Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 held that if an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law and rendering the appointment a nullity and principles of equity in a case of such nature would have no role to play; also that, sympathy should not be misplaced."
It is not in dispute that the petitioner possesses B.Ed. qualification and does not possess the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) qualification prescribed under the relevant Rules governing appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. The amended Schedule-II of the M.P. Panchayat Adhyapak Cadre (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 specifically prescribes Higher Secondary qualification along with two years Diploma in Education as an essential qualification for the said post.
The contention of the petitioner that merely on the basis of the judgment rendered in Sanyogita Thakur (supra), she became entitled for appointment cannot be accepted. A careful reading of the said judgment demonstrates that this Court had directed consideration/counseling and preparation of merit list in accordance with applicable rules. The said judgment did not lay down that candidates lacking the prescribed qualification were entitled to appointment as a matter of right. The subsequent order passed in contempt petition, i.e., Smt. Manjula Mishra (supra) also clarifies the scope of the judgment in Sanyogita Thakur (supra). Further, in the case of Smt. Premlata Baishaya (supra), this Court has already considered a similar issue involving a B.Ed. qualified candidate claiming appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and declined relief on the ground that the prescribed qualification was D.Ed. and not B.Ed. The petitioner has also failed to place on record any material demonstrating that any candidate possessing only B.Ed. qualification was granted appointment contrary to the Rules.
The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (HR) and another Vs. K. Poovarasan reported in 2026 INSC 581 / SLP(C) No.6845 of 2026 has held as under:-
“10.........The rationale behind prescribing an upper limit of qualification is both reasonable and equitable, namely, to provide employment opportunities to persons who, owing circumstances of life, could not pursue higher education. The State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not compelled to compete with more highly qualified candidates against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of selection. Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the Courts. Thus, when the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity.”
A person who has a B.Ed. qualification has been trained to impart teaching to secondary and higher secondary level of students. He is not expected to impart training to primary level students.
In order to appreciate the difference between Diploma in Elementary Education (it is called by different names in each State), and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), we look no further than the notifications issued by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) itself from time to time. The Appendix 2 to the NCTE Regulations, 2009 spells out as to what is the aim of Elementary Education. It is stated to be as follows:
“1. Preamble
1.1The Diploma in Elementary Education (D.EL.Ed.) is a two year professional programme of teacher education. It aims to prepare teachers for the elementary stage of education, i.e. classes I to VIII. The aim of elementary education is to fulfill the basic learning needs of all children in an inclusive school environment bridging social and gender gaps with the active participation of the community.
1.2The elementary teacher education programme carries different nomenclatures such as BTC, J.B.T, D.Ed. and (Diploma in Education). Henceforth, the nomenclature of the programme shall be the same across all states and it shall be referred to as the plans at Elementary Education (D.EL.Ed.).”
The same Regulation in its appendix 4 describes B.Ed as follows:
“1. Preamble
The Bachelor of Education programme, generally known as B.Ed., is a professional course that prepares teachers for upper primary or middle level classes VI-VIII secondary level (classes IX-X) and senior secondary level (classes XI-XII). The programme shall be offered in composite institutions as defined in clause the of Regulations 2.”
It is therefore clear that a B.Ed. course is not designed for teaching at primary level. Moreover, the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates for primary classes is in the teeth of several decisions of the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court has consistently held that Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.) and not B.Ed., is the proper qualification in Primary Schools.
In Dilip Kumar Ghosh and Others versus Chairman and Others [(2005) 7 SCC 567], the Supreme Court considered on the question whether B.Ed degree candidate can be equated with a candidate who holds training in Primary School teaching or in other words who is trained specifically for Primary Schools. The Contention of the appellants (in the aforesaid case who were B.Ed. candidates was that, their course (B.Ed.), equips them to teach Primary Classes. Their contention was rejected by the Supreme Court. In Para 9, stated as under:
“In B.Ed. curriculum such subjects like child psychology are not found. On the other hand, the curriculum is of a generic nature and deals with subjects like the principle of educational curriculum studies educational psychology, development of education in modern India, social organization and instructional methods, etc.”
Then again in Para 10, it was stated as under:
“..............For teaching in the primary school, therefore one must know the child psychology and development of a child at a tender age. As already noticed, the candidates like the appellants who are trained in B.Ed. degree are not necessarily to be equipped to teach the students of primary class. They are not trained and equipped to understand the psychology of a child of tender age.”
In P.M. Latha and Another versus State of Kerala and Others [(2003) 3 SCC 541], the argument that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) was rejected. Again, it was a case before the Apex Court, where B.Ed candidates, were claiming appointment as Primary School teachers on the basis of the claim that their educational qualification (i.e. B.Ed.) was even higher than the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.EL.Ed.) which was held by the other candidates. In para 10 of the said case, it was stated as under:
“We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post..............”
These findings were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi [(2003) 3 SCC 548], holding that though B.Ed. is a well-recognized qualification in the field of teaching, yet it is a training which equips a candidate to teach higher classes, not classes at primary level.
B.Ed is not a qualification for teachers at Primary level of schooling. The pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected from a B.Ed. trained teacher. They are trained to teach classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and above. For Primary level i.e. class I to class V the training is D.El.Ed or what is known as diploma in elementary education. It is a D.EL.Ed. training course which is designed and structured to impart skills in a teacher who is to teach Primary level of students. Therefore, by implication the inclusion of B.Ed. as a qualification amounts to lowering down of the quality of education at Primary level. Quality of education which was such an important component of the entire elementary education movement in this country.
It is well settled that mere participation in the selection process, inclusion in a merit list or qualification in T.E.T. examination does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment unless the candidate fulfills the prescribed eligibility criteria. Since the petitioner admittedly did not possess the essential qualification prescribed under the Rules, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to appoint her.
Apart from the above, the recruitment process pertains to the years 2010-2011 whereas the present petition has been filed in the year 2019 after an inordinate delay of several years. No satisfactory explanation for such delay has been furnished by the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, also suffers from delay and laches.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.