Sunita Singh Kushwa vs State of Madhya Pradesh

By way of instant petitions, petitioner has prayed inter alia under relief clause, that the respondent Jiwaji University may kindly be directed to conduct the special examination for the petitioner for B.Ed. Course for the academic Session 2011-2012, and pressed for the same, during the course of arguments. Facts necessary for disposal of instant writ petitions are that the petitioner who claims to have acquired B.A. Degree with English Literature with 54.66% and Post Graduation with 54.85 % marks applied for B.Ed. Course for the academic Sessions 2011-12 and after counseling she was allotted Institute of Allied Sciences and Computer Application, affiliated to Jiwaji University. She claims that without seeking her consent, her college was changed as ITM University, Gwalior and therefore, she filed W.P. No. 6803/2012. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court with following directions:-

In view of the aforesaid, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to allot another college to the petitioner which is affiliated with Jiwaji University, Gwalior. This direction be complied with within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In the meanwhile the examination of B.Ed. Course academic Session 2011-12 started on 29th December, 2012; however, since she could not procure the copy of order dated 20/12/2012 passed in W.P. No. 6803/2012, she could not appear in the examination which started on 29th December, 2012. Thereafter, in compliance of Single Bench order, she was offered list of colleges affiliated with the Jiwaji University, Gwalior to choose one for admission in B.Ed. Course. She chose to be admitted in S.R. College of Education, Morar, Gwalior.

She contends that for the academic Session 2011-12, respondent Jiwaji University be commanded to hold special examination for B.Ed. Course for her exclusively for the academic Session 2011-12, so that she may participate in the counseling for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade II starting from 17th September, 2013 to 26th September, 2013 as she claims to have already passed the eligibility test.

Respondent No. 3-Jiwaji University has filed return and submitted through its counsel that in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Hon. Supreme Court has held that student admitted to B.Ed. must complete mandatory period of 200 days'' course in B.Ed. as per norms of NCTE. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 further submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has not completed 200 days'' mandatory course of B.Ed. and therefore, she cannot be permitted to take the examination of the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2011-12. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed for and pressed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishnao Devi (supra) has held that unless the student has completed mandatory period of 200 days'' course in B.Ed. as per the norms of NCTE, such student cannot be permitted to take the examination for B.Ed. course.

Looking to the factual matrix of the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner does not fulfill the mandatory requirement of 200 days'' study of B.Ed. course syllabus and therefore, she is not entitled to take the examination for the academic session 2011-12 and hence, prayer to the effect that respondent Jiwaji University be directed to hold special examination for the B.Ed. Course for the academic session 2011-2012 cannot be accepted.

As regards, second contention that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the counseling for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade II, even if she does not fulfill minimum eligibility criteria of having B.Ed. Degree, as untrained teacher for the reason that other ineligible persons have been permitted, suffice it to say, that this Court vide order dated 26/03/2012 passed in W.P. No. 2077/2013 has already rejected this prayer without issuing notice to other side. The conclusive para of the order reads as under:-

So far as second contention that the petitioner, though is ineligible, may be permitted to participate in selection of contract Teacher, Grade-II, is concerned, it is very difficult to accept the aforesaid contention, as this Court while issuing a writ of mandamus can direct to the authority to act in accordance with law but cannot perpetuate illegality if it is happening with the respondent.

For the aforesaid reasons, at present we are not inclined to issue notice to other side on this issue.

Even otherwise, such prayer cannot be acceded to for the reasons that Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Act, 2009, provides for qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers which reads as under:-

Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.- (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualification, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government or local 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 subsection (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of 5 years.

(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.

A bare perusal thereof reveals that minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority authorized by the Central Government by notification shall be the criteria to be met by a person eligible for appointment as teacher. As per the advertisement, the requirement in appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak is B.Ed. Degree and this requirement of B.Ed. degree cannot be relaxed for adjusting the petitioner for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade II contrary to the law. Hence, the petitioner''s prayer in this behalf to allow her to participate in counseling as untrained teacher for appointment cannot be acceded to. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions sans merits are hereby dismissed.