RTET SARKARI NAUKRI News- राजस्थान हाई कोर्ट Chief Justice Bench ने शिक्षा मित्रों / पेरा टीचर्स को बगैर टेट / सीधी भर्ती के बताया अवैध -
See Judgement ->>>
UPTET
Shiksha Mitra , Para Teacher
अगर आप लोगो की कोई राय / टिप्पणी हो तो ब्लॉग पोस्ट में नीचे लिंक है , जरूर करें
राजस्थान
हाई कोर्ट के चीफ जस्टिस सुनील अम्ब्वानी और जस्टिस प्रकाश गुप्ता की बेंच
ने विद्यार्थी मित्र (उत्तर प्रदेश में इन पेरा शिक्षक को शिक्षा मित्र
कहा जाता है ) को बगैर टेट / डायरेक्ट रिक्रूटमेंट के सही नहीं माना और
स्पेशल अपील निस्तारित कर दी ।
उन्होंने शिक्षा में गुणवत्ता हेतु कई टिप्पणियां की और सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व निर्णय के कई अंशों को उद्धत किया
विद्यार्थी
मित्रों / कॉन्ट्रेक्ट शिक्षकों की सेकड़ो याचिकाएं सिंगल बेंच ने ख़ारिज
करते हुए उनकी सेवा समाप्ति को सही मन था , इसके बाद उनके सस्पेशल अपील पर
निर्णय भी उनके विरुद्ध आया , दुखदलगा लेकिन न्याय तो अपनी जगह है , अगर
भर्ती के कुछ नियम बने तो फिर उसका पालन
करते हुए न्याय ऐसे फैसले दे देता है , जो कई बार लोगो के लिए दुखद भी होते हैं
इस
निर्णय में कई टेबल्स टेक्स्ट फॉर्म में नहीं आ पाई थी , और कुछ बातें पी
डी ऍफ़ फाइल की छूट गयी , इसलिए पूरी कॉपी हाई कोर्ट की वेबसाइट पर देखें
*****************
Important Parts >>>
The appellant-petitioner was engaged as 'Vidhyarthi Mitra'
The
appellants in other Special Appeal are amongst a large number of
persons, who were appointed as 'Vidhyarthi Mitras', in the School of
Elementary Education
state
in continuing with the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme and permitting the
teaching by the unqualified persons in the schools run by the State is
avowedly illegal, arbitrary and falls foul of Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
National Council of Teachers Education Act, by the NCTE, which has been
declared as Academic Authority authorised by the Central Government by
notification,
it is not legally permissible to employ the teachers who have not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’)
30.It is well settled that the regular posts in the cadre are required to be filled in by way of the regular
recruitment process under the Rules. Of course, as noticed above, the
urgent
temporary appointment to the extent permissible under the Rules can be
made till the availability of regularly selected candidates but then,
the appointment on contractual basis is not envisaged under the relevant
recruitment Rules. A
31.
In this view of the matter, the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme introduced by
the State Government providing for engagement of Vidhyarthi Mitra on
contractual basis against the vacant posts of Teachers in various cadres
ignoring the eligibility qualification prescribed and the procedure
prescribed for the recruitment is ex facie dehors the relevant recruitment Rules
Najuk Umra Mein Bachhon ke Saath Supreme Court Ne Achhe Shikshkon Dwara Shiksha Par Jor Deeya Hai ->>>
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has emphasized for quality
educations in the schools and deprecated the practice of employing
unqualified untrained teachers to teach the children of tender age in the schools.
19.
We are of the view that quality of education to be imparted to the
children in the school cannot be compromised at any costs. Even if,
there are vacancies, the posts are not allowed to be filled up by
teachers who are not trained and who are not
21.
We also do not find any good ground to issue any directions to allow
any ad hoc arrangement and declare that the State Government shall not
compromise with the legal position as explained by learned Single Judge.
There shall be no recruitment of Vidhyarthi Mitra nor any scheme will
be made on ad hoc basis or of unqualified teacher or even qualified
teacher de hors the service rules.
22. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
*********************************************
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
: JUDGMENT: Hitesh Parihar
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.21/2014
Date of Judgment ::: 21 st November 2014
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Dr.Nupur Bhati )
Mr.Ravindra Singh ) for the appellant
Mr.B.L.Bhati, Government Counsel for the respondents
(Reportable)
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, Actg.CJ)
1.
The appellant-petitioner was engaged as 'Vidhyarthi Mitra', on contract in the year 2006 and thereafter to teach the students in Government Primary School, Chhipi, District Jalore.
His
services were dispensed with on completion of three months, after
which, he was re-appointed on contract in the year 2009 and worked upto
January 2010.
2.
The
appellants in other Special Appeal are amongst a large number of
persons, who were appointed as 'Vidhyarthi Mitras', in the School of
Elementary Education and the Schools of
Secondary Education on the vacancies of Teacher Gr.III, Senior Teachers and Lecturers
on contract for specified period, awaiting regular appointment by the State Government and Panchayats in the vacancies.
3. A
large number of writ petitions were filed by Vidhyarthi 2 Mitras to
allow them to continue until regular appointments are made. A batch of
writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.4652/2009 connected wit
h
362 petitions was decided by Jaipur Bench of this Court on 08.09.2009,
declaring the last extension to be arbitrary and illegal; and the
consequential
automatic termination orders were set aside.
The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners
for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from
RPSC/persons selected and recommended by DPC for promotion are made
available in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It
was observed that in case the regularly selected candidates from
RPSC/persons selected and recommended by RPSC for promotion are made
available, then the respondents can terminate services of the
petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level
as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to them by following
the principle of ‘last
come first go’ to the extent of availability
of selected candidates keeping in view the interest of the present
students and prospective students.
4. In Devendra Kumar &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2579/2009) and
other 502 connected petitions, decided on 15.05.2009 , the judgment in
S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.4652/2009 was followed.
5. A
Division Bench of this Court while issuing notices on the special
appeals preferred by the State Government, dismissed the special appeals
preferred by the petitioners vide judgment
dated 17.09.2009 in Rajendra Kumar Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2010(1) WLC 171)
6. In Prahlad Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2010(3) WLC 619)
,
the writ petitions were disposed of with directions that cases of the
petitioners for transfer and absorption under the Rationalisation and
Equalisation Policy in the Blocks/Tehsils and Districts as required by
the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner dated 26.06.2010 will be
considered but shall not confer any right on the petitioners serving as
Vidhyarthi Mitras to continue in the said position after the end of the
academic session 2010-11 unless the State Government itself takes a
decision
otherwise in this regard. The directions were given in respect of
Vidhyarthi Mitras who had worked in the academic years 2008-09 and
2009-10 including those who had not workedon the academic year
2009-2010. They were not held entitled to regularisation but if such
Vidhyarthi Mitras make representations for the academic year 2010-11
their cases were directed to be
considered for re-employment.
7.
The petitioner as well as other Vidhyarthi Mitras aggrieved by the
termination of their services and refusal to continue them pursuant to
the decision taken by the State Government, filed the writ petitions
giving rise to this special appeal claiming the reliefs as were given
in Prahlad Kumar’s case.
8.Learned
Single Judge, by a detailed and erudite judgment, while taking into
consideration the entire gamut of Service Rules and the norms laid down
by the National Council for TeachersEducation (‘NCTE’) established
under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993; Article
21A inserted vide Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002; the
4
enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009; and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andhra Kesri
Education Society Vs. Director of School
Education: AIR 1989 SC 1983
and L.Muthu Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.:
(2000) 7 SCC 618, has held that with the change in law and the
notification dated 23.08.2010
issued under Section 23 of the National
Council of Teachers Education Act, by the NCTE, which has been declared
as Academic Authority authorised by the Central Government by
notification,
it is not legally permissible to employ the teachers who have not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’) which is to be conducted by appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE.
It
was also found that NCTE has already framed guidelines for conducting
TET, which provides for academic qualifications; and that such
qualifications have been incorporated by the State Government under Rule
266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules of 1996’)
quoted in the judgment.
9.
The perceptible change in law, as noticed by learned Single Judge, has
also been accepted by the State of Rajasthan by amending Rules of 1996
and Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘Act of 1994’)
by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2000 after which it
was no
longer possible to allow any ad hoc arrangement to be
continued. Learned Single Judge found that in view of the change in law
by constitutional amendment and by regulations framed by NCTE by
notification dated 23.08.2010 and amendments in the rules related to
recruitment of teachers in
5the State of Rajasthan, the scheme of
Shiksha
Mitra which was an ad hoc scheme as stop gap arrangement until
recruitment is made, has become unconstitutional. It is useful to quote
the observations made by learned Single Judge in paragraphs 26 to 39 as follows:-
“26.
It is to be noticed that as per Rule 263 of the Rules of 1996,
specifically provides that subject to the provisions of the Rules and
the directions of the Government, if any, the Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad shall determine and intimate the Committee (District
Establishment Committee) every year the number of vacancies anticipated
under each category during the year and the number of persons likely to
be recruited by each method. That apart, Rule 284(1) of the Rules of
1996 mandates that in case no selection has been made or no person
selected by the Committee is available at any time
for filling a
vacancy, appointment may be made by the Appointing Authority on urgent
temporary basis for a period not exceeding six months provided that such
person shall be
appointed only on contract basis with prior approval of the District
Establishment Committee in case of Panchayats and approval of the State
Government in case of Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad. Besides,
as per Rule 284(2), if it is proposed to fill the vacancy by direct
recruitment temporarily nearest Employment Exchange may be asked to send
names of persons possessing required qualification at least five times
the number of vacancies to be so filled and out of those persons, the
Appointing Authority shall appoint the persons suitable for the post.
27.
The recruitment to the post of Senior Teacher and School Lecturer is
governed by the Rules of 1971 and Rules of 1970 respectively, framed by
the Governor in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment to the posts of Senior
Teachers and School Lecturers are required to be made by direct
recruitment as well as by promotion in
the proportion indicated in
the Schedule attached to the 6 relevant recruitment Rules. The
recruitment Rules specifically provides for yearwise determination of
actual number of vacancies occurring belonging to the promotion and
direct recruitment quota as on 1st April every year. It is pertinent to
note that in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India, the
Governor of Rajasthan vide
notification dated 23.9.08, promulgated Rajasthan Various Service
(Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008, which specifically provides that direct
recruitment to the post specified in the Schedule shall be held at least
once a year unless the Government decides that the direct recruitment
for any of these posts shall not be held in any particular year. The
Rules of 1970
and Rules of 1971 finds mention at serial No.20 and 52
of the Schedule. It is not the case of the respondents that any decision
was taken by the Government not to make the recruitment for any of the
posts en-cadred under the Rules of 1970 and Rules of 1971. Thus,
indisputably, in terms of the relevant recruitment Rules, the State
Government is under an obligation to determine the
yearwise vacancies
and proceed with the recruitment process to fill up the vacancies in
the cadre in accordance with the relevant Rules.
28. It is
pertinent to note that Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 and Rule 28 of the
Rules of 1971 provides for urgent temporary appointment against the
vacancy in service which cannot be filled in immediately either by
direct recruitment or by promotion under the Rules, by appointing in an
official capacity the persons eligible for appointment to the post by
promotion or by appointing
temporarily thereto a person eligible for
direct recruitment to the service under the provisions of the Rules.
Suffice it to say that under the relevant recruitment Rules, no person
lacking eligibility qualification could be appointed on the various
posts in the cadre even on urgent temporary basis.
29. In the
backdrop of position of law, as aforesaid, adverting to the Scheme, it
is significant to note that the appointment of Vidhyarthi Mitra on
contractual basis thereunder was sought to be made on the pretext that
the 7 regular recruitment process of Teachers in various cadres is
likely to take a long time. One fails to understand that if regular recruitment in the cadre was likely to take a long
time
and there was non-availability of the duly selected candidates then
what prevented the State Government from resorting to recruitment
process under the Rules for urgent temporary appointment against the
vacant posts of eligible candidates till the availability of duly
selected candidates. Strangely enough under the Scheme framed the requirement of the eligibility of the candidates for the
recruitment
to the post of Teachers as provided for under the relevant recruitment
Rules and by NCTE was also ignored inasmuch as the Scheme permitted even
the engagement of persons who are not trained to discharge the duties of the Teachers in various Schools.
30.It is well settled that the regular posts in the cadre are required to be filled in by way of the regular
recruitment process under the Rules. Of course, as noticed above, the
urgent
temporary appointment to the extent permissible under the Rules can be
made till the availability of regularly selected candidates but then,
the appointment on contractual basis is not envisaged under the relevant
recruitment Rules. As a matter of fact, even the
urgent temporary appointment in any public service to any post de hors
the relevant Rules without permission of the competent authority is
prohibited under Section 4 of the Act of 1999. Rather, the appointment
in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1999 is an offence
punishable under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1999.
31.
In this view of the matter, the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme introduced by
the State Government providing for engagement of Vidhyarthi Mitra on
contractual basis against the vacant posts of Teachers in various cadres
ignoring the eligibility qualification prescribed and the procedure
prescribed for the recruitment is ex facie dehors the relevant recruitment Rules. That apart, the
recruitment
of Teachers lacking eligibility qualification runs contrary to the
Regulations,2001 framed by the NCTE, which have statutory force. As a
matter of fact, the 8
NCTE having prescribed the eligibility qualification, the State Government cannot proceed to appoint the persons
on
the posts of Teachers by giving the fictitious designation i.e.
Vidhyarthi Mitra to teach the children who are mandatorily required to
be taught by the persons eligible for recruitment to the post as per the
eligibility qualification laid down by the NCTE.
32.
As noticed above, by way of Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act,
2002, Article 21A was inserted in the Constitution which makes right to
education, a fundamental right, and provides that State shall provide
free and compulsory education all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State by law provides.
Indisputably,
so as to implement the provisions of Article 21A of the Constitution,
the Act of 2009 has been enacted by the Parliament which mandates that
only the persons possessing minimum qualification as laid down by an academic authority authorised by the Central Government
by
notification shall be eligible for appointment on the posts of
Teachers. As a matter of fact, it is not even disputed before this Court
that the academic body, NCTE, under the authorization of the Government
has already laid down the eligibility qualification and therefore, any
person not possessing the requisite qualification as provided for by the NCTE cannot be appointed on the
posts of Teachers in the various schools run by the State or otherwise.
33.
It needs to be noticed that besides providing for the eligibility
qualification for recruitment to the posts of Teachers, the Act of 2009,
Section 6 thereof specifically mandates that for carrying out the
provisions of the Act, the appropriate Government and the local
authority shall establish within such area or limits of neighborhood as may be prescribed a school where it is not established,
within
a period of 3 years from the commencement of the Act. As per Section 7
of the Act of 2009, the Central Government and the State Government have
concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the
provisions of the Act. As per mandate of Section 8, the appropriate
Government is under an obligation to provide 9 infrastructure including school buildings, teaching staffs
and
learning material to ensure good quality elementary education
conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule. The
emphasis under the Act is on ensuring that all children have access to
quality education that enables them to the skills, knowledge, values
and attitude necessary to become responsible and active citizens of
India. To achieve the intended objects even the Pupil-Teacher Ratio in a
school has been specified in the Schedule which is mandated to be
maintained
in each school by virtue of provisions of Section 25 of the Act.
Suffice it to say that right to compulsory education enshrined in
Article 21A of the Constitution of India presupposes quality education
to the children and therefore, the State is under an obligation to make
all efforts to ensure that the children of tender age may not suffer on account of teaching by unqualified
teachers. In this view of the matter, the action of the
State
in continuing with the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme and permitting the
teaching by the unqualified persons in the schools run by the State is
avowedly illegal, arbitrary and falls foul of Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
34.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has emphasized for quality
educations in the schools and deprecated the practice of employing
unqualified untrained teachers to teach the children of tender age in the schools.
35.In N.M.Nageshwaramma vs. State of A.P., 1986 Supp. SCC 166, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: “
The teachers' training institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let
loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate
training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training
for a certain minimum period in a properly organized and equipped training institute is probably
essential before a teacher may be duly lanunched.”
36.In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education, (1989) 1 SCC 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
10 “ .... Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teacher is central to all
processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual
capabilities of students. He is the “engine” of the education system. He is a principal instrument in
awakening
the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with
needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him.
His quality should be such as would inspire and
motivate into action the benefitter (sic benefactor).
He must keep himself abreast of ever-changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and
unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and
national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed
indispensable. It is , therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous
training with rigit scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill-
trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a
punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see
that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration.”
37.In the matter of 'State of Rajasthan v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale', (1992) 4 SCC 435, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed:
“ The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character fibres and aptitude for educational
excellence
in impressive young children. The formal educational needs proper
equipment by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart
lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific
and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed
skills and intellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits.
The teacher is adorned as gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a
principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos,
intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must
keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and
to cope with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children
to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and
energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The
qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire
and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For
equipping such trainee students in a school or a college all facilities
and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof
have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf
compliance with the statutory requirement is insisted upon. Slackening
11 the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and
examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education.”
38.
In the matter of “L.Muthukumar and Another vs. State of T.N. &
Ors.”, (2000) 7 SCC 618, while relying upon earlier decisions noticed
above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that before teachers are allowed
to teach innocent children, they must receive appropriate and adequate
training in a recognized training institutes satisfying the prescribed
norms, otherwise the standard of education and careers of children will
be jeopardized. The court observed that allowing ill-trained teachers coming
out
of de-recognized or un-recognized institutes or licensing them to teach
children of an impressionable age, contrary to the norms prescribed
will be detrimental to the
interest of the nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers and
educational institutions also play a vital role.
39.
In Uma Devi's case (supra) heavily relied upon by the learned
Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed :
“2.Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down
by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment
by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf
Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action
to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of
the constitutional scheme.
3.A sovereign Government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to
be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on
daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005,
the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in a year, on
paying wages as fixed under that Act.
But,
a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to,
when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to
be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a
haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular
appointment must be the rule.
” (Emphasis added)
12 It is
true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a sovereign
Government is not precluded from making temporarily appointments or
engaging workers on daily wages basis, taking into consideration the
economic situation in the country and work to be got done. But then, the
Scheme as framed by the State Government is not an employment Scheme as such but
rather
it is a Scheme framed bypassing the regular recruitment process, which
as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra)
must be a rule.
In
any case, the sovereign Government has to function within the
constitutional limit and cannot be permitted to frame the Scheme in
violation of the laws and the constitutional scheme governing the public employment.”
10. After considering the entire law on the subject, learned Single Judge held as under:-
“
40. In view of the discussion above, this Court is firmly of the
opinion that the Scheme introduced by the State Government providing for
the engagement of even unqualified/untrained persons as Vidhyarthi
Mitra for their posting against the posts of Teacher Gr.III, Senior
Teacher and School Lecturer dehors the relevant recruitment Rules and the eligibility criteria laid down by
the
NCTE exercising the power under the relevant statute, the provisions of
the Act of 2009, and against the constitutional scheme of public
employment, cannot but deemed to be illegal, arbitrary and falls foul of
Article 14, 21 & 21A of the Constitution of India.”
11.
Learned Single Judge was conscious of the fact that vacancies of the
teachers engaged for elementary education and secondary education cannot
be filled immediately and, thus,
keeping in view the interest of the students, an arrangement was made in paragraph-42 which reads as follows:-
“ 42.In the result, the writ petition No.8154/10
13
is allowed. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners assailing
their termination from service, claiming continuance/re-employment as
Vidhyarthi Mitra and against the insistence of the Government for
execution of the fresh contract, are dismissed. The Vidhyarthi Mitra
Scheme
introduced by the State Government for engagement of 'Vidhyarthi Mitra'
on contractual basis on fixed honorarium against the posts of Teachers
Gr.III, Senior Teachers and School Lecturers is declared illegal and unconstitutional.
The
respondents are restrained from engaging the Vidhyarthi Mitra under the
Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme against the posts of Teachers Gr.III, Senior Teachers and School Lecturers. The respondents
are
directed to proceed with the recruitment process to fill in all the
vacant posts of Teachers and School Lecturers in various services/cadres
forthwith and complete the process as early as possible, in any case,
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order. It is made clear that pending completion of the regular
recruitment process, the State shall not be precluded from engaging the
eligible persons on the various posts of Teachers on urgent temporary
basis in accordance with the relevant recruitment Rules.
The State shall also ensure that henceforth the determination of the vacancies of Teachers in various
services/cadres
is made every year as mandated by the relevant recruitment Rules and
all efforts shall be made to fill up the vacancies preferably before the
next academic session starts in the schools run by the State.
The
petitioners who have not been paid honorarium for the period they had
worked with the respondents as Vidhyarthi Mitra, shall be paid the
amount due within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. It is made clear that on account of the
Vidhyarthi
Mitra Scheme being declared illegal and unconstitutional, the
petitioners and their likes who had worked with the respondents as
Vidhyarthi Mitra, shall not be deprived of the benefits already accrued to them.
No order as to costs.”
14
12.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
there are large number of vacancies running into thousands in the
Schools for Primary Education and Secondary
Education which cannot
be filled up immediately. The Government has not taken any steps for
direct recruitment on these vacancies; and that considering the
interest of students,
who
would be suffering greatly on account of non-availability of teachers,
the Court may consider to extend the time by which all the vacancies may be filled up and until then the persons who
were disengaged as Vidhyarthi Mitras may be allowed to continue.
13.It
is submitted that there can be no objections with the findings
recorded and directions given by learned Single Judge, however, large
number of Vidhyarthi Mitras are qualified to teach in the Schools for
Primary Education and Secondary Education and thus, in the alternative,
if the Court may not agree to allow the extension of time, at least,
those Vidhyarthi Mitras, who are qualified, may be allowed to teach in
the schools for the benefit of the students until direct recruitment is made.
It
is submitted that interest of lakhs of students is going to suffer by
the delay caused by the State Government in direct recruitment.
14.
We are informed by learned counsel appearing for the State that after
declaration of Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme to be unconstitutional, the
State Government has abolished the scheme, and that after 30.04.2014,
no person is working or has been engaged to serve as Vidhyarthi Mitra. The orders of
learned Single Judge have been complied with and that the
15 State Government has proceeded to make direct recruitment on the vacancies of the teachers in all categories.
15.In
order to find out the current situation of the vacancies on the post of
teachers in the Schools in the State of Rajasthan,we asked State
Counsel to give us a comprehensive chart showing the number of vacancies
on sanctioned posts and the availability of trained Vidhyarthi Mitras.
We also asked State Counsel to give us the status of the requisitions
made and the proceedings pending for recruitment of teacher and the
status of th
e Teachers’ Eligibility Test known in Rajasthan as REET. The chart produced by State Counsel is reproduced as under:-
************************************
Note from Blog - Tabular form ka chart ham yahan nahin de paa rahe hain, Kripya HC ki website se poora vivran dekhen
*****************************
Judegement continued >>>
INFORMATIONS WITH REGARD TO VIDYARTHI MITRA
16.
We are pained to observe that despite directions issued by this Court
on 21.10.2013 which have been followed to the extent that Vidhyarthi
Mitra has been discontinued and that after 30.04.2014 no person is
working as Vidhyarthi Mitras, effective steps have not been taken to
fill up the vacancies. From the chart produced before us, we find that
there are 11,472 vacancies of Teachers for Elementary Education as
against 30,298 sanctioned posts; 20,908 vacancies of Senior Teachers
as
against 69,884 sanctioned posts; and 18,310 vacancies of Lecturers as
against 33,028 sanctioned posts. There are 7,999 trained teachers in
elementary education, 1758 trained teachers Gr.III, 2283 trained Senior
Teachers and 2229 trained Lecturers who were serving as Vidhyarthi
Mitras. As against this, the requisitions are pending with the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission for filling up 4010 teachers for the
post of Lecturers, 9447 for the post of Teacher Gr.II and 20,000 for
17 Teacher Gr.III. For Teacher Gr.III, the requisition was sent about one year ago in August 2013.
17.
We are also informed that for Teacher Gr.III, a recruitment was
initiated in the year 2013 which is pending at various stages and that
some of the petitions were decided by this Court against which Special
Leave to Appeal pending in the Supreme Court in which directions have
been issued to issue the third list. The appointments in pursuance to
the recruitment are awaited.
18. We are unable to
accede to the
request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to allow at
least the trained Vidhyarthi Mitras to continue until all the posts are
filled up. We do not find that considering the legal position as
explained by learned Single Judge and his conclusions with which we
entirely agree there is any scope to adjudicate any further on the
issue of allowing Vidhyarthi Mitras to continue on the vacancies
purportedly in the interest of the students. With the change in
law
focussing on appointment of only trained Teachers with Teachers
Training qualifications and the TET qualifications and appointment of
such teachers only by direct recruitment in accordance with the Rules of
recruitment, it is no longer possible for allowing any untrained teacher or even a trained
teacher who has not been regularly appointed to be allowed to continue on ad hoc basis or in contractual appointment.
19.
We are of the view that quality of education to be imparted to the
children in the school cannot be compromised at any costs. Even if,
there are vacancies, the posts are not allowed to be filled up by
teachers who are not trained and who are not
18
appointed by way of direct recruitment in accordance with extant rules
which have been amended in tune with the notification issued by NCTE which has been declared as Academic Authority
by
the Central Government. The concept of school education has undergone
change after the amendment in the Constitution by inserting Article 21A
and the enactment of Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009. The Notification dated 23.08.2010 is binding on all
the States and Educational Authorities. The Court is not empowered to
compromise with
the legislative changes for the sake of equity
for the contractual appointees, and empathy for the children to allow
the ad-hoc arrangements to continue.
20. We have been
benefitted from the judgment of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sangeet Lodha who has
researched on the subject and has taken pains to go deep into all the
aspects of the matter in
rendering an exhaustive and complete judgment on the issue.
We do not find any error in the judgment to interfere in the special appeal.
21.
We also do not find any good ground to issue any directions to allow
any ad hoc arrangement and declare that the State Government shall not
compromise with the legal position as explained by learned Single Judge.
There shall be no recruitment of Vidhyarthi Mitra nor any scheme will
be made on ad hoc basis or of unqualified teacher or even qualified
teacher de hors the service rules.
22. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH GUPTA), J.
(SUNIL AMBWANI), Actg.CJ.
MK
RTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI NAUKRI / News
REET CTET,
TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET),
NCTE,
RTE,
UPTET,
HTET,
JTET /
Jharkhand TET,
OTET /
Odisha TET ,
शिक्षक भर्ती
Rajasthan TET /
RTET,
BETET /
Bihar TET,
PSTET /
Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test,
West Bengal TET /
WBTET,
MPTET /
Madhya Pradesh TET,
ASSAM TET /
ATET
,
UTET /
Uttrakhand TET ,
GTET /
Gujarat TET ,
TNTET /
Tamilnadu TET ,
APTET /
Andhra Pradesh TET ,
CGTET /
Chattisgarh TET,
HPTET /
Himachal Pradesh TET
