On 7th October 2022, The Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench in a decision bench comprising of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, observed that the State Government is entitled to prescribe higher qualifications than the minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE. (Abhijit Madhavrao Patil and Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education And Sports Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors. WITH Sumit Gokul Nannavare and Anr. V. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education And Sports Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors.)
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners have completed their graduation in Biotechnology, Microbiology, Agricultural Science and Computer Science. They also hold the qualifications of Bachelour of Education and have cleared TET and TAIT as well. The State Government issued Government Resolution dated 25.02.2019, prescribing qualifications for appointment of teachers. As per the Govt. Resolution, Schedule ‘B’, the prescribed qualification is:
- degree in Mathematics / Arithmetic for standalone subject of Mathematics.
- For standalone subject of Science, the prescribed qualification is degree in Physics / Chemistry / Botany / Zoology/ Life Sciences / Environmental Sciences.
- For the combined subject of Maths - Science the prescribed qualification is degree in Mathematics / Arithmetic / Physics / Chemistry / Botany/ Zoology / Life Sciences / Environmental Sciences.
Through a corrigendum issued on 12.06.2019, prescribed qualifications were revised. For standalone subject of Mathematics, the requisite degree should be in subjects of Mathematics / Arithmetic / Electronics / Computer Science / Information Technology. For standalone subject of Science, the requisite degree should be in the subjects of Physics / Chemistry / Botany / Zoology / Life Sciences / Environmental Science / Microbiology / Biotechnology / Biochemistry / Agriculture Science. But no changes are affected as far as the subject Math- Science is concerned. None of the Petitioner was eligible to teach combined subject of Maths – Science. It is their case that both the subjects of Mathematics and Science were covered while acquiring the qualifications of B.Ed. as well as while clearing TET and TAIT. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
Development during the pendency of the Petition:
This court through an order dated 04.11.2019 observed that, “A person who has done graduation only in Maths subject is allowed to teach Maths and Science subject. A person who has done graduation in Physics, Chemistry and Biology is allowed to teach Maths and Science subject but a person who has done graduation in Microbiology, Biotechnology and Agriculture is not allowed to teach Maths subject. The classification does not appear to be based on ineligible differentia”. The State Government placed the above observations before the State Council of Educational Research and Training. As a result, a meeting was held on 19.11.2019 but the Committee did not seem to have recommended inclusion of the subjects of Microbiology, Biotechnology, Agriculture, Computer Science etc., for combined subject of Maths – Science and the committee soughed further time to examine some of the issue.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, “the prescription of qualifications for the combined subject of Maths – Science by the respondents is violative of equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and if the petitioners can teach the standalone subject of Science, it is incomprehensible as to why they should be held ineligible for teaching combined subject of Maths – Science. The examination of B.Ed., TET and TAIT covered the subjects of Maths and Science. Moreover, the State Government refused to correct the error in prescribing qualifications despite strong observations made by this Court.” He relied upon the provisions of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and submitted that, “every person possessing the minimum qualifications prescribed by the academic authority, notified by the Central Government, becomes eligible for appointment as a teacher. While relying upon Rule 6 and Schedule ‘B’ of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, he submitted that, NCTE alone is entitled to prescribe qualifications and that the State Government cannot prescribe qualifications which are not in tune with the one prescribed by NCTE.” The counsel used S. Seshachalam & Ors vs.Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Ors, Prajapati Paresh Govindbhai and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Yogesh Popatrao Maid vs. State of Maharashtra and Others to support his contentions.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that, “Section 23 of the Right to Education Act uses the expression ‘minimum qualifications’. He would further submit that the notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by NCTE also prescribes ‘minimum qualifications’ for appointment of teachers. He would submit that the State Government cannot prescribe qualifications which are lower than the minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE. That there is no bar on prescription of higher qualifications by the State Government than the one prescribed by NCTE and therefore, action of the State Government is not in violation of provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Education Act.” He relied upon two affidavits filed by the State Government and the issue of qualifications was placed before committee of experts and that the experts did not recommend that the candidates holding degree in Microbiology, Biotechnology and Agriculture Science etc. should be considered eligible for combined subject of Maths – Science. He added that, “selection process is in the last stage of completion and therefore, this Court should be loath in interfering in the same.” The counsel used The University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and another, State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Lata Arun, and Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others cases to support his arguments.
Observation and Order of the Court:
The Hon’ble court while referring to the cases, University of Mysore, Lata Arun and Zahoor Ahmad Rather, observed that “the matter of determining the qualifications required for a post is to be left to the opinion of experts and falls squarely in the realm of policy, where Courts should not interfere.” “The opinion of experts has been placed on record by the State Government in the form of letter dated 30.11.2019 of State Council. The State Council inter alia opined that the objective of the State Government is not to create employment but to enhance the standards of education and to maintain the same. The qualifications for each subject are prescribed keeping in mind that object. The State Council has opined that if the candidate himself/herself has not completed in-depth and satisfactory education in Mathematics subject, it would be unjust for the student if he teaches Mathematics subject to them at primary or secondary level. Moreover, the experts have not recommended inclusion of degrees in the subjects of Biotechnology, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Agricultural Science and Computer Science for teaching that subject. This Court will not be in a position to decide about correctness of the justification given by the State Government or the opinion of the experts on the exact qualifications required for appointment on combined subject of Maths - Science. Moreover, the correct interpretation of Section 23 of the Right to Education Act read with the notification dated 29.07.2011 is that there is no bar for the State Government to prescribe qualifications higher than the one prescribed by NCTE and we do not find any discrimination being practised by the State Government while prescribing such qualifications.”
The writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble court.
Case: Abhijit Madhavrao Patil and Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education And Sports Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors. WITH Sumit Gokul Nannavare and Anr. V. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education And Sports Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition NO.7790 OF 2019 and Writ Petition NO.10388 OF 2019
Bench: Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 7th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
