Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Kumar Saxena And 19 Others vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9673 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar Saxena And 19 Others
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amardeo Singh,Ajay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Durga Singh,Piyush Mishra
Connected with
Writ-A Nos. 6911 of 2020, 9238 of 2020, 10022 of 2020, 10474 of 2020, 10748 of 2020, 13143 of 2020, 13232 of 2020, 13363 of 2020, 13924 of 2020, 14244 of 2020, 1591 of 2021, 2082 of 2021, 2858 of 2021, 3415 of 2021, 3592 of 2021, 4517 of 2021, 7270 of 2021, 8692 of 2021 and 4113 of 2021.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. This bunch of writ petitions is by the teachers engaged on contractual basis in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, and have been continuing as such for the last more than ten years. They are aggrieved by a circular dated 14.7.2020, issued by the State Project Director, U.P. Education for All Project Board, insofar as it contemplates categorization of existing contractual teachers into Sangat (consistent) and Asangat (inconsistent) categories and consequential direction not to renew the term of Asangat (inconsistent) contractual teachers from the academic session 2020-2021, on the basis of such categorization. A further prayer has also been made to command the respondents not to interfere in the working of petitioners as warden/whole time teachers/part time teachers and to ensure payment of monthly emoluments to them.
2. After the right to education was recognized as a fundamental right for the children in the age group of 06 to 14 years, vide 86th amendment to the Constitution of India, the Government of India launched a scheme, known as Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (hereinafter in short referred to as the ''KGBV') for establishment of residential schools at upper primary level for girls belonging to socially and economically weaker sections and other minorities for backward areas of the country with an specific intent to target drop outs. This scheme later got merged with Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which is a scheme of State known as ''U.P. Education for all Project'. The need to establish these institutions was felt necessary as the rural female literacy rate was much below the national average as per the 2001 census.
3. The KGBV institutions were established by State Government with financial support from the Central Government under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The ratio of financial contribution between Central Government and State Government stood at 65:35. A total number of 746 KGBVs are stated to have been established and functional in the State of U.P., as of now. Guidelines laying down financial norms for such institutions as also budgetary allocation for the staff etc. is provided by the State from time to time.
4. The State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, on 15.4.2005 issued a circular after approval was obtained from the State Government for establishment of KGBV. Pursuant to aforesaid circular a committee at district level was formed in each district of the State of U.P. to appoint one warden-cum-teacher with qualification of ''trained graduate' and was to receive honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas four posts of full time teachers were sanctioned drawing honorarium of Rs.6,000/- per month with trained graduate qualification in Science, Mathematics, Biology and other teachers. Post of three part time teachers was also created in Hindi, Home Science and Science. The warden-cum-teacher and full time teachers were expected to stay in the institution. Preference was to be given to female candidates. These appointments were to be contractual in nature for a period of almost one year (11 months & 29 days) and could be extended with the approval of the district level committee.
5. A subsequent circular issued on 16.5.2006 specified the committee for appointment of teachers and also the blocks in which these institutions were to be established.
6. The State Project Director of U.P. Education for all under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan issued a circular on 8.1.2011 directing commencement of KGBVs w.e.f. 15.2.2011. A committee consisting of various officers with District Magistrate as Chairman, Chief Development Officer as Vice-Chairman and District Basic Education Officer as Member Secretary was constituted in each district for management and supervision of these KGBVs. The object for establishing KGBV institutions were specified as providing education to female students belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, OBC, Minority or other female children from below the poverty line. The norms for selecting location as also the targeted admission figures were specified. Admission of 100 girl students was contemplated with representation of SC/ST and minority girls to the extent of 75% and remaining 25% from below the poverty line. The targeted students were girls, who were not a part of any school education programme. Various camps etc. were organized for motivating the family members to encourage them to sent their female child to KGBV.
7. The staff sanctioned in the Government Order dated 8.1.2011 is specified as under:-
"मॉडल-1 के 100 बालिकाओं के कस्तूरबा गांधी बालिका विद्यालय में वार्डेन-1, पूर्णकालिक शिक्षक-4, अंशकालिक शिक्षक-4, लेखाकार-1, रसोइया-1, सहायक रसोइया-2, चौकीदार-1 तथा चपरासी-1 के पदों पर चयन किया जायेगा।"
The subjects to be taught in KGBV were also specified in the said Government Order as under:-
"बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर पर निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम के सभी विषय तथा हिन्दी, अंग्रेजी, संस्कृत/उर्दू, गणित (अंकगणित,बीजगणित,ज्यामिती) सामाजिक विषय (इतिहास, भूगोल तथा नागरिक शास्त्र) कला/संगीत/वाणिज्य, गृहशिल्प, शारीरिक शिक्षा, खेल तथा योगासन, स्काउटिंग एण्ड गाइडिंग, नैतिक शिक्षा, पर्यावरणीय शिक्षा तथा कम्प्यूटर शिक्षा आदि के लिए विषय अध्यापकों का चयन इस प्रकार किया जायेगा कि सभी विषयों का अध्यापन गुणवत्तापरक हो तथा पाठ्य सहगामी क्रियाओं का संचालन भी प्रभावी ढंग से हो।"
The teachers were to be appointed after inviting applications and the merit list was to be drawn in respect of following posts:-
क्र०सं०
पद का नाम
पदों की संख्या
1.
वार्डेन
2.
फूल टाइम टीचर
3.
पार्ट टाइम टीचर
4.
एकाउटेन्ट
5.
रसोइया
6.
सहायक रसोइया
7.
चौकीदार
8.
चपरासी
कुल योग
The Government Order also provided for a warden-cum-teacher and the subject-wise description has been specified as under:-
"गणित (पी०सी०एम०) 01
विज्ञान (पी०सी०बी०) 01
सामाजिक विषय
(भूगोल, इतिहास एंव नागरिक शास्त्र) 01
हिन्दी, संस्कृत 01
अंग्रेजी 01
उर्दू 01
कम्प्यूटर 01
स्काउट गाइड एंव शारीरिक शिक्षा 01
कला, क्राफ्ट एंव संगीत 01"
8. The procedure for appointment has been specified, as per which advertisements were to be issued in two State level newspapers and the manner for selection was specified for these institutions.
9. A circular then came to be issued on 12.10.2012 providing for renewal of contractual teachers engaged in KGBV. This circular provided that teachers whose services were not found suitable shall not be continued in the next session but before their discontinuance an opportunity would be given to improve their working or else they be discontinued by giving a month's notice. The discontinuance of contractual engagement could, however, be made only with the approval of the District Magistrate.
10. The Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, issued yet another circular on 29.7.2013 in which the district level selection committee was re-constituted and two categories were created in KGBV, namely Model-1 and Model-2. Model-1 was to be in respect of institutions having 100 girls with total staff capacity of 15, whereas Model-2 KGBVs were to have 50 girl students with total staff capacity of 12. A provision was made in this Government Order for appointment of Urdu language teacher only in areas where members of minority community were in substantial numbers. It also provided that subjects taught at higher primary level by the Basic Shiksha Parishad would be taught in these institutions. Relevant portion of the Government Order, in that regard, is reproduced hereinafter:-
"बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर पर निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम के सभी विषय यथा हिन्दी, अंग्रेजी, संस्कृत/उर्दू, गणित (अंकगणित,बीजगणित,ज्यामीति) सामाजिक विषय (इतिहास, भुगोल तथा नागरिक शास्त्र), कला/संगीत/वाणिज्य, गृहशिल्प, शारीरिक शिक्षा, खेल तथा योगासन, स्काउटिंग एण्ड गाइडिंग, नैतिक शिक्षा, पर्यावरणीय शिक्षा तथा कम्प्यूटर शिक्षा आदि के लिए विषयवार शिक्षकों का चयन इस प्रकार किया जायेगा कि सभी विषयों का अध्यापन गुणवत्तापरक हो तथा पाठ्य सहगामी क्रियाओं का संचालन भी प्रभावी ढंग से हो।
वार्डेन जिस विषय की होगी उस विषय हेतु अलग से शिक्षिका का चयन नहीं किया जायेगा। चयन समिति अनुमन्य पदों पर चयन के समय विषयों का ध्यान रखेगी। माडल-1 के विद्यालय में गणित एंव विज्ञान हेतु प्रस्तावित 02 शिक्षकों में से यथा संभव 01 पूर्णकालिक शिक्षक तथा 01 अंशकालिक शिक्षक होगा। यदि मॉडल-11 का विद्यालय अल्पसंख्यक बाहुल्य विकासखण्ड/शहरी क्षेत्र में स्थित न हो तो स्काउट-गाइड एंव शारीरिक शिक्षा, कला, क्राफ्ट एंव संगीत के लिए प्रस्तावित 02 शिक्षकों में से यथा संभव 01 पूर्णकालिक शिक्षक तथा 01 अंशकालिक शिक्षक होगा।"
11. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education and Literacy revised the norms of institutions in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on 24.3.2014, whereby maintenance grant per girl came to be enhanced from Rs.900/- to Rs.1,500/- per month. The warden as per the financial norms were now to receive Rs.25,000/- per month and the full time teachers as per The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ''RTE Act, 2009') norms were to receive Rs.20,000/- per month. Urdu teachers were to receive Rs.12,000/- per month, whereas part time teachers were to receive Rs.5,000/- per month. Various other heads were specified for increased financial support to the KGBV institutions.
12. The Secretary, Basic Education Department, thereafter issued a circular on 30.6.2015 modifying the provisions in the light of circular issued by Government of India on 24.3.2014. Posts for different subjects were also sanctioned in the said circular.
13. On 13.3.2019 a circular has been issued by the State Project Director regarding renewal of contractual teachers and the manner of assessment of their work. The circular also provided as under:-
" .... नवीन चयन में यह अनिवार्य रूप से सुनिश्चित किया जाए कि वार्डेन एंव पूर्णकालिक शिक्षिका का चयन मुख्य विषयों के लिए यथा गणित, विज्ञान, सामाजिक विषय,भाषा (हिन्दी एंव संस्कृत हेतु 01 शिक्षिका) एंव अंग्रेजी हेतु तथा अंशकालिक शिक्षक/शिक्षिका का चयन पाठ्य सहगामी विषयों यथा कम्प्यूटर, स्काउट गाइड एंव शारीरिक शिक्षा तथा कला क्राफ्ट एंव संगीत के लिए किया जाए। ... "
14. On 7.4.2020 a circular was issued by the State Project Director requiring all District Basic Education Officers (excluding Kanpur Nagar and Auraiya) to provide details of working teachers in the format specified on the designated website i.e. the name of the institution, name of the teacher, mobile number, subject, date of appointment and training status. Details in respect of teachers not appointed as per the curriculum prescribed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad i.e. incompatible/inconsistent teachers were required to be separately specified.
15. It is in the light of above circulars issued from time to time that the State Project Director has issued a circular on 14.7.2020 in respect of renewal of contractual appointment of teachers in KGBV. This circular provides that renewal of teachers are required to be made as per the circulars of Central Government dated 29.7.2013 and 24.3.2014 and the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, particularly the Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the said Act. After referring to the circular dated 7.4.2020 and the information collected pursuant to it, it has been observed that the details furnished by the KGBV institutions show following infirmities:-
(i) More than one teacher in a subject have been engaged in various KGBV vide Annexure-1.
(ii) Appointments have been made inconsistent with the curriculum published by Basic Shiksha Parishad and details of such teachers are specified in Schedule-2.
(iii) Contractual appointment of teachers found inconsistent with the provisions of RTE Act, 2009, particularly Sections 19 and 25 thereof, as also in teeth of circulars dated 29.7.2013 and 24.3.2014 is contained in Annexure-3.
The circular also contemplates that a committee be constituted at the district level in each district with Chief Development Officer of the subject as its Chairman to examine the renewal of term of contractual employees and to ensure that inconsistent (Asangat) teachers are not retained in KGBV. Relevant portion of the circular dated 14.7.2020 is extracted hereinafter:-
"(i) के०जी०बी०वी० में एक विषय के एक से अधिक शिक्षक/शिक्षिका का चयन /संविदा की गयी है।
वार्डेन/पूर्णकालिक शिक्षिका- कस्तूरबा गांधी आवासीय बालिका विद्यालय में वार्डेन एंव पूर्ण कालिका शिक्षिका का पद महिला अभ्यर्थी हेतु नियत है। इनकी शैक्षिक योग्यता प्रशिक्षित स्नातक थी। उ० प्र० शासन के पत्रांक के०जी०बी०वी०/3-2/1916/2013-14 दिनांक 29.07.2013 द्वारा शैक्षिक योग्यता उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर के टी०ई०टी० एंव प्रशिक्षित स्नातक निर्धारित की गयी है। कस्तूरबा गांधी आवासीय बालिक विद्यालय बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम के समरूप है। अतः निःशुल्क और अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2009 की धारा 19 एंव 25 में वर्णित मान एंव मानकों की अनुसूची के अलोक में वर्णित विषयों में वार्डेनकम शिक्षिका एंव पूर्णकालिक शिक्षिका की नवीन संविदा की जाये। यदि किसी कस्तूरबा गांधी अावासीय बालिका विद्यालय में एक विषय के एक से अधिक पूर्ण कालिक शिक्षिका या वार्डेन कार्यरत है तो शासन के पत्र दिनांक 29.07.2013 द्वारा निर्धारित अर्हता धारित करने वाली शिक्षिकाओं की के०जी०बी०वी० में सेवा अवधि/अनुभव के आधारपर संकलित सूची तैयार की जाये। उक्त सूची में उच्च अनुभव धारित करने वाली अभ्यर्थी की सम्बन्धित के०जी०बी०वी० में पदस्थापन/नवीन संविदा की जाय, यदि सम्बन्धित विषय का जनपद में संचालित अन्य किसी के०जी०बी०वी० में पद रिक्त हो तो अवरोही क्रम में संकलित सूची के अनुसार सम्बन्धित वार्डेन/शिक्षिका को समायोजित किया जाये। उक्त जनपदीय समिति के प्रस्ताव के क्रम में जिलाधिकारी के अनुमोदनोपरान्त नवीन संविदा/पदस्थापन किया जायेगा।
अंशकालिक शिक्षिक/शिक्षिका- कस्तूरबा गांधी आवासीय बालिका विद्यालय बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम के समरूप है। अतः निःशुल्क और अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2009 की धारा 19 एंव 25 में वर्णित मान एंव मानकों की अनुसूची के आलोक में अंश कालिक विषयों हेतु यदि एक विद्यालय मे एक विषय के एक से अधिक अंश कालिक शिक्षक/शिक्षिका कार्यरत है तो शासन के पत्र दिनांक 29.07.2013 द्वारा निर्धारित अर्हता धारित करने वाली शिक्षिकाओ की के०जी०बी०वी० में सेवा अवधि/अनुभव के आधार पर संकलित सूची तैयार की जाये। उक्त सूची में उच्च अनुभव धारित करने वाली अभ्यर्थी की सम्बन्धित के०जी०बी०वी० में पदस्थापन /नवीन संविदा की जाय। यदि सम्बन्धित विषय का जनपद में संचालित अन्य किसी के०जी०बी०वी० में पद रिक्त हो तो अवरोही क्रम में संकलित सूची के अनुसार सम्बन्धित वार्डेन/शिक्षिका को समायोजित किया जाये। उक्त जनपदीय समिति के प्रस्ताव के क्रम में जिलाधिकारी के अनुमोदनोपरान्त नवीन संविदा/पदस्थापन किया जायेगा।
(ii) बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालय में निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम से इतर विषय धारित करने वाले शिक्षक/शिक्षिका का पदस्थापन/नवीन संविदा की गयी है का सघन परीक्षण कर लिया जाये एंव निःशुल्क और अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा का अधिकार, अधिनियम, 2009 की धारा 19 एंव 25 में वर्णित मान एंव मानकों की अनुसूची एंव राज्य परियोजना कार्यालय के पत्र दिनांक 13.08.2018 एंव 06.08.2019के आलोक में बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित उच्च प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम के अनुसार ही कस्तूरबा गांदी बालिका विद्यालयों हेतु पाठ्यक्रम/विषय के शिक्षक उपरोक्त मानकानुसार उक्त जनपदीय समिति के प्रस्ताव के क्रम में जिलाधिकारी के अनुमोदनोपरान्त नवीन संविदा/पदस्थापना किया जायेगा।
(iii) के०जी०बी०वी० में शिक्षक/शिक्षिका को मुख्य विषयों यथा गणित, विज्ञान, सामाजिक विषय, भाषा (हिन्दी एंव संस्कृत) एंव अंग्रेजी का पदस्थापन/नवीन संविदा वार्डेन/फुल टाईम शिक्षिका में न करके अंशकालिक के पद पर तथा वार्डेन/पूर्ण कालिक शिक्षिका को पाठ्य सहगामी विषयों यथा कम्प्यूटर, स्काउट गाइड एंव शारीरिक शिक्षा कला क्राफ्ट एंव संगीत विषयों पदस्थापन/नवीन संविदा के पद पर किया गया है।
उल्लेखनीय हैै कि निःशुल्क और अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम 2009 की धारा 19 एंव 25 में वर्णित मान एंव मानकों की अनुसूची में निम्नवत् व्यवस्था उल्लिखित है-
छठी से आठवी कक्षा के लिए 1.कम से कम प्रति कक्षा एक शिक्षक, इस प्रकार
होगा कि निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक के लिए कम से कम
एक शिक्षक हो-
(i) विज्ञान एंव गणित।
(ii) सामाजिक अध्ययन।
(i) भाषा।
2. प्रत्येक पैंतीस बालकों के लिए कम से कम एक शिक्षक।
3. जहां एक सौ से अधिक बालकों को प्रवेश दिया गया है वहां-
(i) एक पूर्णकालिक प्रधान अध्यापक;
(ii)निम्नलिखित के लिए अंशकालिक शिक्षक-
(अ) कला शिक्षा।
(आ) स्वास्थ्य और शारीरिक शिक्षा।
(इ) कार्य शिक्षा। "
16. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents. The circular dated 14.7.2020 has been sought to be justified on the ground that same has been issued to ensure that quality education is provided to girl students of KGBV by qualified teachers. It is further asserted that engagement of contractual teachers in the scheme for KGBV was reviewed and it was found that more than one teacher/teachers were working in one subject in various KGBVs. Engagement of teachers in KGBV was also found beyond the subjects prescribed by the Board of Basic Education for its curriculum. Part time teachers were engaged for main subjects i.e. Mathematics, Science, Social Science, languages including English in place of full time teachers and full time teachers were appointed for subjects, which required part time teachers in various KGBV. According to respondents the engagement of teachers is being regulated with reference to the Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009, and that exercise in that regard is valid. Much emphasis has been given to the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009 to submit that the purpose of issuing the circular is to ensure that engagement of teachers remain absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009. A subsequent directive of the State Project Director dated 26.8.2020 has also been relied upon, as per which the eligible teachers are, however, to be adjusted where vacancies exist for the specific posts.
17. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent pointing out that petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.6911 of 2020 was appointed as full time teacher (Physical Education), whereas petitioner no.2 was appointed as part time teacher (Mathematics). Petitioner no.3 was appointed as part time teacher (Biology), petitioner no.4 was appointed as full time teacher (Computer)/Warden, petitioner no.5 was appointed as part time teacher (Commerce), petitioner no.6 was appointed as part time teacher (Home Science), petitioner no.7 was appointed as full time teacher (Arts/Music/Craft), petitioner no.8 was appointed as part time teacher, petitioner no.9 was appointed as part time teacher (Science), petitioner no.10 was appointed as full time teacher (Arts/Music/Craft), petitioner no.11 was appointed as full time teacher (Physical Education)/Warden, petitioner no. 12 was appointed as full time teacher (Physical Education), petitioner no.13 was appointed as part time teacher, petitioner no. 14 was appointed as part time teacher (Social Studies), petitioner no.15 was appointed as part time teacher (English), petitioner no.16 was appointed as part time teacher (Social Studies), petitioner no.17 was appointed as full time teacher (Physical Education), petitioner no.18 was appointed as full time teacher (Home Science), petitioner no.19 was appointed as full time teacher (Physical Education)/Warden, the petitioner no.20 was appointed as part time teacher (Mathematics) and the petitioner no.21 was appointed as full time teacher (Music/Arts/Craft). With reference to above, it is sough to be urged that engagement of teachers was not in accordance with the statutory scheme, and therefore, the authorities have rightly analyzed the factual scenario so that engagement of teachers remains in consonance with RTE Act, 2009.
18. Second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by respondents stating therein that teachers engaged contrary to the requirement have been adjusted elsewhere. Details of some of the teachers who have been adjusted has also been brought on record. Similar orders passed in respect of different districts, adjusting teachers in different institutions vide orders passed on 30.9.2021 have also been brought to the notice of the Court to substantiate the respondents' plea that their exercise of adjustment is only to ensure that the engagement of teachers remains as per law.
19. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by petitioners denying the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating the plea taken in the writ petition.
20. It is urged on behalf of petitioners that the subjects and course content for the KGBV is based upon the curriculum published by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in which many subjects over and above those specified in Schedule to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 are to be taught including commerce, computer, geography, agriculture, civics and moral science in Classes VI to VIII, whereas the respondents are now restricting the engagement of teachers only to subjects specified in the Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009. It is urged on behalf of petitioners that RTE Act, 2009 specifies the minimum subjects to be taught in such schools and it is always open for the institutions to teach other subjects also but, as per the curriculum issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad for Classes VI to VIII. It is argued that subjects taught in addition to those provided under the RTE Act, 2009 cannot be said to be irrelevant or inconsistent, so as to disengage the teachers employed for such subjects and have continued for long of time.
21. Petitioners also urge that qualification of teachers is prescribed by the statutory regulations framed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), from time to time, which makes no distinction in the qualification of teachers with reference to their subjects. For Classes VI to VIII it is asserted that qualification prescribed is trained graduate with Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). It is thus sought to be urged that in the absence of there being any requirement of qualification in any particular subject for engagement of teachers in the NCTE regulations, the respondents have misdirected themselves in treating the contractual teachers to be qualified to teach only the subject in which they are appointed.
22. On the strength of above, petitioners contend that the exercise initiated by the department by means of impugned circular is clearly misdirected and is otherwise inconsistent with the scheme of the RTE Act, 2009 and the NCTE regulations.
23. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submits that though the authorities could scrutinize the engagement of contractual teachers with an intent to renew their term but such examination must remain relevant and be based on provisions of law rather than a misdirected approach based on an erroneous understanding of law.
24. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, U.P., assisted by Sri Durga Singh, Advocate, opposing the writ petition contends that the circular in question merely ascertains relevant information so that the KGBVs function in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009. It is also argued on behalf of respondents that they have complete right to engage teachers for KGBV and the authorities and are otherwise acting as per law. Submission, accordingly, is that no interference with the impugned circular is thus called for. It is also urged that irrespective of above the arguments advanced in this bunch of writ petitions have already been repelled by this Court in a batch of writ petitions with leading Writ Petition No.4845 of 2021, decided on 12.8.2021.
25. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare in leading writ petition and Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Amardeo Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar, Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, Sri Sandeep Kumar, Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, Sri Indraj Raj Singh, Sri Krishna Kumar Singh and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh for the petitioners in connected writ petition, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State, and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Durga Singh has been heard for the respondent State Project Director.
26. At the very outset it is first necessary to meet the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent that the controversy raised in these bunch of writ petitions has already been considered and decided by this Court in a batch of writ petitions with leading Writ Petition No.4845 of 2021 (Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others), vide judgment and order dated 12.8.2021.
27. I have carefully perused and examined the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.4845 of 2021 (Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others). The petitioners therein were also contractual teachers engaged in KGBV and were aggrieved by non-renewal of their contractual appointment. The Court took notice of various circulars including the impugned circular dated 14.7.2020 but clearly observed that the policy documents contained in the circular dated 14.7.2020 is not under challenge. The qualification to be possessed by the KGBV teacher in light of NCTE regulations has also not been addressed or examined in the aforesaid case. Neither the curriculum published by the Basic Shiksha Parishad nor the question has been considered whether the subjects specified in the Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 are exhaustive has also not been dealt with, on which premise the entire exercise has been undertaken by respondents. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that questions raised in this bunch of writ petitions were neither raised nor decided in Writ Petition No.4845 of 2021 (Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) resultantly the arguments raised in present writ petitions are required to be considered by this Court.
28. Having heard the respective arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed before the Court, the following questions arise for determination:-
(i) Whether qualification for an upper primary teacher is prescribed in law with reference to particular subject and therefore such teacher is required to possess special knowledge in the subject concerned?
(ii) Whether subjects specified in Schedule to Section 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 lay down the minimum subjects to be taught in the KGBV institution, leaving dispensation of education in other subjects is permissible in KGBV?
(iii) Whether the classification of teacher in KGBV as Sangat (consistent) or Asangat (inconsistent), based on the subject taught by them is a valid classification?
29. Perusal of impugned circular would reveal that it proceeds on the following two grounds:-
(i) that appointment of teacher in an upper primary school is with reference to the qualification held in the subject taught.
(ii) that the Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 restricts teaching in the subjects specified therein and engagement of teacher in any other subject is inconsistent with the RTE Act, 2009.
30. According to the writ petitioners the aforesaid grounds are flawed and are in teeth of applicable statutes and hence are liable to be quashed.
31. The scheme for appointment of teachers in KGBV, therefore, needs to be examined with reference to the applicable laws.
32. The Constitution of India was amended vide 86th Amendment Act, 2002 to incorporate Article 21A, which contained a promise by State to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of 06 to 14 years in the manner to be determined by the State. Article 21A has already been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India to hold that right to education means right to quality education and it can be provided by qualified teachers only (see: Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, 2012 (4) SCALE 243). In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder, AIR 2011 SC 3470, the Supreme Court also observed that the right of children should not be restricted to free and compulsory education, but must include quality education without any discrimination on the ground of their economic, social and cultural background. Establishment of KGBV is thus a forward step taken by the State to secure the high objective of Article 21A and addresses the cause of education for a vulnerable class of marginalized children.
33. Quality education can thus be guaranteed only when the institution has qualified teachers. With the object to secure guaranteed uniform development of Teacher Education System throughout the county and for maintenance of norms and standards in Teaching Education System, including qualification of school teachers, Parliament enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act of 1993'). Section 3 of the Act of 1993 contemplates the establishment of a council to be called ''National Council for Teacher Education' (hereinafter referred to as ''NCTE'). Section 12(d) of the Act of 1993 provided that one of the functions of the NCTE would be to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in school. Section 12(a) was inserted in the Act of 1993 enable the NCTE to determine the minimum standards of education for school children. Section 32 of the Act of 1993 conferred authority on the NCTE to make regulations by issuing notification in the official gazette on various subjects, including the minimum qualification for a person to be employed as a teacher. In furtherance of the aforesaid Act of 1993 statutory regulations have been issued subsequently prescribing the qualification of teachers in school. ''School' in the Act of 1993 is defined under Section 2(ka) to mean any recognized school imparting pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary or senior secondary education and include a college imparting senior secondary education.
34. Parliament has therefore also enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 with an intent to implement the promise guaranteed in Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Section 23 of the Act, 2009 also provides for qualifications for appointment of teachers and terms and conditions of service of teachers to be such as is laid down by the academic authority, authorized by the Central Government vide notification. The academic authority for the purposes of Section 23 of the RTE Act of 2009 is the NCTE, and therefore prescription of qualification by way of regulations by the NCTE is also the qualification for appointment as a teacher under the Act of 2009. The qualification for a teacher to be appointed in a Junior High School, therefore, can only be such as is prescribed by the NCTE regulations.
35. A notification has in fact been issued by the NCTE exercising its powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009 on 23rd August, 2010, which has been amended on 29th July, 2011 prescribing following qualifications for a teacher to be appointed for Classes VI to VIII:-
"(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)
OR
Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.Ei.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A. Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose."
36. It may be observed that NCTE regulations while prescribing the minimum qualifications for appointment of teacher for Classes VI to VIII merely requires a trained graduate, who has passed Teacher Eligibility Test. The qualification is not prescribed with reference to any particular subject to be taught in such classes. The circular issued by the State Government on 29.7.2013 has also prescribed the qualification for appointment in KGBV as trained graduate with TET for higher primary level (Classes VI to VIII). The statutory scheme, therefore, makes it explicit that appointment of teacher at upper primary level is trained graduate with TET without any further qualification specific to a particular subject.
37. No circular or notification by any competent authority has been placed before the Court, which may show that any other qualification has been prescribed for appointment of teachers in KGBV, except trained graduate with TET.
38. The qualification for appointment of a teacher in an upper primary school is therefore, not with reference to any particular subject.
39. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents State Project Director contends that a teacher must possess requisite knowledge in a particular subject before he can be allowed to teach such subject in the upper primary institution.
40. Per contra, Sri Ashok Khare submits that subject specific qualification for teacher starts from IXth standard and for classes below it the qualification uniformly is trained graduate with TET. It is further argued that TET has been introduced by NCTE as an essential eligibility qualification for Junior Primary level and upper primary level, differently, and teachers who qualify TET are expected to be sufficiently equipped to teach different subjects to students of such lower classes. They are otherwise trained. An attempt has also been made to suggest that the course content for TET includes all subjects that are taught to students upto VIIIth standard, and therefore subject specific qualification is not separately provided for teachers upto Class VIIIth.
41. Submissions urged in this regard are not required to be dealt with any further, inasmuch as the law requires qualification for an upper primary teacher to be prescribed by NCTE and that having been done, it is not left to our general understanding to determine as to what ought to be the qualification for upper primary teacher.
42. The NCTE regulations are actually the law prescribing the qualification to be possessed by a teacher of Junior High School. The regulations do not require any specific knowledge in a particular stream at the graduation or intermediate level. Anyone who possesses the qualification prescribed for appointment as a teacher in Classes VI to VIII is assumed in law to be competent to teach the subject assigned to him/her. The KGBV management, therefore, cannot add or subtract the qualification prescribed by the NCTE, so as to read the requirement of graduation in a particular subject to teach the students of Classes VI to VIII in a given subject.
43. It is otherwise settled that once law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner alone and not in any other manner (see:-Taylor vs. Taylor: (1875) LR (1) CH-D-426, and Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor: AIR 1936 PC 253).
44. In view of the above discussions this Court is of the considered view that qualification for appointment of teacher in an upper primary school is not with reference to any subject but is trained graduate with TET as per notification of NCTE dated 29th July, 2011 inasmuch as the notification issued by NCTE is not only binding upon State Governments but also has and over riding effect. The first question is answered accordingly.
45. A question had earlier arisen before this Court regarding prescription of qualification for teachers in basic institutions, governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 1981'), which then were at variance with the qualification prescribed in the NCTE regulations. The NCTE regulations had prescribed passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as ''TET') as eligibility for appointment, which was not the qualification specified in the Rules of 1981. The question whether TET is an essential qualification in basic institution governed by 1981 rules was referred to the Full Bench. The Full Bench in Writ Petition No.12908 of 2013 (Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and others), alongwith connected matters, decided on 31.5.2013, categorically held that Teacher Eligibility Test is an essential qualification, thereby holding that the NCTE regulations would prevail in respect of appointment of teachers to be governed by the Rules of 1981.
46. Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 lay down the norms and standards for upper primary schools as also the teacher-student ratio, which are relevant for the issue in hand and are accordingly reproduced hereinafter:-
"19. Norms and standards for school.--(1) No school shall be established, or recognised, under Section 18, unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified in the Schedule.
(2) Where a school established before the commencement of this Act does not fulfil the norms and standards specified in the Schedule, it shall take steps to fulfil such norms and standards at its own expenses, within a period of three years from the date of such commencement.
(3) Where a school fails to fulfil the norms and standards within the period specified under subsection (2), the authority prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 18 shall withdraw recognition granted to such school in the manner specified under sub-section (3) thereof.
(4) With effect from the date of withdrawal of recognition under sub-section (3), no school shall continue to function.
(5) Any person who continues to run a school after the recognition is withdrawn, shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in case of continuing contraventions, to a fine of ten thousand rupees for each day during which such contravention continues.
25. Pupil-Teacher Ratio.--(1) Within six months from the date of commencement of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio, as specified in the Schedule, is maintained in each school.
(2) For the purpose of maintaining the Pupil-Teacher Ratio under sub-section (1), no teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any non-educational purpose, other than those specified in section 27."
47. Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 prescribes standards for students of Classes VI to VIII at serial 1(b), which is extracted hereinunder:-
"(ख) छठी कक्षा से आठवी कक्षा के लिए (1) कम से कम प्रति कक्षा एक
शिक्षक, इस प्रकार होगा कि निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक
के लिए कम से कम एक शिक्षक हो-
(i) विज्ञान और गणित;
(ii) सामाजिक अध्ययन;
(iii) भाषा।
(2) प्रत्येक पैंतीस बालकों के लिए कम से कम एक शिक्षक।
(3) जहां एक सौ से अधिक बालकों को प्रवेश दिया गया है वहां-
(i) एक पूर्णकालिक प्रधान अध्यापक;
(ii) निम्नलिखित के लिए अंशकालिक शिक्षक-
(अ) कला शिक्षा;
(आ) स्वास्थ्य और शारीरिक शिक्षा;
(इ) कार्य शिक्षा। "
48. For Classes VI to VIII the RTE Act, 2009 requires one teacher for each class in such a manner that one teacher is available for each of three subjects, namely (i) Science and Mathematics, (ii) Social Science & (iii) Language. The student-teacher ratio as per RTE Act, 2009 is 35:1 i.e. one teacher for 35 students. Where students admitted are in excess of 100, the RTE Act, 2009 requires a Head Teacher and also part time teachers in other streams, namely (i) Art Education, (ii) Health and Physical Education & (iii) Home Science. The RTE Act, 2009 apparently prescribes the norms, which are the minimum required to be fulfilled as per the Act of 2009. These norms by their very nature do not appear to be exhaustive but at best prescribe the minimum standards, which are to be fulfilled by schools imparting education to students in upper primary classes.
49. So far as the subjects and course contents to be taught in KGBV is concerned, the applicable circular of the department provides that the curriculum followed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in such classes would also be the curriculum for KGBV. The circular issued by Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, dated 30.6.2015 prescribes the subjects to be taught in KGBV as per the curriculum of the Basic Shiksha Parishad and is extracted hereinafter:-
"मॉडल - 1 में उर्दू विषय के शिक्षण हेतु 01 उर्दू टीचर का चयन केवल 20 प्रतिशत से अधिक मुस्लिम बाहुल्य विकास खण्डों तथा चयनित शहरी क्षेत्रों में किया जायेगा।
बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा उच्च प्राथमिक स्तर पर निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम के सभी विषय यथा हिन्दी, अंग्रेजी, संस्कृत/उर्दू, गणित (अंकगणित, बीजगणित, ज्यामिति), सामाजिक विषय (भूगोल, इतिहास एवं नागरिक शास्त्र), कला/संगीत/वाणिज्य, गृह शिल्प, शारीरिक शिक्षा, खेल तथा योगासन, स्काउटिंग एण्ड गाइडिंग, नैतिक शिक्षा, पर्यावरणीय शिक्षा तथा कम्प्यूटर शिक्षा आदि के लिए विषयवार शिक्षक/शिक्षिकाओं का चयन इस प्रकार किया जायेगा कि सभी विषयों का अध्यापन गुणवत्तापरक हो तथा पाठ्य सहगामी क्रिया - कलाप का संचालन भी प्रभावी ढंग से हो।
वार्डन जिस विषय की होंगी उस विषय हेतु अलग से शिक्षिका का चयन नहीं किया जायेगा। चयन समिति अनुमन्य पदों पर चयन के समय विषयों का ध्यान रखेगी। मॉडल - 1 के विद्यालय में गणित एवं विज्ञान हेतु प्रस्तावित 02 पदों में से यथा संभव 01 पूर्णकालिक शिक्षिका अवश्य हो। "
50. As against the subjects to be taught as per Schedule to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009, the decision by State earlier was to impart education in other subjects also i.e. over and above than the minimum prescribed in the RTE Act, 2009. These subjects include Commerce, Moral Science, Environmental Education, Computer etc., otherwise not specified in the RTE Act, 2009.
51. The decision of the State has consistently been to impart quality education to girl students in KGBV in different subjects, as per the course contents specified in the Basic Shiksha Parishad. An affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad on 14.9.2021, annexing the curriculum prescribed for upper primary school (Classes VI to VIII) by the Basic Education Board, in which the number of permissible subjects to be taught alongwith the course content for each of such subjects is far in excess of what is recommended in the RTE Act, 2009. As a matter of fact the list of permissible subjects to be taught in upper primary schools extends upto to 42 subjects.
52. The second ground of challenge to the impugned circular is that it wrongly assumes that subjects specified in Schedule to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 alone are permissible to be taught in upper primary institutions and the engagement of teachers for other subjects is contrary to the RTE Act, 2009. This stand of the respondents proceeds on the ground that the list of subjects to be taught in upper primary schools, as specified in the RTE Act, 2009, is exhaustive and that no other subject except what is specified therein is required to be taught.
53. No decision of the competent authority has been placed before the Court, which may go to show that the respondents have taken a policy decision to restrict the subjects to be taught in KGBV shall be as those which are specified in Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009. The stated policy of the State in view of the Government Order dated 30.6.2015 clearly is to provide education in other subjects also as per the curriculum of Basic Shiksha Parishad and not to limit the subjects to be taught in KGBV only as per Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009.
54. The respondents although would be entitled to regulate course content for students in KGBV but such regulation will have to be consistent with the policy decision taken by the respondents themselves. Since the professed policy is to adopt the curriculum specified by the Basic Shiksha Vibhag, as such the respondents would not be justified in limiting the subjects to be taught only to the Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009.
55. Many of the teachers previously engaged for teaching subjects other than those specified in the schedule to the RTE Act, 2009 would become redundant and may have to be discontinued, only because the respondents have confined the permissible subjects to be taught as those specified in Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009.
56. It transpires that large number of teachers were engaged to teach various subjects in the KGBVs as were available from the curriculum prescribed for the schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. These teachers have continued for almost 10 years or more, by now.
57. The Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009 otherwise specifies the minimum norms and standards to be fulfilled by a primary and upper primary institution. The language employed in Section 19(1) of the RTE Act of 2009 is amply suggestive of the fact that the norms and standards specified in the Schedule are the bare minimum for the institution and is not exhaustive. It clearly admits of additional subjects being taught in such institutions. The second question stands answered accordingly.
58. The concept of Sangat (consistent) and Asangat (inconsistent) contained in the impugned circular needs to be understood in the above perspective.
59. The respondents have proceeded on the premise that only such subjects can be taught in KGBV which are specified in the Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009 and therefore teachers engaged in other subjects are treated as Asangat (inconsistent). Similarly, teachers engaged in subjects requiring full time teacher, as per the Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009 alone are to be retained as full time teachers while teachers engaged in part time subjects, as per schedule, can be retained as part time teachers. All other teachers, even though their engagement may be permissible under the curriculum published by the Basic Shiksha Parishad are no longer required to be retained and are treated as inconsistent (Asangat) by virtue of the classification drawn in the impugned circular.
60. The grounds for not accepting the rationale behind the impugned circular by this Court are apparent on the face of the record. First and foremost, the qualification of teacher in upper primary school is not subject specific and the respondents have erred in taking a contrary view. A teacher possessing qualification as per NCTE regulation and appointed to teach Hindi can very well teach Social Science or Arts also at upper primary level. It would, therefore, not be proper to presume that qualification and appointment of teacher is with reference to any subject and if it is not in consonance with the Schedule to RTE Act, 2009 then it becomes inconsistent or Asangat.
61. The segregation of teachers based on subjects taught by them as full time teacher or part time teacher is also an aspect, which requires due considerations. The NCTE regulations do not prescribe/specify as to what exactly is meant by a full time teacher or a part time teacher. Even the RTE Act of 2009 is silent about the distinctions between the two. The respondents apparently have engaged teachers as per the curriculum of Basic Shiksha Parishad, wherein there is no distinction between full time teacher and part time teacher. As such aforesaid distinction drawn by respondents is totally alien. Having continued the previous engagement as per the circulation provided by Basic Shiksha Parishad curriculum the respondents are revising the engagement of teachers on a flawed interpretation and understanding of the RTE Act, 2009. Their understanding in doing so is otherwise inconsistent with the NCTE regulations which are otherwise binding upon them.
62. Attention of the Court has been invited to appointment letters issued to many of the part time teachers, wherein their working hours are throughout the day. There is no clarity even otherwise about the working hours of part time teachers vis-a-vis full time teachers.
63. Engagement of some of the teachers in KGBVs was on full time basis as well as on part time basis. There is, however, no specific policy about this segregation, inasmuch as teachers engaged in part time subjects are also required to attend schools from 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. In this regard attention of the Court was invited to the appointment letter of some of the part time teachers whose timings are shown as 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. No attempt was made to explain the aforesaid decision during the course of hearing.
64. It is thus apparent that there is lack of clarity on the distinction between full time and part time teachers. The Second National Report on evaluation of KGBVs has also noticed this anomaly while observing as under in paragraph 34:-
"34. Some states deploy regular teachers on deputation to the KGBV - which is indeed a good practice as these teachers are both qualified and trained. Compared to them, teachers appointed on contract may not have the requisite qualification or training. In some states the KGBVs visited reported a high attrition as more and more teachers were qualifying the TET and moving on to join regular positions.
34.1. There needs to be clarity on who is part-time (comes for a few hours) and full-time (comes for the duration of the school hours). Some states interpret full time as being residential and part time as those who come and go.
34.2. Equally, RTE compliance needs to be made a non-negotiable guideline of KGBV. The qualifications of teachers need to be stipulated and adhered to."
65. According to the petitioners part time teachers are those who do not stay in the KGBVs while full time teachers stay in the school but they both remain in school throughout the school timings. It is therefore urged on behalf of petitioners that distinction between full time and part time teacher needs to be properly defined and all part time teachers attending the KGBV throughout the day cannot be denied salary at par with full time teachers since both remain in school throughout the school hours. According to petitioners discrimination is being practiced in the garb of classification.
66. On behalf of the respondents it is sought to be urged that part time teachers work only for a few hours, but no specific provision in any applicable circular or policy is placed before the Court, which may demonstrate that lesser working hours are prescribed for part time teachers engaged in KGBV. This aspect therefore does require necessary classification by the respondents or else the purpose of undertaking the impugned exercise would be futile.
67. The impugned circular has not taken note of the NCTE regulations which prescribe the qualifications for appointment of teachers for upper primary classes and has also not examined the issue of engagement of teachers with reference to curriculum formulated by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Respondents have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that subjects specified in Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 are exhaustive and therefore do not additional subjects cannot being taught, is wholly fallacious. The distinction drawn between Sangat (consistent) and Asangat (inconsistent) teachers coupled with the direction for renewal of contract to be made as per aforesaid classification clearly unsustainable. Resultantly the impugned circular dated 14.7.2020, issued by the State Project Director, cannot be sustained and stands quashed. Respondents are directed to re-visit the issue, in the light of qualifications prescribed vide NCTE regulations as also the curriculum prescribed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad for Classes VI to VIII and to proceed for the reasons mentioned herein above thereafter. It goes without saying that petitioners shall be paid their honorarium regularly and continuously. This bunch of writ petitions, accordingly, stands allowed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021
Anil
(Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)
