Bombay High Court
Abhijit Madhavrao Patil And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 7 October, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7790 OF 2019
1. Abhijit Madhavrao Patil
Age : 37 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. 104, Mohan Nagar,
Near Vrundawan Gardan, Jalgaon
2. Roshani d/o. Milind Kochure
Age : 32 years, Occu : Household,
R/o. C/o. Shri N.D. Ahire
D/19-16, Shivajinagar,
11 VI Cidco Yojana, Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad
3. Shital Mangesh Gurav
Age : 33 years, occu : household,
R/o. C/o. Shri N.D. Ahire,
D/19-16, Shivajinagar,
11 VI Cidco Yojana, Garkheda, Parisar,
Aurangabad
4. Manisha Amit Gade
Age : 34 years, Occu : Household
R/o. 104, Mohan Nagar,
Near Vrundawan Gardan,
Jalgaon. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
School Education
And Sports Department Mantralaya
Mumbai.
2. The State Council of Educational
Research and Training
At Post 708, B.R. Kunthekar Road,
Peru Gate, Sadashiv Peth, Pune.
Through its Secretary.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2022 19:09:13 :::
2
3. The Commissioner of Education
(Primary / Secondary), Central
Building Pune Station, Pune.
4. The Director of Education
(Primary / Secondary), Central Building
Pune Station, Pune. .. Respondents
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10388 OF 2019
1. Sumit Gokul Nannavare
Age : 32 years, Occu : Nil,
R/o. Chintaman Morya Nagar
Near Swami Samarth Kendra,
Shri Apartment, Dharangaon,
Dist. Jalgaon
2. Mahendra Vinayak Dhalape
Age : 30 years, Occu : Nil
R/o. C/o. Chintaman Morya Nagar
Near Swami Samarth Kendra,
Shri Apartment, Dharangaon,
Dist. Jalgaon .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
School Education
And Sports Department Mantralaya
Mumbai.
2. The State Council of Educational Research and Training,
At post 708, B.R. Kunthekar Road,
Peru Gate, Sadashiv Peth, Pune.
3. The Commissioner of Education (Primary / Secondary),
Central Building Pune Station, Pune.
4. The Director of Education
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2022 19:09:13 :::
3
(Primary / Secondary) Central Building
Pune Station, Pune. .. Respondents
...
In Both the Matters :
Mr. Abasaheb D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 28.09.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.10.2022
JUDGMENT (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :
A. THE CHALLENGE:
. By the present petitions filed under the provisions of
Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge
Clause - 7 of Schedule 'B' of the Government Resolution dated
25.02.2019 as well as the advertisements issued by the State
Government for different districts for appointments on the post of
Shikshan Sevak in respect of combined subject of Maths - Science.
The petitioners' grievance essentially is that having completed
graduation in Microbiology, Biotechnology, Agriculture Science and
Computer Science, they are held eligible to teach Science subject, but
are held ineligible to teach either the subject of Mathematics or the
combined subject of Mathematics-Science. To this extent, the
qualifications prescribed for combined subject of Maths - Science for
appointment on the post of Shikshan Sevak are challenged in the
present petitions.
B] FACTUAL MATRIX :
2. The petitioners have completed their graduation in
following subjects:-
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.7790 of 2019
1. Abhijit S/o. Madhavrao Patil - Biotechnology
2. Roshani Milind Kochure - Microbiology
3. Shital w/o. Mangesh Gurav - Microbiology
4. Manisha Amit Gade - Agricultural
Science
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.10388 of 2019
5. Sumit Gokul Nannavare - Computer Science.
6. Mahendra Vinayak Dhalape - Computer Science.
3. The petitioners also hold the qualifications of Bachelour
of Education. They have also cleared Teachers Eligibility Test (in short
'TET') as well as Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (in short
'TAIT'). 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.
4. The State Government issued Government Resolution
dated 25.02.2019 thereby prescribing qualifications for appointment
of teachers for various standards. For the purpose of the present case,
the qualifications prescribed in Schedule 'B' to the Government
Resolution dated 25.02.2019 for teachers for standard 1 st to 5th in
respect of subjects of Maths, Science and combined subject of Maths -
Science are relevant. As per the Govt. Resolution, 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.
5. A corrigendum was issued on 12.06.2019 by which the
prescribed qualifications for some of the subjects 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.
So far as the combined subject of Maths-Science, no change is
effected in the requisite degree by corrigendum dated 12.06.2019.
6. Thus, as a result of issuance of the Govt. Resolution and
Corrigendum dated 25.02.2019 and 12.06.2019, such of the
petitioners who are possessing degree in Microbiology, Biotechnology,
Biochemistry or Agricultural Science are now eligible to teach
standalone subject of Science. The petitioner possessing degree in
Computer Science is now eligible to teach standalone subject of
Mathematics. However, none of the petitioners are eligible to teach
combined subject of Maths - Science. This is precisely the grievance
of the petitioners.
DEVELOPMENTS DURING PENDENCY OF THE PETITION:
7. This Court passed order dated 04.11.2019 and made
following observations:
'3. 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.
4. The learned Additional Government
Pleader shall take instructions whether the
respondents are reconsidering the Government
Resolution and the 1corrigendum to that effect.'
8. The State Government placed the above observations
before the State Council of Educational Research and Training
(hereinafter referred to as the 'State Council'). The Board of Studies
discussed the issue of requisite qualifications for teachers by holding
a meeting on 19.11.2019 which comprised of 17 members. The
Committee recorded its opinion, which came to be conveyed vide
letter dated 30.11.2019. The Committee does not seem to have
recommended inclusion of the subjects of Microbiology,
Biotechnology, Agriculture, Computer Science etc., for combined
subject of Maths - Science. The State Council appears to have made
some recommendations in respect of proposed amendments to the
provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions
of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of
1977'). It appears that the Committee sought further time to
examine some of the issues.
9. As the hearing of the matter progressed, the State
Government has placed before this Court letters dated 16.03.2022,
18.07.2022, 15.09.2022 and 27.09.2022. It is not necessary to
reproduce / deal with the contents of those letters which were
addressed to the Government Pleader to seek further time in the
matter. Suffice it to state that the State Government has been
contemplating amendments to the Act of 1977 qua qualifications for
appointment of teachers. The hearing of the present petitions was
adjourned from time to time as proposed amendments in the Act of
1977, could modify the qualifications prescribed for teachers.
However, the petitioners opposed further adjournment of hearing and
therefore, we proceeded to hear the petitions finally.
SUBMISSIONS:
10. Mr. Aabasaheb Shinde, the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioners would submit 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. He would submit that it is ironical that the
petitioners are held eligible to teach Science subject, but not the
combined subject of Maths - Science. He would submit that the
candidates who have done their graduation in Maths subject are
eligible to teach the combined subject of Maths - Science. Similarly,
candidates who have done graduation in Physics, Chemistry and
Biology are held eligible to teach combined subject of Maths -
Science. 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. He would, therefore,
submit that the impugned decision is highly discriminatory and does
not have any nexus with the objects sought to be achieved.
11. Mr. Shinde has taken us through the statement of marks
of B.Ed., TET, TAIT to buttress his contention that the said
examinations covered the subjects of Maths and Science. Inviting our
attention to the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by this Court in the
present petition, Mr. Shinde would contend that the State
Government refused to correct the error in prescribing qualifications
despite strong observations made by this Court.
12. Mr. Shinde would rely upon the provisions of Section 23
of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Right to Education Act') and would
submit that after coming into effect of the said Act, every person
possessing the minimum qualifications prescribed by the academic
authority, notified by the Central Government, becomes eligible for
appointment as a teacher. He would submit that the National Council
for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCTE') has
been notified as the academic authority by the Government of India.
He would therefore rely upon notification dated 29.07.2011 by which
NCTE has prescribed minimum qualifications for a person to be
eligible for appointment as a teacher. Relying on the notification
dated 29.07.2011, Mr. Shinde would submit that the qualifications
prescribed by NCTE do not require graduation in particular subject
for appointment as a teacher. He would submit 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.
13. Mr. Shinde has also relied upon Rule 6 and Schedule 'B'
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1981') to
buttress his contention that NCTE alone is entitled to prescribe
qualifications for appointment as a teacher. Mr. Shinde would
therefore submit that the petitioner should be permitted to
participate in the selection process for combined subject of Maths -
Science.
14. Mr. Shinde would rely upon following decisions in
support of his contentions:
(i) S. Seshachalam & Ors vs.Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
& Ors, 2015 AIR (SC) 816
(ii) Decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Prajapati
Paresh Govindbhai and Others vs. State of Gujarat through
Principal secretary and Ors, 2011 SCC OnLine GUJ. 6850.
(iii) Decision of this Court in Yogesh Popatrao Maid vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, 2020 DGLS (Bom) 272
15. Per contra, Mr. Yawalkar, the learned Additional
Government Pleader opposes the petition. He would rely upon two
affidavits filed by the State Government. He would submit that out of
deference to the order passed by this Court on 04.11.2019, 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.
16. Mr. Yawalkar would further submit 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. He would therefore submit that the
action of the State Government is not in violation of provisions of
Section 23 of the Right to Education Act. He would further submit
that in pursuance of the provisions under Section 23 of the Right to
Education Act, the State Government has prescribed various
qualifications for appointment of teachers in Schedule 'B' of the MEPS
Rules adhering to the requirement that none of the qualifications are
lower than the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE. He
would further submit that the State Government has made the
qualifications applicable uniformly to all Zilla Parishads and
departments and that there is no discrimination. Lastly, he would
submit that selection process is in the last stage of completion and
therefore, this Court should be loath in interfering in the same.
17. In support of his contention, Mr. Yawalkar has relied
upon the following judgments:
(i) The University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and another,
AIR 1965 SC 491
(ii) State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252
(iii) Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad
and Others, 2019 (2) SCC 404.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS :
18. Petitioners are questioning the wisdom of the State
Government in prescribing qualifications for appointment as a
teacher for combined subject of Maths - Science and are insisting that
the candidates possessing degree in Biotechnology, Microbiology,
Biochemistry, Agricultural Science and Computer Science, should also
be held eligible for being appointed as a teacher for that subject.
19. We would first examine the scope of jurisdiction available for
us to interfere in the area of prescription of qualifications for
appointment. It is trite that the issue of determining the requisite
qualifications for a particular post would clearly fall outside the scope
of judicial review. In several decisions it is repeatedly held that
prescription of qualifications for a post is required to be left to the
experts and that the Court should be loath in interfering in that area.
There is no dearth of judgments lying down this principle, we would
examine few such decisions.
20. In the University of Mysore (supra) the Constitution Bench has
held as under:
'13. Before we part with these appeals, however,
reference must be made to two other matters. In dealing
with the case presented before it by the respondent, the
High Court has criticised the report made by the Board and
has observed that the circumstances disclosed by the report
made it difficult for the High Court to treat the
recommendations made by the experts with the respect
that they generally deserve. We are unable to see the point
of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters.
Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities
and when recommendations made by them and the
appointments following on them, are challenged before
courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with
the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no
allegation about mala fides against 38-2 S. C. India/64 the
experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we
think, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to
leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are
more familiar with the problems they face than the courts
generally can be. The criticism made by the High Court
against the report made by the Board seems to suggest that
the High Court thought that the Board was in the position
of an executive authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was
acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes
referred to it for its decisions. In dealing with complaints
made by citizens in regard to appointments made by
academic bodies, like the Universities, such an approach
would not be reasonable or appropriate. In fact, in issuing
the writ, the High Court has made certain observations
which show 'that the High Court applied tests 'Which would
legitimately be applied in the case of writ of certiorari. In
the judgment, it has been observed that the error in this
case is undoubtedly a manifest error. That is a
consideration which is more germane and relevant in a
procedure for a writ of certiorari. What the High Court
should have considered is whether the appointment made
by the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding
rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should
have shown due regard to the opinions expressed by the
Board & its recommendations on which the Chancellor has
acted. In this connection, the High Court has failed to
notice one significant fact that when the Board considered
the claims of the respective applicants, it examined them
very carefully and actually came to the conclusion that
none of them deserved to be appointed a Professor. These
recommendations made by the Board clearly show that
they considered the relevant factors carefully and
ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant No. 2
should be recommended for the post of Reader. Therefore,
we are satisfied that the criticism made by the High Court
against the Board and its deliberations is not justified.'
(emphasis supplied)
21. In Lata Arun (supra) the Apex Court has held in para - 13 as
under:
'13. From the ration of the decisions noted above it is
clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for
admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in
service are matters to be considered by the appropriate
authority. it is not for courts to decide whether a particular
educational qualification should or should not be accepted
as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the
authority.'
22. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), the Apex Court has held as
under:
'23. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the
State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several
features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes
requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the
functionality of a qualification and the content of the
course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a
qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to
assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of
administrative decision making. The state as a public
employer may well take into account social perspectives
that require the creation of job opportunities across the
societal structure. All these are essentially matters of
policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the
decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of
a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a
lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the
post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision
in Jyoti KK turned'
23. Thus it is trite 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. Keeping the contours of judicial interference in mind, we
now proceed to examine the case put forth by the Petitioners.
24. The State Government in its affidavit-in-reply has given the
following justifications for not permitting the candidates possessing
degree in Microbiology, Biochemistry, Agricultural Science and
Computer Science for appointment as a teacher for combined subject
of Maths - Science:-
'4. I say and submit that, the subject namely
Microbiology, Biotechnology & Agriculture are the sub-
branches of Botany. The curriculum for classes 6 to 10
consists of a very less part of these subjects and it is
expected that the teachers having basic graduation in
Microbiology, Biotechnology & Agriculture can teach the
science subjects but can not be expected to handle the
other part of the combined group i.e. Mathematics.
Therefore the candidates with these qualifications are
considered eligible for science group as a whole and
cannot be considered to teach for subject maths and
Science for std. 6 to 10.'
25. As observed hereinabove, after this Court made prima facie
observations in its order dated 04.11.2019, the State Government
referred the matter for opinion of experts. 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 it is
necessary for a teacher to possess education in Maths at a higher level
than the one at which he would teach the students. That Maths
subject is not necessary for obtaining degree of science in few
subjects and therefore in the curriculum of such degree, the concepts
of Mathematics are not incorporated. 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. The Council has further opined that out of the three
subjects of Mathematics, Science and combined subject of
Mathematics - Science, there is a difference in educational
qualifications required for the combined subject of Maths - Science
and that it is necessary to take into consideration the fundamental
subject. That Microbiology, Biotechnology and Agriculture are sub
branches of basic subjects of Botany and Zoology. Similarly, IT and
Computer Science are branches of Mathematics and basic science of
physics. The Council had sought further time to consult other experts.
26. Though the report of the experts nominated by the State
Council does not appear to be conclusive in any particular area, it is
clear that despite being tasked with modifying the prescribed
qualifications for combined subject of Maths-Science, the experts
have not recommended inclusion of degrees in the subjects of
Biotechnology, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Agricultural Science and
Computer Science for teaching that subject. Rather the observations
made by the experts would indicate that they are against inclusion of
degrees in those subjects for teaching combined subject of Maths-
Science. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in University
of Mysore (supra), we cannot comment upon or criticize the opinion
expressed by the State Council.
27. From the stand taken by the State Government in its affidavit-
in-reply as well as the opinion of the experts, it appears that the
decision to prescribe particular qualifications for teaching a subject is
a well considered decision based on opinion of experts. 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. The State Government has
prescribed the same after consulting the experts and this Court would
be loath in interfering with the decision of the State Government in
that regard.
28. Mr. Shinde has laid great stress on the qualifications
prescribed by NCTE and has strenuously submitted that the State
Government cannot prescribe qualifications that are in contravention
of the ones prescribed by the NCTE. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of
the Right to Education Act provides as under:
''23. Qualifications for appointment and terms
and conditions of service of teachers.--(1) Any
person possessing such minimum qualifications, as
laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the
Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible
for appointment as a teacher.
(2) ..........
Provided that a teacher who, at the
commencement of this Act, does not possess
minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-
section (1), shall acquire such minimum
qualifications within a period of five years.
(3) ...........'
(emphasis supplied)
29. NCTE has been notified by the Central Government as
the academic authority under Section 23 of the Right to Education
Act. In the notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE, again
the expression 'minimum qualification' is used. Thus, what is
required to be prescribed under Section 23 of the Right to Education
Act and what has been prescribed by NCTE under notification dated
29.07.2011 are only the 'minimum qualifications' for a person to be
eligible for appointment as teacher. There is no express bar under the
provisions of Right to Education Act for prescription of qualifications
higher than the one prescribed by NCTE. Even the notification dated
29.07.2011 does not, in any manner, provide that no authority can
prescribe the qualifications higher than the minimum qualifications
prescribed by NCTE. Therefore, according to us, 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. Only where qualifications lower than the
minimum qualifications are to be prescribed, relaxation is required to
be sought under Sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Right to
Education Act.
30. What is left now is to deal with the judgments relied upon by
Mr. Shinde. In S. Seshachalam (supra) the Apex Court has held that
classification cannot be arbitrary, artificial or evasive and that the
same must have reasonable relation to the objects sought to be
achieved by the legislation. We are respectful by bound by the
proposition. However, in the instant case, we do not find that any
discrimination is practised by the State Government while prescribing
qualifications for the combined subject of Maths - Science. By
prescribing qualifications for teachers to teach different subjects
based on opinion of experts, we do not find that any classification is
made by the State Government, and even if made, such classification
is in any manner unreasonable, arbitrary or artificial.
31. In Prajapati Paresh Govindbhai (supra) the issue was entirely
different. The issue was about entitlement of a degree holder in
particular subject to appear for Teacher Eligibility Test in a different
subject. The issue was not about eligibility of a candidate possessing
degree in one subject to seek appointment to teach an altogether
different subject. Therefore, the decision is clearly distinguishable.
32. In the decision of this Court in Yogesh Popatrao Maid (supra),
Government Resolution dated 07/02/2019 was under challenge,
albeit to the extent making it compulsory to complete bridge course
of 6 months for appointment as teacher to Class - I to V for
candidates possessing B.Ed. qualification. The said condition was
challenged inter alia on the ground that the same was contrary to the
qualifications prescribed by NCTE. Thus, the issue involved in that
case was not about the power of the State Government to prescribe
qualifications higher than the minimum qualifications prescribed by
NCTE. The issue was altogether different. Under the qualifications
prescribed by NCTE, a person possessing qualification of B.Ed. is
eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher for Class I to V with a
rider that he/she should undergo six months' bridge course in
elementary education recommended by NCTE within two years of
such appointment. As against this, the Government Resolution
impugned therein mandated undergoing of such bridge course before
appointment. It is in the light of these circumstances that, this court
held that the prescription of such a condition by way of Government
Resolution was impermissible. The judgment is thus clearly
distinguishable and has no application to the present case.
CONCLUSION :
33. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the State
Government is entitled to prescribe higher qualifications than the
minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE and also to prescribe
qualifications suited to teach particular subjects. The qualifications
necessary for appointment of teachers to tech combined subject of
Maths - Science is something which can be decided by the State
Government alone by acting on opinion of experts in the field and
this Court will not be in a position to interfere in the same.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the petition. However, we
must observe here that the State government itself is in the process of
amending the provisions of Act of 1977, which may bring a change in
the qualifications prescribed for teachers teaching various subjects.
Such amendments are being effected on the basis of
recommendations and opinions of the experts in the subject. We
express no opinion on the proposed action. In fact as held by us,
prescription of qualifications for appointment on post is in exclusive
domain of the experts and the Courts would be loath to interfere in
the same. Solicitation of opinions of experts and proposing
amendments based thereon is in fact indicative of the fact that the
State Government is trying to iron out the creases, if any, in the
qualifications prescribed for subject teachers. This is yet another
ground why this Court should not interfere in the matter of
correctness of qualifications prescribed for appointment to a post.
Consequently, no case is made out for interference by this Court. We,
therefore, proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are dismissed without any orders as to costs.
(ii) This Order will however not preclude the State Government
from amending the provisions of Act of 1977 or any
administrative instructions relating to prescription of
qualifications for appointment of teachers based on opinion of
experts.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
GGP
