Mrs. Usha Rajput vs Principal, C.L. Bhalla Daya Nand ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 450 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.3560/2007

%                                                   25th January, 2017


MRS. USHA RAJPUT                                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       None.
                          versus

PRINCIPAL, C.L. BHALLA DAYA NAND MODEL SCHOOL &
ORS.                                  ..... Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the letter dated 9.5.2006

issued by respondent nos.1 and 2/C.L. Bhalla Daya Nand Model

School whereby the petitioner was directed to obtain Nursery Teachers

Training (NTT) certificate/B.Ed. from a recognized institute within

two years from the date of issuance of letter dated 9.5.2006.

2. The petitioner as per the writ petition pleads that she was

appointed in the year 1984 as a nursery teacher when the petitioner had

shown all her relevant documents and hence was granted appointment

as a nursery teacher. Petitioner pleads that on account of malafides the

respondent nos.1 and 2/school issued its impugned letter dated

9.5.2006, and which cannot be done, because the same is after the

petitioner has served for almost 20 years with the school and the

petitioner‟s certificates were checked when petitioner was initially

granted appointment. Petitioner also pleads that National Council for

Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as „the NCTE

Act‟) cannot be applied retrospectively for persons who have been

appointed before the NCTE Act came into force and thus petitioner is

not required to have the Nursery Teachers Training (NTT) certificate

qualification from a recognized institute.

3. The counter affidavit which is filed by the respondent

nos.1 and 2/school shows that the petitioner was asked to give her valid

certificate and her valid qualifications because of the order of the

Director of Education dated 12.8.2004, and which was issued to ensure

that only qualified teachers were appointed in schools in Delhi. The

entire issue with respect to unqualified teachers teaching in schools,

and which should not happen, came in view of various orders passed

by a Bench of this Court in CWP No.8765/2004 titled Chhipiwara

Welfare Society Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors., wherein the issue

was of teaching of students in Delhi by unqualified teachers.

Petitioner‟s NTT certificate was found not to be from a recognized

institute as petitioner has obtained her NTT certificate from M/s. R.G.

Polytechnic (R.G. Educational & Technical Education Training

Sanstha), Delhi which was not recognized by the competent authority.

Petitioner therefore by the impugned letter dated 9.5.2006 was asked to

get the necessary certificate from a recognized institute within two

years. In the counter affidavit of the respondent nos. 1 & 2/school,

reference is made to the orders of the Director of Education passed on

account of the judicial directions passed in CWP No. 8765/2004 titled

Chhipiwara Welfare Society Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors., and

consequently the Director of Education writing letters to the

respondent nos. 1 & 2/school seeking that teachers of the schools must

be appropriately qualified. The letter of the school dated 27.7.2005

issued to the petitioner is on the basis of letters of the Director of

Education. In the counter affidavit of the respondent nos. 1 &

2/school, reference is made to the report dated 22.3.2006 prepared by

the Deputy Director of the Education with respect to inspection

conducted in schools as regards the qualifications of teachers, and in

para 2 of this report dated 22.3.2006 the name of the petitioner/Mrs.

Usha Rajput is specifically mentioned as an unqualified staff.

4. At the time when notice was issued in this writ petition on

14.5.2007 the impugned order dated 9.5.2006 was stayed and which

interim order was made absolute on 1.8.2008 when the writ petition

was admitted for hearing.

5. It is seen that although respondent nos. 1 & 2/school and

the respondent no. 3/Director of Education have filed detailed counter

affidavits to the petitioner not having the educational

qualification/NTT certificate from a recognized institute yet the

petitioner has chosen not to file any rejoinder to challenge this fact. I

may also note that the petitioner through her Advocate‟s notice dated

23.5.2005 admits in para 4 of the notice that the institute from where

petitioner obtained NTT qualification was not from a recognized

institute, and it was contended by the petitioner that there cannot be

retrospective application of the NCTE Act. This para 4 of the notice of

the petitioner‟s Advocate dated 23.5.2005 reads as under:-

"4. That as regards the qualifications of my clientesses, my clientesses have already stated in their legal notice that they are duly qualified teachers and even though the name of the institutes from where they completed the course of Nursery Teacher Training does not exist in the list of approved institutes published by N.C.T.E. yet they cannot be termed as un-qualified by N.C.T.E. yet they cannot be termed as un-

qualified because they have been working since more than 15 years in the school and the N.C.T.E. Act came into existence only in the year 1995. The list of approved institutions which has been published by the N.C.T.E. is pertaining only to the institutions which were functioning at the time of their approval. My clientesses cannot be termed as un- qualified teachers in any sense. They have the requisite qualifications as having done NTT course from the reputed institute even though those institutes are not functioning now-a-day."

6. In my opinion, the petitioner is not justified in contending

that the NCTE Act is being retrospectively applied because the issue

would be of retrospective application only if the petitioner is not given

time to obtain the necessary educational qualification. Petitioner by the

impugned letter dated 9.5.2006 was asked to get NTT/B.Ed. certificate

from a recognized institute within two years, but, the petitioner instead

of obtaining the necessary qualification has chosen to file the present

writ petition. The respondent no. 3/Director of Education is completely

justified in seeking that teachers of school in Delhi must have

necessary educational qualifications on account of frauds of

unqualified teachers teaching in Delhi, came to light in view of various

orders which were passed by a Bench of this Court in CWP No.

8765/2004 titled as Chhipiwara Welfare Society Vs. Govt. of NCT,

Delhi & Ors. Once the petitioner has been given ample time to get her

educational qualification of NTT/B.Ed. certificate within two years, it

cannot be argued that the actions of the respondents are illegal and

arbitrary.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is

dismissed as respondents are justified in asking the petitioner to get the

necessary NTT/B.Ed. qualification from a recognized institute, but

since there was an interim order which was passed in this case staying

the operation of the impugned order of the respondent nos. 1 &

2/school dated 9.5.2006, while dismissing this writ petition, it is

ordered that petitioner will obtain the necessary Nursery Teacher

Training (NTT)/B.Ed. qualification within a period of two years from

today, if not already obtained by the petitioner.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JANUARY 25, 2017                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara/Ne