Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Saste vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 May, 2025
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
WRIT APPEAL-1738/2024
VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
OTHER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION -11376/2024
VIPIN KUMAR PATEL OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION -19227/2023
NITIN KUMAR BAGHMARE
BAGHMAREAND
AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION - 26799/2022
RAKESH DHARWA
DHARWAAND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT APPEAL - 1877/2024
SHIVANI SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT APPEAL - 1886/2024
SUNITA SASTE
SASTEAND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT APPEAL - 1953/2024
AJITESH TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
WRIT APPEAL - 2198/2024
MANOJ SASTE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Appearance:
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal
K.C.Ghildiyal- Senior Counsel with Ms. Warija Ghildiyal - Advocate.
Shri S.R.Tamrakar - Senior Counsel with Shri Ankit Chopra-
Chopra Advocate for
Appellants/ Petition
etitioners.
Shri Piyush Jain Government Advocate for Respondents/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Reserved On : 25.02.2025
Pronounced On:24.05.2025
24.05.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
JUDGMENTS
Per: Acting Chief Justice
1. Writ Appeals being W.A. No. 1738 of 2024 (arising out of Writ
Petition No.16384 of 2019)
2019),, W.A. No. 1877 of 2024 (arising out of Writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
Petition No. 22359 of 2021)
2021), W.A. No. 1886 of 2024 (arising out of Writ
Petition No. 24543 of 2021)
2021), W.A. No. 1953 of 2024 (arising out of Writ
Petition No. 27662 of 2022) and W.A. No. 2198 of 2024 (arising out of Writ
Petition No. 6432 of 2022)
2022)all impugn a common order dated 22.07.2024
passed in the respective
espective Writ Petitions, dismissing the petitions seeking
quashing of circular dated 19.03.2019.
2. Writ Petitions being W.P. No. 11376 of 2024, W.P. No. 19227 of 2023
and W.P. No. No. 26799 /2022 inter alia seek quashing of circular dated
19.03.2019.
3. The main challenge in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions is to
circular dated 19.03.2019 and all of them seek a direction to the
Respondents to appoint candidates having BSc. (Mathematics) and BSc.
(Biology) in equal proportion on the post of science and mathematics
teacher, in all institutions on the post of Madhyamik Shikshak (Middle
School Teacher). Since common question arises for consideration in all the
appeal and petitions, they are taken up together.
4. The contention of the Appellants/petition
Appellants/petitioners
ers is that the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred
to as the RTE Act),, apart from providing for free and compulsory education
to children also provides for duties of appropriate government, local
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
authorities and parents. Chapter IV provides for the responsibilities and
norms for the School and Teachers have been prescribed. The Schedule
under section 19 and 25 lays down norms and standards for a school and
schedule 1(b) in respect of number of teachers lays do
down
wn as under:
"1. Number of Teachers
(a) ***** *****
(b) For sixth class to eighth class:
(1) At least one teacher per class so that there shall be
at least one teacher each for:
(i) Science and Mathematics;
(ii) Social studies;
(iii) Languages.
(2) At least one teacher for every thirty five children.
(3) Where admission of children is above one hundred-
hundred
(i) a full time head - teacher ;
(ii) part time instructors for-
(A) Art Education;
(B) Health and Physical Education;
(C) Work Education."
5. Respondent State Government issued an order dated 11.05.2016,
providing for staffing pattern in the middle schools keeping in view the
provisions of the RTE Act. In the staffing Pattern, the post of Science and
Mathematics was kept at serial No. 1, languag
languagee was at serial No. 2 and
Social Science was at serial No. 3. Depending upon the number of students,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
in case of requirement of additional teachers, 4 th post was earmarked for
Language and 5th post was assigned for Science (Biology).
6. Subsequently, by order dated 26.09.2017, it was provided that upto the
strength of 105 students; 1st post would be of mathematics, 2nd of English
and 3rd of Social Science. If the strength is above 105 students; 4th post will
be of language and in case the strength is above 141 students, the 5th post
will be of science (biology)
(biology).
7. As per the Appellants/Petitioners, they had appeared in the
Madhyamik Shikshak Eligibility Examination, 2018, an examination
conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Bhopal for appointments
on the
he post of Middle School Teachers. The examination for mathematics
and science was a common examination. By letter dated 28.08.2018,
28.08.2018
Respondent No. 1 stipulated that a candidate shall be subjected to subject
wise eligibility test. Examination shall be held in Mathematics, Science,
Social Science, Hindi, English, Sanskrit & Urdu. A candidate in
Mathematics would be required to be have graduation with Mathematics and
Physics or Engineering subjects, whereas in respect of Science Subject, the
candidate would bee required to have a degree in at least 2 subjects out of
Chemistry, Botany,
ny, Zoology, Microbiology, Bio
Bio-Technology
Technology and Bio-
Bio
Infermetrics.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
8. On 19.03.2019 the impugned Circular/order dated 19.03.2019 was
issued by Commissioner, Public Instructions that upto 105 students, there
would be 3 Teachers, 1 each in Mathematics, English and Social Science. In
the 4th teacher will be of Sanskrit
case, the strength is between 105 to 140, th
and in case the strength is between 141 to 175, the 5th teacher will be
Science (Biology) teacher. Out of the total 5670 posts of Madhyamik
Shikshak, in School Education Department,, 1312 posts were earmarked for
teachers inn Mathematics whereas only 50 posts were earmarked for Science
(Biology) Teachers. In Tribal Department, out of 5740 posts 1783 posts were
earmarked for teachers in Mathematics whereas only 446 posts were
earmarked for Science (Biology) Teachers
9. The case of the Appellants/Petitioners is that the RTE Act provides for
the 1stpost of Science
cience and Mathematics Teacher. It is submitted that the on
the 1stpost the appointment can be made either of a teacher with Science
(Biology), or Science
cience ((Mathematics), however, Respondents have kept the
post of Science (Biology)
iology) at serial no. 5, which would be required only in
the institutions, where the strength of students is 141 or above.
above It is
contended that students having B.Sc. with mathematics gets the opportunity
opportuni
of serving in large number of institutions whereas a candidate having B.Sc.
Degree with Biology
iology gets the chance of serving in limited number of
institutions having student strength of 141 or above.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
10. The learned Single Judge by order dated 22.07.2024, dismissing the
Writ Petitions (subject matter of the Writ Appeals), held that looking at the
plain language of Clause (1) (b) of the Schedule to the RTE Act, the court
was unable to accept the contentions of the Petitioner. Learned Single Judge
held that "The
The schedule mentions that there shall be one teacher per class so
that there shall be at least one teacher each for the three clauses from (i) to
(iii). By a plain reading of said provision, it is evident that there will be a
minimum of three teachers in all middle schools with each teaching (i)
Science &Mathematics (ii) Social Science and (iii) Languages. If the
intention was otherwise, then legislature would have carved out four clauses
from (i) to (iv) and not (i) to (iii)." The learned single Judge thus
th held that
"no
no mandatory direction can be issued to the State Government to appoint
separate teachers for Science and Mathematics in middle schools having
strength below 105 students. However, it is observed that it is always upon to
the State Government to appoint separate teachers for Science and
Mathematics subjects even in such schools".
11. The contention of the Appellants/Petitioners is that there has to be a
teacher for Science and Mathematics in every school teaching the class 6 th to
8th compulsorily and the rules do not curtail the requirement of a Science
Teacher on the basis of number of students.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
12. All the Appellants/Petitioners have done their graduation in Science,
in Biology, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology
Zoology, however, without Mathematics.
13. Learned Senior Counselss for the Appellants/Petitioners submit that the
State Government has not decided to post a separate teacher of Science
(Biology) and State Government is treating Mathematics and Science as one
and the same for the purpose of posting of teachers in middle school. It is
submitted that Appellants/
Appellants/Petitioners
etitioners are qualified in Science (Biology)
subjects but are not qualified in Mathematics and by not separately
advertising the post of science teachers in middle school, on one hand the
students of such middle school will be put to a loss and on the other
ot hand,
the petitioners who are qualified in science are not having avenues of
appointment in public service for the post of teacher in middle schools.
14. In respect of the schedule to the RTE Act, it is contended that that the
expression "Science
Science and Mathematics" is being wrongly construed by the
State Authorities.. It is contended that said clause does not mandate that the
teacher must be qualified both in Science and Mathematics. But a teacher
qualified either in Science or Mathematics would be eligible. It
I is submitted
that the method of subject wise distribution of post is absolutely illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the RTE Act. It is contended that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
the post of "Science
cience and Mathematics" means that the appointment can be
made either of a teacher with Science (Biology), or Science (M
Mathematics).
15. Learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants/Petitioners submit that the
word "and" is used in Schedule 1 in the expression "Science and
Mathematics" meaning there
thereby that the word "and" is a disjunctive. It
separates one from the other. Thus, Science and Mathematics can never
come together. Had it been a case of inclusion of the word "OR" which
separates saying that 'either / or' implies the word with reference to
choosing
oosing one from the two but in the instant case
case, the word "AND" has been
used, which separates and does not club the expression "Science
" and
Mathematics".
16. As per the Respondents, if the number of students is more than 105,
then on the basis of proportion of 35 children per teacher, one additional
teacher would be appointed for Languages like Sanskrit / Urdu / Marathi/
Gujrati etc. and then an additional teacher for Science (Biology) and
thereafter if there is a requirement to appoint a 6thteacher then the 6thteacher
would be of Hindi Subject which is otherwise included in Social Science.
17. The
he State Government has filed an additional affidavit dated
24.02.2020 stating that that Section 25 of RTE Act provides for pupil teacher
ratio and also that subject of science is a consolidated subject in middle
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
school which includes Chemistry, Physics and Biology and the share of
Biology in Science is only about 1/3rd. It further states that the candidates
qualified in Mathematics and Scie
Science
nce can cover complete syllabus of
Mathematics and a major portion of the Science syllabus but the same is not
true in reverse.
18. The Schedule to the RTE Act in respect of classes 6 th to 8th, provides
that for upto 100 students there shall be aat least one teacher per class so that
there shall be at least one teacher each for (i) Science and Mathematics; (ii)
Social studies; and (iii) Languages. The ratio prescribed is at
a least one
teacher for every thirty five children. If the number of children exceed 100,
then a full time head - teacher and part time instructors for Art Education,
Education
Health and Physical Education and Work Education.
19. As per the ratio of one teacher per 35 students in a middle school of
upto 100 students, the requirement is of 3 teachers. One who
ho can teach the
subjects of Science and Mathematics and second who can teach the social
studies subjects and third who can teach the languages. The Sciences
subjects taught in middle school comprise of Physics, Chemistry and
Biology. The Social Studies co
comprises
mprises of History, Geography and (Civics)
(Civic
and Economics.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
20. The impugned Circular/order dated 19.03.2019 stipulates that the
posts are reserved as per the RTE Act and the flowing table has been shown
to depict the setup:
Basic setup
(Enrollment Upto In case of excess Enrollment extra subject teachers
105)
Maths, English, 105
105-140 140-175 175-210 210-245 245-280
280 280-315
Social Science
Sanskrit Science Social Maths Social English
(Bio) Science Science
21. As per the Basic setup, upto 105 students, there would be 3 Teachers,
1 each in Mathematics, English and Social Science. In case, the strength is
between 105 to 140, the 4th teacher will be of Sanskrit and in case the
140 to 175, the 5th teacher will be Science (Biology)
strength is between 14
teacher and so on. The Mathematics teacher comprised in the Basic Setup of
105 children is being taken as a teacher in Science and Mathematics as
stipulated in the Schedule to the RTE Act. As per the Respondents this was
clarified by the notification dated 11.05.2016.
22. There is also merit in the contention of the Respondents that the
expression "Science and Mathematics" means a teacher who has studied
both Science and Mathematics and not a teacher who has either studied
Science or Mathematics. Clearly a teacher who holds a Bachelor degree in
Science with Mathematics would be able to teach the subjects of Science
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
(i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology) and also Mathematics. On the other
hand a teacher who holds a Bachelor degree in Science (Bio) would be
unable to teach Phys
Physics,
ics, Chemistry and Mathematics. The stand of the
Respondents is clearly logical. Out of the four subjects : Mathematics,
Physics, Chemistry and Biology, one teacher who is BSc with Mathematics
would be a graduate in 3 out of 4 subjects, whereas, the other teacher who is
a BSc (Bio) without Mathematics would be a graduate only in 1 of the 4
subjects.
23. There
re is clearly no merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsels
for the Appellants/Petitioners that the word "and" used in Schedule 1 in the
expression "Science and Mathematics" is disjunctive. Theree is no merit in
the contention that the expression "Science and Mathematics" should mean
either Science or Mathematics. If this were the case, as noticed by the
learned single judge there would have been (iv) clauses and not (iii). The
teachers then would have been in (i) Maths, (ii) Science, (iii) Social science
and (iv) Language, but that is not the case. There is a requirement of only 3
teachers in the basic setup i.e. (i) Maths & Science, (ii) Social science
scienc and
(iii) Language.
24. Further, if thee above interpretation were to be accepted then it would
mean that a teacher possessing a degree in B.A. (Maths.)) or B.Com.with
B
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:25033
W.A. 1738/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS
Maths. or B.A. Economics with Maths
Maths. or B.A. (History) with
Maths.Etc.would
would also be qualified even though they have not studied
Science subjects. The intention of the schedule to the RTE Act is that there
should be minimum 3 teachers in a Basic setup of upto 100 students. One
who can teach the Science subjects and Mathematic
Mathematics,
s, one who can teach all
the Social Science subjects and the third who can teach the languages. In
case of more than 100 students then per 35 students, teacher of the specified
subject is added.
25. As noticed above, the classification has a rationale with the
th object
sought to be achieved so that all the subjects are taught by duly qualified
teachers. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the impugned Circular dated
19.03.2019. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
learned single judge in hi
his judgment dated 22.07.2024. There is no infirmity
in the said Judgments.
26. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Appeals and the Writ
Petitions. The same are dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
m/-
VIBHA Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH JABALPUR,
2.5.4.20=63ade6a8efe1a32216bb40cba34
PACHO
e4ccadbecca47ba9fb326339dcb3a0aa832
4a, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH JABALPUR,CID - 7037721,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=ecf1c4b9939647f806353fb
RI
8eefb2cfca8d6fdaf8339acc3728bc3a5d1e
ca843, cn=VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2025.05.24 16:02:40 +05'30'
