 of the UP Subordinate Education TGG Service Rules as valid and said that it is not contradictory to the regulation.){kind=link}
The Allahabad High Court has declared Rule 8 (6) of the UP Subordinate Education TGG Service Rules as valid and said it is not contradictory to the regulation.
The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Bal Krishana and 94 others.
The reliefs sought in the writ petition is as under:
“A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned rules 8(6) of UP Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) services (4th Amendment) rules 2016 to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India to an extent that it does prescribed as one of the qualification of having passed intermediate with subject Sanskrit one of the qualification relating to Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduates Grade) Subject Hindi.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and quashing impugned advertisement dated 15.03.2018 being advertisement no, -1 / b -1 – / 2018 issued by Secretary U.P Public Service Commission, Allahabad to an extent that it prescribes Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate Qualification of Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate Grade) Subject Hindi as provided in impugned rule 8(6) of U.P Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) services (4th amendment) Rules 2016.
C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate selection on the post of Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate Grade) Subject Hindi after prescribing qualification B.A or equivalent with Hindi and Sanskrit and B.Ed not Sanskrit as subject in intermediate in government inter college in state of UP.”
The facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be aspirants who have applied for Assistant Teachers (Trained Graduate Grade) (Men/Women Branch) Examination 2018, wherein qualification for assistant teachers (Men/Women Branch) – Hindi, in brief, has been prescribed as Intermediate with Sanskrit as one of the subject and graduation with Hindi and B.Ed for appointment as Assistant Teacher for Class 9th and 10th in Government Secondary Intermediate Schools or Colleges.
All the petitioners claim that they have a degree of graduation with the subject Hindi and Sanskrit and also have B.Ed. degree from recognised universities but have passed their intermediate without Sanskrit as a subject. Since Sanskrit had not been their one of the subject in Intermediate, therefore, as per provisions of the UP Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Services (4th Amendment) Rules 2016, they are not eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) for Class 9 and 10 in Government Colleges.
According to the petitioners, Rule 8(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983 as amended by the 4th Amendment Rules 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1983) providing for Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate for Hindi Teachers for High School (Class 9th and 10th) is arbitrary, illegal and is in conflict with the eligibility provided under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which does not provide Sanskrit as a mandatory subject in Intermediate for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi).
Consequently the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions praying to declare the impugned Rules 8(6) of the amended Rules 1983 to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent it prescribes Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate as one of the qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers (Hindi) and the consequent Advertisement dated 15.03.2018 issued by the Secretary, UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad.
They have also sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to initiate selection on the post of Assistant Teachers (Trained Graduate Grade) Subject – Hindi by deleting Sanskrit as one of the subjects in Intermediate.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted as under :-
(i) Qualification prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Services Rules, 1983 enacted by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as amended by the 4th amendment Rules, 2016, providing for academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers (Men / Women) (Hindi), is in conflict with Appendix-A (Regulation I) Chapter II framed under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulation 4 of the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations 2001, inasmuch as the Rules 1983 prescribes qualification for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) to be (I) Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a subject from a recognized University in India and Intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject or equivalent examination with Sanskrit and (II) B.Ed or equivalent degree from a recognized University in India, whereas the regulations framed under the Act, 1921 provides academic qualification for Hindi Teacher to be graduation in Hindi and Sanskrit and the NCTE regulation provides graduate/postgraduate as academic qualification for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) to be minimum educational qualification. Therefore, the petitioners who graduate in Sanskrit and Hindi both, possess the required academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi). Thus, the Rules 1983 providing for graduation in Hindi with Sanskrit in Intermediate as a subject, is in conflict with the aforesaid regulations framed under the Act 1921 and NCTE regulations, 2001. Consequently it being in conflict with the regulations, is not a valid piece of legislation.
(ii) The petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Government owned Schools / Colleges for which the academic qualification has been provided in the Rules 1983, whereas the academic qualification for aided Colleges is provided in the regulations framed under the Act 1921. The qualification prescribed under the Rules 1983 is not based on any reasonable classification, therefore, the relevant provision under the Rules, 1983 prescribing academic qualification for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) Even if it assumed that the State Government can lawfully prescribe academic qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher, despite it having been provided under the NCTE Regulation 2001, yet the State Government can only prescribe higher qualification than as provided under the NCTE Regulations, 2001. Providing for qualification of Intermediate in Sanskrit would be a lower qualification. Therefore, to this extent the Rules 1983 as amended by the 4th Amendment Rules 2016 is ultra vires to the NCTE Regulations 2001.
(iv) Different academic qualification has been prescribed by the regulations framed under the Act, 1921 for Non-Government aided institutions and under the 4th Amendment Rules, 2016 for Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Government institution whereas the pay scale and the service benefits of Government and aided Non-Government Schools Assistant Teachers are at par. Syllabus etc. of both types of schools are governed by the provisions of Act, 1921. Thus, the 4th Amendment Rules, 2016 is clearly discriminatory. Assistant Teacher (Hindi) teaching in Government Schools or Non-Government aided schools are teaching one and the same syllabus to students. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 as may be relied on by the State respondents is clearly distinguishable in as much as it relates to some training course.
Neeraj Tripathi, Additional Advocate General, submitted that the Academic Qualification prescribed for Class 9 and 10 of the Government institutions under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the regulations were amended on 04.05.2016 prescribing qualification similar to the qualification prescribed under the Rules 1983 as amended by the 4th amendment Rules 2016 for non Government aided Schools/Colleges. Therefore, there is absolutely no difference between the academic qualification prescribed for recruitment of Assistant Teacher in Government Colleges and aided Schools/Colleges. Now both academic qualifications stand at par. Therefore, there is no discrimination.
“In view of the discussions made above, we hold that the petitioners who admittedly have not passed Intermediate with Sanskrit as a subject, but passed the Intermediate with other subjects and did graduation in Sanskrit, cannot be said to possess higher qualification as they have not completed graduation through the channel/faculty of the prescribed qualification of Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate.
We have already found rationale behind prescribing additional qualification to be Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate in addition to the graduation in Hindi and B.Ed for the post of Assistant Teachers in Hindi to teach students of Class 9 and 10 in Government owned colleges so as to maintain standard of education. The academic qualification as provided under Rule 8(6) of the Rules 1983, as already held; is neither in conflict with the regulation framed under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 nor in conflict with Regulation 4 of the NCTE Regulation, 2014 nor it is beyond the rule making power of the State Government. Therefore, the impugned Rules are wholly valid. The State Government has not transgressed its power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame the Rules, 1983 prescribing qualification for Assistant Teachers (Men/Women) – Hindi under Rule 8(6). Thus, the impugned rules and the impugned advertisement are wholly valid,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.