Kumar & Ors Vs. Government of Ntc Delhi & Ors  Insc 145 (5 March 2003)
Kumar & D.M. Dharmadhikari Dharmadhikari J.
is an appeal by candidates who are holders of B.Ed degree seeking recruitment
to the post of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools of Municipal
Corporation, Delhi. The division bench of Delhi High
Court by impugned common judgment dated 6.2.2001 in Public Interest Petition
and Original Petitions filed by B.Ed. candidates dismissed the claim of B.Ed.
candidates for appointment to the post of primary teachers. The candidates
holding B.Ed. degree have approached this Court in this appeal.
first contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the B.Ed.
candidates is that under the terms of the advertisement for recruitment issued
on 21.9.2000, B.Ed. qualification is included in the prescribed qualification
and just at the nick of final selection the authorities were not right in
issuing the impugned Circular to declare them ineligible for recruitment. The
relevant part of the advertisement for recruitment containing the requirements
of essential qualifications reads as under:
(I) Higher Secondary pass of recognised board/University with an elective
subject in the Matric level.
Two year teacher training certificate from the recognised institute OR B(I)
Intermediate or equivalent from a recognised board/university with an elective
subject in the required language at the Matric level.
One year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognised institution.
Note: The candidate applying for the post
of Assistant Teacher (Primary) Hindi must have passed Hindi as an elective
subject at the Matric level." (Underlining for emphasis) The submission
made on behalf of B.Ed. candidates is that as prescribed in clause B(ii), one
year's Trained Teachers Certificate is not granted anywhere by any institution
and therefore the aforesaid qualification should be treated to be to meant to
indicate B.Ed.degree which is a one year teacher's training course after Graduation.
second contention advanced is B.Ed. qualification should be treated as higher
qualification than TTC because primary teachers recruited on TTC qualification
can get promotion as teachers to teach higher classes and B.Ed. is the
prescribed qualification for higher classes.
division bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with
the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered opinion it has
rightly come to the conclusion that B.Ed. qualification, although a well recognised
qualification in the field of teaching and education - being not prescribed in
the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed. candidates who took a chance to apply
for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find that
the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to
teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A
specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary
level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree.
because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to
teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it
cannot be held that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the
different nature of TTC qualification the High Court rightly held that it is
not comparable with B.Ed. degree qualification and latter cannot be treated as
higher qualification to the former.
learned counsel for the appellants urged that undisputedly for the last several
years for recruitment of primary teachers in Municipal Corporation Schools,
candidates with B.Ed. degree were considered and appointed. This long standing
practice should be taken as aid to construe the terms of the advertisement and
particularly clause B(ii) on which reliance is placed by B.Ed. candidates to
consider them eligible.
support of the above contention - learned counsel placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in N.Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl.(1)
last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to Public
Services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement
and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows entry to
ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the
post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in
considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of
the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue.
The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification
of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment
only to TTC pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve
a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is
to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected
appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this
appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be
treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures of training
imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between
them there is no parity whatsoever.
projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to
primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category. Whether
for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for
primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned
but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as
eligible. In our view, the division bench of the Delhi High Court was fully
justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly
excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers.
We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any B.Ed.
Candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past
and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under
challenge before the High Court and in this appeal.
case of N.Sureshnathan (supra) on which reliance is placed is clearly distinguishable.
There a different question of computing minimum prescribed period of service
for promotion of Diploma Engineers had arisen and on the basis of long
practice, the contention of the Department was accepted that minimum required
period of service to make diploma engineers eligible for promotion would be
reckoned from the date on which they acquire degree while in service and not
from the initial date of their appointment.
result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances
without any order as to costs.