- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Yogesh Kumar And Others v. Govt. Of Nct, Delhi And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Candidates holding Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degrees applied for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The recruitment advertisement dated 21-9-2000 listed, inter alia, a “one-year Teacher Training Certificate” as an essential qualification. After applications were received, the recruiting authority issued a circular declaring B.Ed. holders ineligible. Aggrieved B.Ed. candidates filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. By a common judgment dated 9-2-2001, a Division Bench dismissed their claims. The present appeal was filed by the B.Ed. candidates challenging that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the phrase “one-year Teacher Training Certificate” in clause (B)(ii) of the advertisement can be construed to include a B.Ed. degree, thereby rendering B.Ed. candidates eligible for selection.
- Whether a B.Ed. degree constitutes a higher or equivalent qualification compared to the Teacher Training Certificate (TTC) required for primary teachers.
- Whether a past practice of appointing B.Ed. holders to primary-teacher posts obliges the recruiting authority to continue that practice for the present recruitment cycle.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (B.Ed. Candidates)
- The advertisement’s reference to a “one-year Teacher Training Certificate” should be interpreted as referring to the one-year B.Ed. programme because such a certificate course is not offered by any institution.
- A B.Ed. degree is a higher qualification than the TTC, as TTC-qualified teachers are eligible for promotion to higher classes where B.Ed. is prescribed; therefore, B.Ed. holders should automatically qualify for primary posts.
- For several years the MCD has recruited B.Ed. holders as primary teachers; this long-standing practice should guide the interpretation of the current advertisement.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584 | Past administrative practice may guide interpretation of service conditions, particularly in computing qualifying service for promotion. | Distinguished. The Court held that the precedent concerned calculation of service period for promotion of Diploma Engineers and was not applicable to eligibility criteria in recruitment advertisements. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court affirmed the High Court’s conclusions on three main grounds:
- Text of the Advertisement: B.Ed. qualification was not listed. Candidates who applied despite this omission “took a chance” and cannot later demand inclusion.
- Nature of Training: Training imparted in a B.Ed. course is designed for teaching higher classes, whereas TTC is specialised for primary-level pedagogy. Owing to the different objectives and content, B.Ed. cannot be considered a higher or equivalent qualification to TTC for primary teaching posts.
- Recruitment Policy and Past Practice: Recruitment must conform strictly to the advertisement and existing rules. Past deviations, allegedly due to paucity of TTC candidates, cannot legitimize continued departure from prescribed qualifications. Allowing such deviations would enable entry of ineligible persons and unfairly exclude others who might have applied.
The Court further observed that while authorities may decide in future to broaden eligibility to include B.Ed. holders, such policy decisions lie outside the Court’s purview in the present appeal, which concerns only the challenged advertisement.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The immediate effect is that B.Ed. candidates are ineligible for selection under the advertisement dated 21-9-2000. The judgment is confined to that recruitment cycle and does not disturb earlier appointments of B.Ed. holders. No broader precedent on equivalence of B.Ed. and TTC qualifications was set beyond reaffirming that eligibility must strictly follow advertised criteria.
Dharmadhikari, J.— This is an appeal by candidates who are holders of BEd degree seeking recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools of Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by the impugned common judgment dated 9-2-2001 in public interest petition and original petitions filed by BEd candidates dismissed the claim of BEd candidates for appointment to the post of primary teachers. The candidates holding BEd degree have approached this Court in this appeal.
2. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the BEd candidates is that under the terms of the advertisement for recruitment issued on 21-9-2000, BEd qualification is included in the prescribed qualification and just in 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:
“(A)(i) Higher secondary pass of recognised board/university with an elective subject at the matric level.
(ii) Two-year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognised institute
(B)(i) Intermediate or equivalent from a recognized board/university with an elective subject in the required language at the matric level.
(ii) 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.”
(italicized for emphasis)
3. The submission made on behalf of BEd candidates is that as prescribed in clause (B)(ii), one year's Trained Teacher's Certificate is not granted anywhere by any institution and therefore the aforesaid qualification should be treated to be to mean to indicate BEd degree which is a one-year teacher's training course after graduation.
4. The second contention advanced is that BEd 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 BEd is the prescribed qualification for higher classes.
5. The 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 BEd qualification, although a well-recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the BEd 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 BEd 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 BEd degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which BEd is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that BEd 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 BEd degree qualification and the latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former.
6. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants urged that undisputedly for the last several years for recruitment of primary teachers in municipal corporation schools, candidates with BEd 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 BEd candidates to consider them eligible.
7. In support of the above contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584, (1992) 19 ATC 928.
8. This 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 BEd 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 BEd 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 BEd qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals (CAs Nos. 1726-28 of 2001) arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that BEd qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the nature of the training imparted for grant of certificate and for degree is totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from BEd category and very few from TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, BEd qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider BEd 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 BEd 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 BEd 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.
9. The case of N. Suresh Nathan 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584, (1992) 19 ATC 928 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.
10. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Alert