Summary of Opinion — M. Katju, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition challenges the circular of the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., dated 17.1.1996 (Annexure-7 to the petition). A large number of writ petitions on the same point were noted and this judgment was directed to cover similar petitions. The petitioners are assistant teachers in privately managed junior high and primary schools recognised by the Board of Basic Education, U.P.; the institutions are un-aided and pay salaries from private funds. The petitioners did not possess B.T.C. training certificates and were appointed as untrained teachers because trained teachers were purportedly unavailable. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 6.9.94 (Annexure-2) permitting such untrained teachers to join a two-year B.T.C. correspondence course and, upon passing, be given trained teacher grade; a similar order followed on 21.10.94. Subsequently the Director of Education (Basic) issued the circular dated 17.1.96 limiting the benefit to untrained teachers in institutions directly run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The Secretary to the Government issued a letter (Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit) dated 18.3.95 purporting to modify the 6.9.94 order; the judge's opinion describes the later modification as dated 18.3.96 and treats that modification as prospective in operation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Director of Education (Basic) could restrict or supersede the Secretary, Education's Government Order dated 6.9.94 by issuing the circular dated 17.1.96.
2. Whether the Secretary's subsequent modification (Annexure CA-1) operates retrospectively or prospectively and, consequently, whether untrained teachers sent for B.T.C. training before that modification remain entitled to complete training and obtain trained-teacher grade.
3. Whether untrained teachers teaching in unrecognised educational institutions are entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 6.9.94.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (Sri Ashok Khare)

• The petitioners are untrained assistant teachers employed in recognised, privately managed (un-aided) schools and were appointed with approval of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari.
• They relied on the Government Order dated 6.9.94 (Annexure-2) permitting untrained teachers to join the two-year B.T.C. correspondence course and thus should receive the benefit contemplated by that order.
• The Director's circular dated 17.1.96 unlawfully restricts the benefit granted by the Secretary's order.

Respondent's Arguments (Sri K.S. Shukla for Basic Shiksha Parishad)

• The Director's circular limited the benefit to untrained teachers in institutions directly run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad.
• Those teachers who had been sent for B.T.C. training prior to 18.3.96 but who were not entitled to have been sent should not be allowed to complete their training.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned as follows:

1. The Director of Education (Basic) is subordinate to the Secretary, Education, U.P.; therefore the Director cannot supersede or override the Government Order dated 6.9.94 issued by the Secretary.
2. Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit is a letter of the Secretary dated 18.3.95 by which the 6.9.94 order was modified. The judge observed that the order dated 18.3.96 is prospective in nature and not retrospective; accordingly that modification cannot be applied to untrained teachers who had been sent for training prior to the said modification date.
3. On Sri K.S. Shukla's submission that teachers sent before 18.3.96 but not entitled to have been sent should not be allowed to complete training, the court held that any untrained teacher who was teaching in a recognised educational institution and was sent for training before 18.3.96 is entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 6.9.94.
4. The court clarified that untrained teachers teaching in unrecognised educational institutions will not get the benefit of the Government Order dated 6.9.94.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

Holding (core rulings):

• The Director of Education (Basic) cannot override the Secretary, Education's Government Order dated 6.9.94.
• The Secretary's modification (described in the opinion as dated 18.3.96) is prospective; untrained teachers who were sent for B.T.C. training prior to that modification may complete their training and avail themselves of the benefit of the 6.9.94 order.
• Untrained teachers sent for training on or after the modification date will not be allowed to complete training unless they fall within the scope of the modifying order.
• Untrained teachers teaching in unrecognised institutions are not entitled to the benefit of the 6.9.94 Government Order.

Implications: The immediate effect is to permit recognised untrained teachers sent for B.T.C. training before the Secretary's modifying order to complete training and obtain trained-teacher grade; teachers sent thereafter are excluded unless covered by the modification. The opinion does not purport to create or announce a novel legal precedent beyond the adjudication of these petitions.