This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2012 recorded in Special Civil Application No.3592 of 2012 and cognate matters. The present appellants were petitioners in Special Civil Application No.3897 of 2012 which also came to be decided by the said common judgment. The challenge before the learned Single Judge in those petitions were multi-fold and are reflected in para -1 of the judgment, as under:
(a) The validity of "The Head Teacher, Class-III, in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee Recruitment Rules, 2012" (herein after referred to as Rules of 2012)
(b) The qualification criteria prescribed by Notification for appointment on the post of Head Teacher.
(c) The instruction -
directions describing the nature and quality of proof demanded for verifying compliance as to requisite experience.
(d) The provision prescribing upper age limit.
Para 1.2 of the judgment, which is also relevant, reads as under:
"1.2 The petitioners have for the said purpose challenged (1) Notification dated 18.1.2012 whereby the Rules have been brought in force.
(2) Resolution dated 29.2.2012.
(3) Rule 2 (a)(iii), Rule 4(a), Rule 4(b)(1) and Rule 4(b)(2)(ii) Rule 4(d)"
This appeal is directed against only that part of the judgment whereby challenge to Rule 4(d) of the Rules is rejected by learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Rule 4(d), so far it excludes consideration of experience in B.Ed. Colleges, is arbitrary, it has no nexus with any object sought to be achieved and is discriminatory. The impugned Rule 4(d) of the Rules, reads as under:
"1. These rules may be called the Head Teacher, Class-III, in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee, Recruitment Rules, 2012.
2. ----------
3. ----------
4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall,
(a) ----------
(b) ----------
(c) ----------
(d) have at least five years separate or combined experience of teaching as a Teacher or Vidhya Sahayak in Government or Grant in Aid or Non Grant in Aid Private Lower Primary School or Upper Primary School or Secondary Education School or Higher Secondary Education School or Primary Education Adhyapan Mandir or District Institute of Education and Training (DIET)
(e) ----------
(f) ----------"
It is contended that when the teachers in Primary Education Adhyapan Mandir and District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) are considered as eligible, by not considering the teachers of B.Ed. colleges eligible, discriminatory situation is created.
Learned Single Judge in para -10 of the judgment has recorded reasons to negate this challenge, which in substance is to the effect that the said provision is made keeping in focus the object and purpose for recruitment in primary school and also the fact that the Head Teacher shall have to supervise, in addition to being a teacher, students in primary schools and that therefore teaching experience in B.Ed. is not considered, as relevant experience, and that besides the difference in age of students, there is vast qualitative difference between the students in B.Ed. Colleges and in primary schools. The in-take and absorbing capacity of the students in primary school and B.Ed. college, their reaction ability and capacity, the tolerance and patience required for teaching the said two sets of students etc. are substantially and meaningfully and qualitatively different, and that teaching the students in primary schools and their supervision demand special skill and training and it is markedly and qualitatively different from the teaching experience in B.Ed. College.
Prima-facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the teachers of primary school and that of B.Ed. colleges be treated as equal can not be accepted and in my view is rightly rejected, by learned Single Judge. However, the second limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that even if the reasoning recorded by learned Single Judge as aforesaid is accepted to be true then also, there is hostile discrimination between the teachers of B.Ed. colleges vis-à-vis teachers in DIET and Primary Education Adhyapan Mandir. It is pointed out that minimum qualification prescribed by the Government to get admission as a student in DIET and/or Primary Education Adhyapan Mandir is '10+2' examination passed and thus those students would be more comparable with students in B.Ed. colleges than with students in primary schools. This point, prima-facie, requires consideration.
Hence, Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 13th June, 2012.
Direct Service today is permitted.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) (ashish) Top