ASSAM TET : SUPREME COURT REBUKED HIGH COURT ON TET METTAR IN ASSAM

ASSAM TET : SUPREME COURT REBUKED HIGH COURT ON TET METTAR IN ASSAM

ASSAM TET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment  /SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  / SARKARI NAUKRI News

http://assam-tet.blogspot.com/
http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/
 

SOME DETAILS IS NOT CLEAR TO ME, BUT I FELT -
CENTRAL GOVT GAVE RELAXATION IN TET QUALIFICATION FOR TEACHERS AS  SHORTAGE OF TET PASS TEACHERS,
, AND ASSAM GOVT. NOT PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED IT.

CANDIDATES FILED WRIT PETITION IN HIGH COURT,
ASSAM HIGHCOURT REJECTED THEIR PLEA. AND DECLARES ASSAM GOVT TEACHER SELECTION RULES IS NOT AS PER NCTE/CENTRAL GOVT GUIDELINES, DESPITE CENTRAL GOVT ALREADY GAVE RELAXATION FROM TET TO ASSAM.

MATTER REACHES SUPREME COURT, AND SUPREME COURT FOUND RELEXATION TO TET WAS GRANTED TWO TIMES WHILE AS PER RTE ACT NOTIFICATION SUCH RELAXATION CAN BE GRANTED AS ONE TIME MEASURE.

SUPREME COURT SAID THAT STATE GOVERNMENT IT SELF CAN'T GRANT RELAXATION.

HOWEVER SC ALSO FOUND SOME RELAXATION WAS GRANTED ON 26TH AUG 2011, BUT HIGHCOURT TAKE REFERENCE OF SOME OLD JUDGEMENT OF SUPREM COURT, AND THINK IT IS BOUND TO THAT JUDGEMENT.

SC REBUKED ON THAT MATTER TO HC.

SC SAID :-

High  Court
is not correct for the reason that the  subsequent  notification  has  given
relaxation for appointment of teachers for classes I to  VIII  as  one  time
measure. 

The  High
Court has observed that in view of the decision of this Court  in  the  case
of Ranu Hazarika and Others vs. State of Assam and Others in C.A.No.2153  of
2011, disposed of on 28.02.2011 is  bound  by  the  decision  and  therefore
cannot direct relaxation of the qualification in  spite  of  the  subsequent
notification issued by the Central Government. Accordingly, the  Writ  Court
has dismissed the Writ Petitions. 

This Court has  accepted  the  view  of  the  High  Court  only
because the State Government is  not  competent  to  relax  the  educational
qualification  for  appointment  of  teachers  for  Classes  I  to  VIII  as
prescribed under the provisions of the Act.  

State  Government
did not have the power to relax the qualifications prescribed  by  the  Act,
it had  approached  the  Central  Government.  The  Central  Government  has
favourably dealt  with  the  request  made  by  the  State  Government  and,
accordingly, has issued the notification dated 26.08.2011  thereby  relaxing
the educational qualification as one time measure, i.e. upto 2015.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.    1018 OF 2014
               (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.25550 OF 2012)


MD. HABIBULLA & ORS.                      APPELLANTS

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.                    RESPONDENTS

                                  O R D E R


1.          Leave granted.



2.          This appeal by special leave is directed  against  the  judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Gauhati in  Writ  Appeal
No.186 of 2012, dated 29.06.2012. By the impugned judgment  and  order,  the
High Court has upheld the judgment and order passed by  the  learned  Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.6192 of 2011, dated 06.06.2012.

3.          This appeal has a checkered history.  On  an  earlier  occasion,
persons aggrieved by certain directions issued by the High Court in a  batch
of Writ Petitions had approached this  Court  in  Civil  Appeal  No.2153  of
2011, dated 28.02.2011. In the said appeal, they had called in question  the
judgment(s)  and  order(s)  passed  by  the  High  Court  dated  09.04.2009,
22.06.2009, 17.07.2009 and 18.09.2009 respectively, wherein the  High  Court
has  held  that   the   Assam   Elementary   Education 

Provincialization)(Amendment) Rules, 2005 

(for short 'the amendment  Rules,  2005') 

 as  ultra
vires the provisions of the National  Council 

 for  Teacher  Education  Act,
1993 (for short 'the Act') and  the  regulations 

 framed  thereunder.   This
Court, by its judgment and order dated  28.02.2011,  while  concurring  with
the decision of the High Court insofar as the validity or otherwise  of  the
amendment Rules, 2005, had taken exception to the directions issued  by  the
High Court.

4.          The State Government (State of Assam) thereafter had  approached
the  Government  of  India,  Ministry   of   Human   Resources   Development
(Department of School Education and Literacy) by  making  a  representation,
inter alia, bringing to their notice the  practical  difficulties  faced  by
the State in selecting the teachers for classes I to  VIII.   Responding  to
the representation so made by the State Government, the  Central  Government
has issued a notification dated 26.08.2011, in exercise of its powers  under
sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. At this stage,  it  is  useful  to
refer to the relevant clauses in the aforesaid  notification  and  the  same
reads as under:
         "AND WHEREAS,  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  23  of  the  said  Act
         provides that where a State  does  not  have  adequate  institution
         offering courses or training  in  teacher  education,  or  teachers
         possessing minimum qualification laid down under sub-section (1) of
         section 23 of the said Act are not available in sufficient numbers,
         the Central Government may, if it deems necessary by  notification,
         relax the minimum qualifications  required  for  appointment  as  a
         teacher for such period,  not  exceeding  five  years,  as  may  be
         specified in that notification."


Yet another clause under the aforesaid  notification  also  requires  to  be
noticed by us. The same reads as under:

         "NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by  sub-section
         (2) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free  and  Compulsory
         Education Act, 2009 (35 of  2009)  the  Central  Government  hereby
         relaxes,  in  respect  of  the  Assam,  the  minimum  qualification
         notified by the National Council for Teacher Education  under  sub-
         section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act vide notification  No.61-
         03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S), dated  the  25th   August,  2010  (the  said
         notification) in so far  as  they  relate  to  classes  I  to  VIII
         namely."

5.          After promulgation of the aforesaid notification,  some  of  the
aspirants  for  the  post  of   teachers-appellant   herein   had   made   a
representation before the State Government, inter alia, requesting  them  to
continue the recruitment in consonance with the process  initiated  by  them
through their advertisement published in  the  newspapers  dated  14.04.1999
regarding appointment  of  teachers  for  classes  I  to  VIII.  Since  that
representation did not find a favorable answer from  the  State  Government,
the aggrieved persons/teachers had  approached  the  Writ  Court  once  over
again by filing Writ Petition No.6192 of 2011.


6.          The High Court, by its order dated 06.06.2012, has rejected  the
Writ Petition, though the subsequent notification, dated  26.08.2011  issued
by the Central Government was brought to the notice of the Court.  The  High
Court has observed that in view of the decision of this Court  in  the  case
of Ranu Hazarika and Others vs. State of Assam and Others in C.A.No.2153  of
2011, disposed of on 28.02.2011 is  bound  by  the  decision  and  therefore
cannot direct relaxation of the qualification in  spite  of  the  subsequent
notification issued by the Central Government. Accordingly, the  Writ  Court
has dismissed the Writ Petitions.


7.          Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge  of  the
High Court, some of the petitioners in the Writ  Petition  had  carried  the
matter by way of appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The  High
Court has confirmed the view of the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved  by  the
order passed by the High Court the appellants are before us in this appeal.

8.          Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel  appearing  for  the
appellants would submit that the High Court was not justified in not  giving
a finding on the  notification  issued  by  the  Central  Government,  dated
26.08.2011.  According to the learned senior counsel, the said  notification
has changed the basis of the judgment of this Court  in  Ranu  Hazarika  and
others case (supra). In aid of  his  submission,  the  learned  counsel  has
taken us through the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the  Act
and also the observations made by this Court in  Ranu  Hazarika  and  others
case (supra).






9.          Per contra, Shri Avijit Roy, learned counsel appearing  for  the
respondent-State of Assam and others, would submit that the High  Court  was
justified in placing reliance on the decision of Ranu  Hazarika  and  others
(supra) of this Court, while rejecting  the  Writ  Petitions  filed  by  the
Appellant- teachers.


10.         Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we  are
of the view that the High Court is not justified in placing reliance on  the
judgment of this Court in the case  of  Ranu  Hazarika  and  others  (supra)
while rejecting the batch of Writ Petitions that were filed before them.  We
say so for the reason, that, this Court, while upholding  the  view  of  the
High Court, insofar as the vires of the  amended  Rules,  2005  had  further
observed, that, having held that the amended rules  are  not  in  consonance
with the  provisions  of  the  Act,  could  not  have  permitted  the  State
Government  to  proceed  with  the  advertisement  issued  by   them   dated
14.04.1999.  This Court has  accepted  the  view  of  the  High  Court  only
because the State Government is  not  competent  to  relax  the  educational
qualification  for  appointment  of  teachers  for  Classes  I  to  VIII  as
prescribed under the provisions of the Act.  It so happens  in  the  present
case that after pronouncement of the judgment by this  Court,  some  of  the
aspirants to the post of teachers had made a  representation  to  the  State
Government once over inter alia requesting  them  to  relax  the  conditions
prescribed in the advertisement dated 14.04.1999  and,  in  particular,  the
educational qualification prescribed therein.  Since  the  State  Government
did not have the power to relax the qualifications prescribed  by  the  Act,
it had  approached  the  Central  Government.  The  Central  Government  has
favourably dealt  with  the  request  made  by  the  State  Government  and,
accordingly, has issued the notification dated 26.08.2011  thereby  relaxing
the educational qualification as one time measure, i.e. upto 2015.
11.         Since the aforesaid notification  was  not  implemented  by  the
State Government and its authorities, some of the aspirants  had  approached
the Writ Court once over again. It was specifically brought  to  the  notice
of the Writ Court the notification issued by the  Central  Government  dated
26.08.2011. In spite of  the  aforesaid  information,  the  High  Court  has
thought it fit that they are bound by the views expressed by this  Court  in
the case of Ranu Hazarika and others (supra).

12.         In our considered opinion, the view expressed by the High  Court
is not correct for the reason that the  subsequent  notification  has  given
relaxation for appointment of teachers for classes I to  VIII  as  one  time
measure. The High Court ought to  have  looked  into  the  notification  and
expressed its opinion one way or the other on  the  aforesaid  notification.
Without doing so, the High Court has washed its hands  by  merely  observing
that it is bound by the views expressed by this Court.
13.         Judicial discipline requires that the High  Court  is  bound  to
follow the observations and the directions issued by this Court.   It  is  a
settled proposition of law, when the legislature in its  competence  removes
the legal basis on which the judgment is rendered, the  judgment  ceases  to
hold the field.  Judicial discipline and propriety are the  two  significant
facets of administration of justice. Every Court is  obliged  to  adhere  to
these principles to ensure hierarchical  discipline  on  the  one  hand  and
proper  dispensation  of  justice  on  the  other.  Settled  canons  of  law
prescribe adherence to the rule of law with due  regard  to  the  prescribed
procedures. Violation thereof may not always result in invalidation  of  the
judicial action but normally it may cast a shadow of  improper  exercise  of
judicial  discretion.  Where  extraordinary  jurisdiction,  like  the   writ
jurisdiction, is very vast in its scope and magnitude, there  it  imposes  a
greater obligation upon the courts to observe due caution  while  exercising
such powers. This is to ensure that the principles of  natural  justice  are
not violated and there is no occasion of impertinent  exercise  of  judicial
discretion and  therefore  if  a  subsequent  event  takes  place  and  that
subsequent event has rightly changed the  basis  of  the  judgement  and  is
brought to the notice of the court, the court on  the  pretext  of  judicial
discipline cannot overlook the subsequent event and render  a  judgement  in
terms with the earlier judgement.

14.         In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that  the
High Court was not justified in rejecting the Writ Petition as well  as  the
Writ Appeal. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and order  passed  by  the
High Court in Writ Petition No.6192 of 2011, dated 06.06.2012 and  confirmed
in Writ Appeal No.186 of 2012, dated 29.06.2012 and  remand  the  matter  to
the High Court with a request to consider the  effect  of  the  notification
issued by the Central Government, dated 26.08.2011 in  accordance  with  law
and in accordance with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  as  expeditiously  as
possible, at any rate, within six months' time from today. We fix  the  time
limit only for the  reason  that  the  aspirants  are  teachers  in  primary
schools and  are  waiting  for  their  appointment  from  the  date  of  the
advertisement, i.e. from 14.04.1999.

15.         All other contentions of both the parties are left open.


16.         The Civil Appeal as well as  the  application  for  intervention
are disposed of. No order as to costs.

      Ordered accordingly.

                                                     .....................J.
                                                                (H.L. DATTU)



                                                     .....................J.
                                                                (S.A. BOBDE)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 23, 2014.
ITEM NO.1               COURT NO.3             SECTION XIV

            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).25550/2012
(From the judgement and order  dated 29/06/2012 in  WA  No.186/2012  of  the
HIGH COURT OF GUWAHATI, ASSAM)

MD.HABIBULLA & ORS.                               Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.                             Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for intervention,exemption from filing c/c  of  the  impugned
Judgment and prayer for interim relief and office report )

Date: 23/01/2014  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE

For Petitioner(s)       MR.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv.
                  Ms.Diksha Rai, Adv.
                  Mr.Hariharan, Adv.
                     Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.

For Respondent(s)       Mr.Avijit Roy, Adv.
                  Mr.Navnit Kumar, Adv.
                     for M/S Corporate Law Group,Adv.

                     Ms.Diksha Rai ,Adv


           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

      Leave granted.

      The Civil Appeal as well  as  the  application  for  intervention  are
disposed of with no order as to costs, in terms of the signed order.


      (G.V.Ramana)                             (Vinod Kulvi)
     Court Master                              Asstt.Registrar
      (signed order is placed on the file)