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