- (1.) REPORTABLE Under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules of 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1994' and 'the Rules of 1996'), advertisements were issued by various Zila Parishad for the post of Teacher Gr III. All the petitioners applied for the post, however, apprehending rejection of their candidature, these writ petitions have been filed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submit that elementary education is now a fundamental right in view of the amendment in the Constitution of India. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') was enacted by the Union of India after the amendment in the Constitution to achieve object of free and compulsory education to all children at the age of six to fourteen years. Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009 empowers Central Government to authorise academic authority to lay down minimum qualification. The Central Government issued a Notification on 5.4.2010 authorising National Council of Teacher Education (for short 'the NCTE') to prescribe requisite qualification. The NCTE issued Notification on 23.8.2010 to provide requisite qualification at different levels. It was then amended vide Notification dated 29.7.2011. The present matters pertain to selection and appointment of Teachers at Level-I i.e. for students of classes I to V. As per para (3) of the Notification issued by the NCTE, candidates holding qualification of BEd apart from 50% marks at the level BA/ B.Sc etc were made also eligible for appointment upto 1.1.2012 with a condition to possess requisite qualification or take special training within a period of six months thereupon. The respondent State Government failed to carry out mandate of the Act of 2009 and Notification issued under section 23 of the aforesaid Act by initiating process of selection on or prior to 1.1.2012, thereby, minimum qualification prescribed in para (3) is made redundant. The candidates like petitioners holding qualification of BEd with Teacher Eligibility Test (for short 'the TET') would not be eligible for appointment as Teacher at Level-I. Section 25 of the Act of 2009 directs to ensure pupil-teacher ratio whereas, section 34 provides for constitution of State Advisory Council for advising State Government on implementation of provisions of the Act of 2009. Section 35 is for issuance of directions by the Central Government to the appropriate Government and local authority for implementation of provisions of the Act. Rule 18 of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010') provide for minimum qualifications and relaxation.Thus as per rule 18 of the Rules of 2010, the State Government should have relaxed minimum qualification looking to delay in initiation of process of selection of Teacher at Level-I.
(3.) A reference of the proviso to section 23(2) of the Act of 2009 is also given to indicate that the teachers who do not possess minimum qualification as laid down under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act of 2009, may acquire minimum qualifications within a period of five years. If petitioners are not in possession of required qualification then they should be governed by the proviso and not only to treat them eligible but to give them further period of five years to possess requisite qualification. Accordingly, petitioners' case is covered by the proviso to section 23(2) of the Act of 2009. This is more so when the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') were amended vide Notification dated 11.5.2011. As per the amended Rules, the qualification for teacher at level-I and II would be as provided by the NCTE pursuant to section 23(1) of the Act of 2009. In the aforesaid background also, section 23 of the Act of 2009 comes in picture along with proviso to section 23(2) of the Act of 2009. It is further urged that all the candidates possessing qualification of BEd were allowed to appear in the TET for Teacher at Level-I and II. The test was held pursuant to advertisement in the month of March, 2011 followed by declaration of result on 28.8.2011. Once a candidate holding qualification of BEd was allowed to appear in the TET, that too, for the post of Teacher at level-I then should not be rendered ineligible only for the reason that selection to the post could not be held on or prior to 1.1.2012. If the respondents had no intention to hold selection on or prior to 1.1.2012 then appearance of the petitioners in TET remains nothing but an empty formality for the post of Teacher at Level-I. The TET was held for making them eligible for the post of Teacher Level-I thus to make it logical, the respondents should have alternatively taken guidelines/ directions from the NCTE/ Government of India for relaxing cut off date of 1.1.2012 or for advancing it so that one time relaxation is given to BEd degree holders for their appearance on the post of Teacher at Level-I in the State of Rajasthan. The respondents' failed to act as per section 35 of the Act of 2009 and Rule 18 of the Rules of 2010. This is more so when petitioners are ready to undergo training of six months after their appointment as is given in the Notification dated 23.8.2010. Learned counsel further made a reference of rule 29 of the Rules of 2010 to indicate that if there was an ambiguity in the mind of the respondents then necessary guidelines should have been taken from the Government of India. This is more so when in few States, the cut off date of 1.1.2012 has been relaxed. Presently, 41000 posts have been advertised for the post of Teacher Gr III by various Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan. This shows that pupil-teacher ratio was not maintained as per the mandate of section 25 of the Act of 2009 otherwise 41000 posts would not have been advertised by the respondents for all the Zila Parishads in the State. ;