APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in R.C. Boys Middle School, Mamrala (Basia), District Gumla, a Government aided minority school on 28th September 2010. Since the proposal for approval of proposition statement was pending before the Director, Primary Education and he was waiting for release of salary and other arrears, he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2435/2013. By order dated 21 st January 2014 the writ petition was disposed of without commenting upon the merits of the claim with a direction to the Director, Primary Education to take an informed decision on the question of proposition statement of the petitioner after verification of the relevant records of the petitioner's appointment within a period of 12 weeks and depending upon the decision it was observed that consequential benefits would flow in favour of the petitioner thereafter. The Director, Primary Education vide order dated 10 th April 2014 bearing memo no.207 (Annexure-5) rejected the claim on the ground that in terms of the guidelines issued by the NCTE dated 23rd August 2010 in the light of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, petitioner had not qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test which is mandatory. Being aggrieved, he again approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3857/2014. By then the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 8 SCC 1 had come wherein it was held that Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is not applicable to aided or unaided minority schools who are covered under the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the matter was remanded for reconsideration to the Director, Primary Education vide order dated 4th August 2014 (Annexure-8). This time the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 17th August 2016 bearing memo no.586 (Annexure-9) on the ground that the school did not follow the reservation policy of the State in the recruitment process. The order of rejection was challenged in W.P.(S) No.7291/2016 from which the present appeal arises. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding as under :- "6. In so far as, qualification of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner has not acquired TET qualification. He claims that he is an Intermediate having acquired 2 years' Teachers Training degree (para 7). Once it is found that eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Government aided minority institutions is also regulated under the extant rules and notifications, a candidate who does not possess the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher cannot lay a claim for appointment raising a plea based on the fundamental rights guaranteed to the minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Under Section 3 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, NCTE has been constituted as the academic regulator which decides the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of teachers. NCTE Act, 1993 is a central legislation which governs the field. In exercise of powers under Section 23 of the 2008 Act, NCTE has issued notification dated 23.08.2010 prescribing minimum qualifications for appointment of the teachers. One of the mandatory conditions is a qualification of TET. It is well settled that High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 can justifiably refuse to issue writ, not only because it is lawful to do so more, but because the Courts do not issue futile writs. A person, who does not possess the minimum qualifications and comes to the Court with a grievance that his claim has been rejected for a wrong reason, cannot succeed if it is found that interference in the matter would perpetuate illegality. The petitioner who does not possess TET qualification cannot lay a claim for his appointment in a minority institution on the basis of his appointment by the Managing Committee on 18.07.2011. Having held so, the issue whether the State's reservation policy can be enforced in the minority institutions or not, has become academic. The decision in "Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust" deals with the question of reservation of seats for admission in the minority institutions and for that limited issue only it has been held that the provisions under 2008 Act shall not be applicable in the minority institutions. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would amount to granting license to the minority institutions to appoint an ineligible person a teacher, which would seriously impair the standards of education in the minority institutions. 7. In the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.08.2016. The writ petition, bereft of merit, is dismissed." ;