Manoj Kumar Verma vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Sunil Ambwani, Actg. C.J.

We have heard Shri Manoj Kumar Verma, the appellant, appearing in person. Shri Ashok Kumar, OIC, UDC, represents the respondent No. 1-RPSC.

This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2013, by which he has dismissed the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, and other connected petitions on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the qualification prescribed for appointment as a Physical Training Instructor (in short, ''PTI''), Grade-II & III, by the Regulations made under the National Council for Teacher Education (in short ''the NCTE''). The learned Single Judge has, after dismissing the writ petition, has given directions to the respondents to amend the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (in short, ''the Rules of 1971''), for appointment on the post of Teacher (PTI), to make it in consonance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers) Regulations, 2001 (in short, ''NCTE Regulations, 2001'').

The appellant, after completing High School and Intermediate, joined and completed the graduation course of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.E.) from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. He challenged the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (in short ''the RPSC) for recruitment on the post of PTI Grade-II and PTI Grade-III, on the ground that the required qualification for PTI Grade-II and PTI Grade-III, does not include three years degree course of Bachelor of Education, pursued by the appellant. The advertisement provided the qualification for PTI Grade-II as Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) recognized by the NCTE and working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. For PTI Grade-III, the qualification advertised was Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) or Certificate in Physical Education (C.P. Ed.) or Diploma in Physical Education (D.P. Ed.), recognized by the NCTE and working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture.

The appellant/petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Hari Ram and Others, in which the candidates holding Bachelor''s Degree in Physical Education from Nagpur, were held eligible for the post of PTI Grade-II. The judgment was affirmed by the Apex Court.

For the post of PTI Grade-III, it was submitted by him that the Regulations, 2001, required the qualification to be only Senior Secondary School Certificate, or Intermediate, or its equivalent with C.P. Ed., of a duration of not less than two years, whereas the petitioner is in possession of Bachelor''s Degree of three years course in Physical Education, which makes him eligible even for the post of Teacher Grade-III.

The State-respondents submitted that there is difference between B.P.E. and B.P. Ed. Whereas B.P.E. can be pursued after 10+2 course, the B.P. Ed. degree is offered only after graduation.

The learned Single Judge relied upon the Regulations 3, 5 and 6 of the NCTE Regulations, 2001, made under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and the Schedule appended to the NCTE Regulations, 2001, providing for qualifications of the teachers, which are binding upon all the State Governments for making appointments. He found that the State of Rajasthan had amended the Rules of 1971 in the year 2011, but did not make it in consonance with the NCTE Regulations, 2001, which is binding on the State Government, in which different qualifications have been prescribed for teachers, teaching in (I) Elementary, (II) Secondary/High School, and (III) Senior Secondary (Physical Education as an elective subject), in the Schedule appended to the Regulations. The qualifications prescribed in the Schedule for the PTI Teachers are quoted as below:-

The learned Single Judge found that the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE Regulations, 2001, are in variance with the qualifications prescribed in the Rules of 1971 and that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs. Government of NTC, Delhi and Others, P.M. Latha and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others, and Dilip Kumar Ghosh and Others Vs. Chairman and Others, followed by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kallash Chandra Harijan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE Regulations, 2001, would prevail over the qualifications prescribed by the Rules of 1971. The order passed by the RPSC holding the qualification of B.P.E., obtained by the petitioner, was not found to be in consonance to the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE Regulations, 2001. The B.P.E. degree thus, is not the qualification prescribed for PTI Grade-II and PTI Grade-III in the schools, except where a candidate holding the B.P.E. possess separate qualification of graduation, as prescribed in the NCTE Regulations, 2001.

The learned Single Judge held that in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Hah Ram & 16 Ors. (supra), this Court was dealing with the qualifications for PTI Teachers prior to the enforcement of NCTE Regulations, 2001. The facts in that case related to selection of the year 1994, which was prior to the issuance of the Rules of 1971 and the NCTE Regulations, 2001.

The appellant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and deserves to be quashed, as he has wrongly considered the question raised in the writ petition. The NCTE had not come into existence on the date when the appellant pursued and passed the B.P.E. Examination, which was recognized by the State Government in the Rules of 1971, as prescribed qualification for recruitment as PTI Grade-II Teacher. He submits that the observation made by the learned Single Judge that a candidate shall be treated eligible only when he possesses separate qualification of graduation, is in ignorance of the fact that B.P.E. is a Bachelor Degree and that the B.P.E. degree holders should be treated at par with those, who hold B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.+Diploma in Physical Education. They are not required to possess additional degree of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. for the purpose of employment. In Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, , it was held that B.P.E. degree holders should be treated at par with other graduates but should also possess Diploma in Physical Education.

The appellant submits that the State Government had admitted in para 12 of its counter affidavit that the qualification of B.P.E. includes the graduation as well as Diploma in Physical Education. The Government of Rajasthan, in its letter dated 31.03.1998, had clarified that the persons holding B.P.E. with Graduation, or Diploma or Graduation or Graduates with B.P. Ed., were eligible for the post of PTI Grade-II and Grade-III. The State Government had given recognition to B.P.E. as equivalent to B.P. Ed. for recruitment to the post of PTI Grade-II Teacher.

The appellant further submits that the degree of Graduation in Physical Education of three years obtained by him from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer is considered as a Degree of Graduation in Physical Education. The question which was decided and admitted by the State Government, should not have been left open, to be decided by the NCTE.

The appellant has also referred to the case of Ramnarayan Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/1999), decided on 02.04.2003, and on the basis of this judgment, in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4821/2004), it was directed that those who had taken admission in B.P.E. before 24.02.1996, recognized by the NCTE, their qualifications are sufficient and competent to treat them eligible for appointment as PTI Grade-II.

The representative of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

After hearing the parties, we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The argument raised by the appellant is based on the fact that the degree of B.P.E., obtained by him from MDS University, Ajmer, is recognized by the NCTE. He had taken admission in the college in B.P.E. course in 1994 and had passed out on 07.06.1997, much before the qualification prescribed in the Schedule under the NCTE Regulations, 2001 had come into force. His submission that B.P.E. is three years course and that when the graduates with B.P. Ed. course are eligible for appointment as PTI Grade-II and PTI Grade-III, the appellant holding the Bachelor''s Degree in Physical Education, cannot be held disqualified for the post, overlooks the qualifications prescribed in the NCTE Regulations, 2001. The object and purpose in enacting the National Council for Teacher Education Act, was to standardise the teachers education in the country. After the 42nd Amendment in the Constitution, the power to legislate on professional and technical institutions and determination of standards of education therein can be traced to Entries 65 and 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. The subject of ''education including universities'', included in Entry 11 in List II was deleted. The 42nd Amendment substituted it in Entry 25 in List III subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. By virtue of re-allocation of power, the State also have power to legislate on education, regulate the establishment and maintenance of educational institutions, but in exercise of the power, the State Government cannot make rules contrary to the standards prescribed under the Central legislation.

In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College, , the Supreme Court held;

"the NCTE is an expert body created under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Parliament has imposed upon such expert body the duty to maintain the standards of education particularly, in relation to the teachers education."

The NCTE Act was enacted in terms of Entries 65 and 66 of List I and having fixed the norms and qualification for recruitment of teachers, it is not open to the State Government to fix any qualification contrary to those laid down by the NCTE. All the States are supposed to modify/frame recruitment rules in conformity with the qualifications prescribed in the Schedule. Regulation 4 mandates that the existing recruitment rules may be modified within three years so as to bring them in conformity with the qualifications prescribed in the Schedules.

In the present case, on the enforcement of the NCTE Regulations, 2001, prescribing qualification for teachers including Physical Education Teachers, the Rules of 1971 framed by the State of Rajasthan were required to be amended. The Schedule in the NCTE Regulations, 2001, quoted as above, does not prescribe B.P.E. as qualification for PTI Grade-II and Grade-III for teaching in schools/high schools and Senior Secondary Schools, where physical education is an elective subject. For Secondary/High Schools, Graduates with Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P. Ed.), or its equivalent, is the requisite qualification. The appellant possesses B.P.E., which is a degree course in Physical Education. He did not pursue the degree course in Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) after doing graduation. He, therefore, does not hold the requisite qualification for appointment as PTI Grade-II or even PTI Grade-III. His contention that he had taken admission in B.P.E. course in 1994 and passed out in 1997, does not hold him eligible, as he was seeking recruitment in the schools in Rajasthan in pursuance of the advertisement issued, after the NCTE Regulations, 2001 came into force.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the learned Single Judge to cause any interference in this Special Appeal.

The Special Appeal is dismissed.