B.Ed Degree Holders Not Eligible To Take REET-I; NCTE's 2018 Notification Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court last week held that NCTE's notification relaxing eligibility for teaching primary level students and thereby allowing B.Ed degree holders to appear for REET Level I [Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher] is unlawful.

With this, the Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal also vacated its interim orders granted earlier allowing the petitioners to hold B.Ed. the degree to appear in the REET.

The matter in brief

Essentially, NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education) had issued a notification in the year 2018, by which the B.Ed. degree holders, subject to certain conditions, were made eligible for appointment to the post of primary school teacher Grade-III (level-1) (classes-I to V).

NCTE had also directed that B.Ed degree holders, who pass the REET, will have to do a 6-month bridge course within 2 years of their appointment as a teacher. This was in addition to other qualifications already prescribed under its notification dated 23.08.2010 as amended from time to time. 

Essentially, MHRD has written to NCTE directing the NCTE to amend the qualifications and make B.Ed. also eligibility for teaching primary level with a proviso of passing the module within two years of joining the service.

Holding a belief that such amendment in the qualification was unconstitutional and could not have been thrust on the State by the Union Government through NCTE, the Rajasthan Government issued an advertisement dated 11th January 2021 inviting applications for REET aspirants.

This advertisement did not recognize B.Ed degree holders as eligible for appearing in the test and it gave permission only to BSTC candidates to appear for the exam, and therefore, the same was challenged by B.Ed candidates in the high court.

This notification of NCTE was also challenged before the Rajasthan High Court. Along with this, a challenge was also made to include B.Ed degree holder in REET level first.

Court's order and observations

Analyzing Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, the Court noted that the Central Government has the power to relax the qualifications laid down for the appointment of the teacher in cases where an adequate number of institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or teachers possessing minimum qualifications in a state are not available.

In this regard, the Court took into account the fact that the Central Government did not take up the exercise regarding the collection of data as to the number of vacancies vis-a-vis the number of eligible candidates, so as to exercise its power under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act.

However, the Union of India did not take the stand that the powers to relax the qualifications were exercised by the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. It was contended that the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act was exercised by the Central Government.

Therefore, analyzing sub-section 1, the Court noted that the power of the Central Government to issue guidelines under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the RTE Act does not extend to the NCTE as an academic authority notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act.

Emphasizing that for prescribing the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers, the NCTE is not to be guided or be bound by any directive that the Central Government may issue, the Court was of the following opinion:

"...the Central Government cannot trace the source of the power to give such directions to the NCTE in the exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The primary source of the powers of the NCTE to frame regulations prescribing the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers is in Sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the exercise of such powers, the NCTE is not to be guided or be bound by any directive that the Central Government may issue. We do not find any such powers retained by the Central Government under the RTE Act. In plain terms therefore, the Ministry of HRD could not have mandated the NCTE to make the amendments in question."

In fact, the Court noted, the opinion of the NCTE was that B.Ed. may be recognized as an alternative qualification for the purpose of KVS, where an adequate number of otherwise qualified candidates are in short supply.

"Over-ruling such opinion of NCTE, the Ministry of HRD mandated that B.Ed. may be recognized as an additional qualification for all schools. This was clearly beyond the power of the Central Government," the Court further added.

The Court also opined that B.Ed. per se is not sufficient educational qualification and it is for this reason only, the MHRD had desired and NCTE has introduced the requirement of the passing of the bridge course.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the impugned notification issued by NCTE dated 28.06.2018 is unlawful because it was under the direction of the Central Government, despite the fact that under subsection (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Union Government had no power to do so.

The Court further held that the same was not in the exercise of the power of the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of RTE Act relaxing the eligibility criteria prescribed by the NCTE, nor there has been an exercise for ascertaining the existence of the conditions precedent for exercising such power.

"Accepting a candidate with B.Ed. degree as eligible for appointment and thereafter subjecting him to complete the bridge course within two years of appointment is in the nature of relaxing the existing eligibility criteria, which the Central Government could have done only within Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and subject to the existence of circumstances necessary for the exercise of such power," the Court concluded by directing that the petitioners, who appeared in the REET under the interim orders of this Court, shall not be processed further.

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment