Primary School Teachers' Job | Chhattisgarh HC Annuls Appointment Of B.Ed Degree Holders, Directs State Govt To Rearrange Selection List In 6 weeks

In a significant verdict, the Chhattisgarh High Court last week declared the Annexure - I (i) of Schedule-III appended to Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 to the extent that it allowed the B.Ed degree holders to participate in the assistant teacher recruitment process as ultra vires to Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

With this, the Court has annulled the appointment of BEd candidates in the recruitment process for assistant teachers. The court has also directed the state government to release a revised selection list within six weeks. In the order, the court has also said that B.El.Ed pass candidates should be given adequate opportunity in the revised selection list.

In its 58-page judgment, the division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma opined that the state had erred by allowing candidates with a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) qualification to participate in the selection process for primary school teachers. 

The division bench opined, “The State has committed illegality by permitting the candidates having the qualification of B.Ed. in the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 04.05.2019 since the said qualification does not exist in the statute book of the RTE Act 2009 after its quashment by the Rajasthan High Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2021.”

“The law is well settled in M/S Kusum Ingots case' (supra) that once the central statute is quashed by one of the High Court it would be applicable to all the States subject to its applicability. The RTE Act 2009 being Central Act having the overriding effect by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and if any of the provision (in the present case notification dated 28.06.2018 issued under Section 23 of the said Act 2019) is quashed or declared as ultra vires then it would be applicable to all other States. The State of Chhattisgarh has clearly committed an error in keeping the provision regarding prescription of qualification of B.Ed. alive in the Rules 2019 even after the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court,” the Court added.

The Judgment has been passed in light of the Supreme Court's 2023 verdict in the case of Devesh Sharma v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 wherein the top court had ruled that B.Ed. degree holders did not pass the basic pedagogical threshold required for teaching primary classes and thus could not provide 'quality' education to primary school children.

Controversy regarding the appointment of B.Ed degree holders as primary school teachers erupted when the state education department ignored the specialized training offered in the D El Ed course for elementary education, choosing instead to hire candidates with a BEd qualification.

The case in brief

The primary challenge presented in a batch of writ petitions before the HC concerned the notification dated June 28, 2018, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 23(1) of the Right to Education Act 2009. This notification outlined the eligibility criteria for the appointment of primary school teachers (Class I to V), specifying that holders of B.Ed. Degrees are qualified for such roles.

In addition to this substantive challenge, petitioners also raise consequential concerns regarding the provisions outlined in the 2019 State Rules. These rules incorporate the B.Ed. Degree as a qualification for the appointment to the position of 'Assistant Teacher' within the State Government, as detailed in Annexure - I (i) of Schedule III appended to Section 8 of the Recruitment Rules 2019. Notably, this entry in Annexure –I (i) had been further amended/substituted by a notification dated May 4, 2023.

Furthermore, petitioners contested the advertisement dated May 4, 2023, which allows candidates holding a 'B.Ed.' degree to participate in the selection process for appointment to the position of 'Assistant Teacher' in primary schools (for classes I to V).

Therefore, the challenges presented in these writ petitions were as follows:

(i) The validity of the notification dated June 28, 2018, issued by the National Council of Teacher Education under the authority of Section 23(1) of the Right to Education Act 2009.

(ii) The inclusion of the 'B.Ed.' qualification as permissible for appointment to the position of Assistant Teacher, as outlined in Annexure-I (i) of Schedule-III appended to Rule 8 of the Rules 2019.

(iii) The allowance for candidates possessing a 'B.Ed.' degree to participate in the selection process for the position of 'Assistant Teacher', as per the advertisement dated May 4, 2023.

Court's Analysis

In its deliberations on the matter, the Court emphasized the settled legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in the case of Devesh Sharma, asserting that the eligibility requirement for the appointment of teachers at the primary level remains well-established, particularly regarding the suitability of a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) qualification.

The Court underscored the significance of maintaining educational standards at the primary level, highlighting that mandating qualifications such as B.Ed. could potentially compromise the quality of education imparted.

Notably, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), recognized as the 'Academic Authority' under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009, initially omitted B.Ed. as an eligible qualification, indicating a clear intent to prioritize pedagogical skills specifically tailored for primary education through courses like Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.).

Referring to Rule 8 (III) of the Rules 2019, the Court emphasized the necessity of aligning the qualification requirements for teachers in primary schools with the provisions of the RTE Act 2009, as stated mutatis mutandis in the said Rules 2019.

In light of the Rajasthan High Court's ruling on the RTE Act 2009 and the subsequent quashing of certain provisions, the Court admonished the State for persisting in allowing candidates with B.Ed. qualifications to participate in the selection process for primary school teachers, despite its invalidation by the high court.

The Court cited the legal principle established in the case of M/S Kusum Ingots, emphasizing that the quashing of a central statute by one high court applies uniformly across all states. Thus, the Court concluded that the State of Chhattisgarh erred in maintaining the provision regarding B.Ed. qualification in the Rules 2019, particularly following the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.

Consequently, noting that the Supreme Court has already declared a notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE prescribing the qualification of B.Ed. as eligible/permissible qualification for appointment of teacher in primary level school (Class I to V) as ultra vires, the Court did not declare the same as ultra vires once again.

However, it did invalidate the qualification prescribed under Annexure - I (i) of Schedule III appended to Section 8 of the Recruitment Rules 2019, specifically denouncing the inclusion of B.Ed. as an eligible qualification on similar grounds.

The Court considered the framing of Recruitment Rules 2019 under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution, which pertains to 'Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.' It noted that rules framed under Article 309 always remain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and acts of appropriate legislation.

Regarding the qualification requirement of B.Ed. for the post of Primary School teacher under Rule 8 (III) of the Rules 2019, the Court found it to be in conflict with Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the RTE Act 2009. Thus, the provision was declared ultra vires.

The Court rejected the Intervenors' plea for the judgment to apply prospectively and for their joining to the post. It cited the precedent of Bhagwan Krishna (supra) where consequential advertisements and subsequent steps were invalidated under similar circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court held, “the writ petitions deserve to be allowed by declaring the prescription of qualification of B.Ed. as eligible qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Class I to V) as illegal and without jurisdiction which deserves to be quashed and hereby quashed.”

“Consequently, the advertisement dated 04.05.2023 to the extent it permit the candidates having the qualification of B.Ed. to participate in process of selection for the post of Assistant Teacher is also declared illegal and quashed,” the Court added.

The Court directed the State Government to rearrange the selection list in accordance with the provisions of the Rules 2019 by excluding the candidates participating in the selection process having qualification of B.Ed. The Court directed the exercise to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 8