IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 844-846 OF 2002

SECRETARY, BOARD OF BASIC EDUCATION, U.P      .…. Appellant Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. ….… Respondents  

O R D E R

Application for impleadment allowed.  Heard.

2. These  appeals  relate  to  recruitment  to  the  post  of Assistant Teachers in primary schools run by the Board of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, regulated by the U.P. Basic Education  (Teachers  Services)  Rules,  1981  (‘Rules’  for short).  The qualifications prescribed in Rule 8 of the said Rules, for appointment to the post of Assistant Master in Junior basic  Schools are as follows :

“Assistant  Master  and  Assistant  Mistress  of Junior Basic Schools :  Intermediate  Examination  of  the  Board  of  High Court and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh

or  any  other  qualification  recognized  by  the State Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic  Teacher’s  Certificate,   Hindustani Teacher’s  Certificate,  Junior  Teacher’s Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training  course  recognized  by  the  State Government as equivalent thereto.”

3. The  appellant  Board  (‘Board’  for  short)  issued  an advertisement dated 18.1.1997 inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Teachers in its Basic Schools. The said advertisement reiterated the aforesaid qualification of BTC, HTC, JTC certificate of teaching or other training courses recognized  by  state  government  as  equivalent  thereto, (prescribed  under  Rule  8)  as  eligibility  criterion  for recruitment.

4. The private respondents in these appeals have undergone a  one  year  Physical  Education  Course  and  possess  CPEd Certificates.   The  Basic  Teacher’s  Certificate  and  other qualifications prescribed under Rule 8 are two years training Courses.  The  CPEd  was  never  recognized  by  the  State Government as equivalent to either BTC, HTC or JTC prescribed as qualifications for the post of Assistant Teachers/Masters.

2

5. On 23.3.1995, the State Government issued a direction under Section 13 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (‘Act’ for  short)  to  the  Board  that  candidates  possessing  CPEd Certificate could be appointed in the schools run by the Board by treating them as untrained candidates and provide training to them during the course of their employment. The said letter further directed that the pay scale applicable to trained teachers should be extended to such appointees only after they undergo training and necessary examination. The letter also informed that the State Government had taken a decision to close training of the CPEd in the State from the 1996-97 Session.

6. The  State  Government  issued  another  direction  dated 28.2.1996  under  Section  13  of  the  Act  superseding  the Government  Order dated 24.8.1978 which had recognized the CPEd  Certificates  issued  by  Shri  Hanuman  Vyayam  Prasarak Mandal,  Amravati,  Maharashtra  as  equivalent  to  CPEd Certificate  issued  by  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh. Consequently, it was informed that CPEd Certificate issued by the Amrawati Institute will not be recognized.

7. In view of the directions contained in Government order dated 23.3.1995, the applications from private respondents

3

who possessed only CPEd Certificates were entertained for the post  of  Asstt.  Teachers  against  the  advertisement  dated 18.1.1997. The private respondents allege that a select list was also prepared, which contained their names.  The select list, was, however, not given effect.

8. On 11.8.1997, the State Government in supersession of the earlier orders, directed that posts of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Schools run by the Board shall be filled up, only  by  those  candidates  who  are  BTC  trained  from  U.P. Government  Training  Institutes  or  those  possessing HTC/JCT/Teacher’s Certificate.  The said order cancelled the equivalence given to other training courses. The said order dated  11.8.1997  contains  a  specific  direction  that  the appointment to the posts of Assistant Teachers in the schools run by the Board shall be made only in accordance with the Rules,  by  candidates  possessing  BTC/HTC/JCT/Teaching Certificate. According to the government, the said direction dated  11.8.1997  was  issued  to  give  effect  to  the  NCTE guidelines and the Rules.  In view of the said direction, the Board  abandoned  the  process  of  selection  commenced  in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.1.1997 and issued a fresh  advertisement  dated  17.8.1997  restricting  the qualifications  to  what  was  stated  in  the  direction  dated

4

11.8.1997. It also made it clear that those claiming the benefit of equivalence or those with CPEd Certificate were not eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers.

9. Some  of  the  CPEd  candidates  from  Amrawati  Institute approached  the  Allahabad  High  Court  and  a  learned  Single Judge by Order dated 11.2.1997 held that CPEd candidates, either from the State run institutions of Uttar Pradesh or from  Amrawati,  should  not  be  treated  as  disqualified  for appointment as Assistant Teachers, until the CPEd course is brought to an end in terms of the G.O. dated 23.3.1995, that is  from  the  sessions  1996-97  and  consequently,  the  writ petitioners  therein had to be considered for appointment. When another batch of petitions filed by some other CPEd candidates came up before another learned Single judge of the High Court, he did not agree with the reasoning of the order dated 11.2.1997 and referred the matter to a Division bench by order dated 10.7.1997.  In the reference order, it was observed that the Government direction dated 23.3.1995 was not  of  any  assistance  to  the  candidates,  as  the  Rules contemplated  only  trained  teachers,  that  is  teachers possessing BTC or other equivalent training being considered as eligible and there was no question of giving appointment to  candidates  who  did  not  possess  the  qualification

5

prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules.  Another learned Single Judge,  who  considered  the  matter  after  the  issue  of  the Government  direction  dated  11.8.1997  made  an  order  dated 23.8.1998 in  another batch quashing the Government direction dated  11.8.1997  and  the  consequential  advertisement  dated 17.8.1997 and directed that all candidates who had obtained CPEd Certificates prior to 6.8.1997 should be considered for appointment  to  the  post  of  Assistant  teachers  in  Basic Schools.  

10. The  appeals  from  the  orders  dated  11.2.1997  and 23.8.1998  of  the  two  learned  Single  judges  and  the  writ petitions  referred  to  a  larger  Bench  by  another  learned Single Judge, were all considered by the Division bench.  By the  impugned  order  dated  26.6.2000,  the  Division  Bench directed that CPEd candidates trained in the institutions run by the state, or institutions recognized by state or trained from  any  other  institutions  which  had  been  recognized equivalent  to  CPEd  Course  of  Uttar  Pradesh  should  be considered for appointment in terms of the Government orders dated  23.3.1995  and  28.2.1996.   The  Division  Bench  also directed that CPEd candidates who have obtained certificates from  Amrawati  Institute  should  also  be  considered  on  the

6

basis of the judgment dated 11.2.1997 of the learned Single Jude.  The said judgment is challenged in these appeals.

11. Though  the  Division  Bench  noted  that  CPEd  was  never recognized by the State Government as equivalent to BTC, HTC or  JTC,  it  was  of  the  view  that  having  regard  to  the directions contained in the Government letter dated 23.3.1995 issued under Section 13 of the Act, candidates who possess CPEd Certificates were eligible to be considered as untrained candidates,  who,  on  selection  and  appointment  should  be subjected to training. But the Division Bench overlooked the fact that though the government direction dated 23.3.1995, may  apply  to  advertisement  dated  18.1.1997,  the  said direction dated 23.3.1995 was revoked and superseded by the subsequent  government  direction  dated  11.8.1997.   The Government direction dated 11.8.1997, is a policy formulated in pursuance of NCTE guidelines, to make appointments only in accordance with the rules, without relaxations. It did not suffer  from  any  infirmity.   When  the  said  direction  was received, the Board apparently decided not to proceed with the  selection  process  commenced  in  pursuance  of  the advertisement  dated  18.1.1997  and  issued  a  fresh advertisement dated 17.8.1997, which it was entitled to do. It is now well settled that merely because a candidate is

7

eligible  when  the  advertisement  was  issued  or  that  a candidate’s name is included in the selection list does not confer any right to the candidate to be appointed.   It is also well settled that it is for the rule making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the qualifications for recruitment  and  courts  will  not  interfere  with  the qualifications prescribed by such authority.  In this case, the Board decided not to pursue the recruitment advertisement dated 18.1.1997 for good and valid reasons and issued a fresh advertisement dated 17.8.1997 in terms of the direction dated 11.8.1997. Therefore, the issue whether the CPEd Certificate candidates  who  applied  against  the  advertisement  dated 18.1.1997, were eligible or not, with reference to the said superseded advertisement dated 18.1.1997, becomes academic. The High Court could not have, therefore, directed that the CPEd Certificate candidates be considered in terms of the government directions dated 23.3.1995 after the Government direction dated 11.8.1997. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to examine the other question as to whether the government, by an executive order, can direct the Board to deviate from the qualifications prescribed by the rules.   

12. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the order of the Division bench is set aside and the writ petitions by the

8

private  respondents  are  dismissed.   The  validity  of  the Government  direction  dated  11.8.1997  and  consequential advertisement is upheld.

13. We may, however, make it clear that if any candidate with CPEd Certificate had already been appointed by virtue of any interim or final order of the High Court, and continues to  be  in  appointment  even  as  on  date,  after  undergoing training  as  stated  in  the  Government  directions  dated 23.3.1995, his service may not be terminated merely on the ground that the said Government direction was superseded by the Government direction dated 11.8.1997.

__________________J [R. V. Raveendran]

_________________J [J M Panchal]

New Delhi; February 5, 2009.

9