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
2or 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.
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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.