Allahabad High Court order on conractual teachers: ‘UP illegally lowered norms for shiksha mitras, compounded it by absorbing them’

[related-post]

In its September 12 order, the details of which were made available Friday, the three-judge Bench of the High Court, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, pointed out that the state was not only “illegal in lowering the minimum qualification” for appointment to the post of shiksha mitras, by exempting them from Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET), but also “compounded it further by absorbing them” in the service.

“The state government has acted ultra vires the scope of the statutory powers conferred upon it by laying qualifications for appointment of shiksha mitras as assistant teachers in direct conflict with what has been prescribed by the National Council For Teacher Education (NCTE). The prescription of qualifications by the state government by an amendment of its service rules in conflict with the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE is ultra vires,” the order read.
It added that the NCTE had the sole and exclusive authority to prescribe minimum qualifications.

The state government had brought the changes through a notification on May 30, 2014, in which Rule 16-A was inserted in the service rules for teachers, allowing shiksha mitras to be exempted from mandatory TET.

“The state government has compounded its illegality by regularising/absorbing the shiksha mitras as assistant teachers. As a consequence, qualified candidates fulfilling the NCTE norms are denied the equality of opportunity to seek appointment as assistant teachers,” the order read.

The court also took note of the fact that the two-year training programme in Basic Teaching Certificate for nearly 1.72 lakh shiksha mitras, being provided by the state through NCTE via a correspondence programme, did not make them qualified to be appointed as assistant teachers.

However, the court has not interfered with the training programme.

It was through this two-year training that the state deemed the shiksha mitras to be having the qualification for assistant teachers, even though they were not TET qualified.

After coming out with its guidelines in 2010, which made TET mandatory, the NCTE had sought requests for relaxation in norms for teachers from the states. But it had categorically mentioned that there could be no relaxation for TET qualification.

The court also pointed out that shiksha mitras were not appointed against any existing vacancies of teachers or had the prescribed minimum qualifications “either according to the Service Rules of 1981 for the primary teachers, or, as per the amended rules in 2001 and then in 2010 (when TET became mandatory)”.
The court also said that TET has been made mandatory with a certain objective. “Teaching a child is not merely a matter of providing information…The emphasis on clearing the TET is to ensure the maintenance of quality in imparting primary education,” the court said, adding that ignoring these norms on “parochial or populist perceptions” by the state would adversely impact the quality.

The court also rejected the contention of the state government that experience could substitute for educational qualification.

Finally, the court gave several grounds to hold that shiksha mitras were only contractual employees. It also pointed out that they were made to fill up forms in which they consented not to seek regularisation in government services. Further, they were to declare themselves “social workers” doing the work of broad-basing education in the village. The court also pointed out that reservation norms were not met for appointment of shiksha mitras and they were not appointed against “existing vacancies” or sanctioned posts.