Supreme Court Invalidates Shiksha Mitra Appointments as Teachers: State of UP vs. Anand Kumar Yadav (25 July 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 683

Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Can a state government bypass mandatory qualifications for teachers to ensure universal education? The Supreme Court of India tackled this critical question in a case involving the appointment of “Shiksha Mitras” (para-teachers) in Uttar Pradesh. The court examined whether the state government could relax the statutory qualifications for teachers under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009) and the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act). The judgment, authored by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, with Justice Uday Umesh Lalit concurring, ultimately invalidated the appointments of Shiksha Mitras as regular teachers, emphasizing the importance of qualified educators for quality education.

Case Background

The State of Uttar Pradesh introduced the Shiksha Mitra scheme in 1999 to address the shortage of teachers in primary schools. These para-teachers were hired on a contractual basis with a fixed honorarium, and the scheme aimed to provide universal primary education at a lower cost. Over time, the state government sought to regularize these Shiksha Mitras as full-time teachers, leading to a legal challenge.

The core issue arose when the state government attempted to bypass the statutory qualifications for teachers as mandated by the RTE Act, 2009 and the NCTE Act, 1993. The state government issued notifications and orders to absorb Shiksha Mitras as Assistant Teachers, which was challenged by individuals who met the statutory qualifications for teachers. The petitioners argued that the state government’s actions violated the law, as the Shiksha Mitras did not possess the required qualifications and the state lacked the power to relax these qualifications.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following key legal provisions:

• Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009): This section specifies the qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.
  • Section 23(1): States that any person possessing the minimum qualifications laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government is eligible for appointment as a teacher.
  • Section 23(2): Allows the Central Government to relax the minimum qualifications for a limited period (not exceeding five years) if a state does not have adequate teacher training institutions or qualified teachers. It also stipulates that teachers who do not possess the minimum qualifications at the commencement of the Act must acquire them within five years.
• Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE): This notification specifies the minimum qualifications for teachers in classes I to VIII, including the requirement to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
• U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972: The act that regulates and controls basic education in the State of U.P.
• U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: The rules that lay down the sources of recruitment and qualifications for the appointment of teachers.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the qualifications laid down by the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act are mandatory and cannot be relaxed by the State Government, except as permitted by Section 23(2) by the Central Government for a limited period.

Arguments

Appellants (State of U.P. and Shiksha Mitras) Arguments:

• Need for Universal Education: The appellants argued that the Shiksha Mitra scheme was necessary to provide universal primary education, especially in rural areas, as qualified teachers were not affordable or readily available.
• Selection and Training: They contended that Shiksha Mitras were duly selected, trained at district training institutes, and most were graduates or at least intermediate-level qualified.
• Relaxation of TET: The appellants argued that TET was not applicable to teachers appointed before 25th August, 2010, and that the Central Government had extended the time for acquiring minimum qualifications.
• Constitutional Mandate: They submitted that Article 243G of the Constitution allows for panchayats to function as institutions of self-governance in education, including primary schools, and the Shiksha Mitra scheme was consistent with this provision.
• Policy Making Power: The appellants argued that the government is free to frame policy in the absence of legislation, and the state had the power to relax qualifications.
• Long Service: The appellants argued that the long service of Shiksha Mitras should be considered for regularization.
• Source of Recruitment: The appellants argued that the State can specify a source for fresh recruitment with relaxed educational qualification.
• Procedural Issue: The appellants argued that the High Court judgment was a nullity because Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. was not followed and all Shiksha Mitras were not impleaded as parties.

Respondents (Original Writ Petitioners) Arguments:

• Importance of Qualified Teachers: The respondents argued that while universal education is important, maintaining the quality of education with qualified teachers is equally crucial.
• Violation of Law: They contended that the state government’s actions violated Section 23(1) of the RTE Act and the NCTE’s notifications, as the Shiksha Mitras did not meet the statutory qualifications.
• Limited Relaxation: They argued that the relaxation provision under Section 23(2) was only for a limited period and for teachers already appointed, not for regularizing Shiksha Mitras.
• No Basis for Ultra Vires: The respondents argued that there was no basis to hold the 23rd August, 2010 Notification to be ultra vires.
• Article 142: They argued that power under Article 142 should be exercised to advance justice and not to defeat the Parliamentary mandate for advancement of proper education.
• Procedural Issue: The respondents argued that the alleged non-compliance of provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was inconsequential as the State and the Shiksha Mitras were duly represented.
• Regularization Invalid: They contended that the regularization of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, including State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether, under the scheme of appointment of Shiksha Mitras, they could be treated as teachers appointed as per applicable qualifications?
2. If Shiksha Mitras were not duly appointed teachers, could they be regularized as teachers?
3. Whether the qualification laid down under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act was applicable or stood relaxed in the case of Shiksha Mitras?
4. Whether statutory qualifications in a Central Statute on a concurrent list subject could be relaxed by a State legislative/administrative action?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities, including case laws and legal provisions, to arrive at its decision. These are categorized by the legal point they address:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the following considerations:

• Rule of Law: The court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that appointments are made according to statutory provisions. The court was of the opinion that no consideration could be above the rule of law.
• Quality Education: The court strongly emphasized the fundamental right of children to receive quality education from qualified teachers. The court was of the opinion that the right to education is the right to quality education.
• Statutory Mandate: The court highlighted the mandatory nature of the qualifications laid down by the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act and that the State is not competent to relax the qualifications.
• Regularization Principles: The court reiterated that regularization is only for irregularities and not illegalities. The appointments of Shiksha Mitras were held to be illegal due to the lack of required qualifications.
• Limited Relaxation: The court clarified that the relaxation provision under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act was for a limited period and for teachers already appointed as per applicable rules relating to qualifications, which did not apply to the Shiksha Mitras.

Final Order

The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision and invalidated the appointments of Shiksha Mitras as regular teachers. The court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint teachers strictly according to the statutory qualifications laid down under the RTE Act and the NCTE Act. The court also observed that the State may take steps to allow Shiksha Mitras to acquire the necessary qualifications and seek appointment as teachers in accordance with law.

The Court also ordered that the State Government may take steps to allow Shiksha Mitras to appear in the next Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and seek appointment as teachers in accordance with law, subject to their acquiring the necessary qualifications.

Implications

The Supreme Court’s judgment had significant implications:

• Emphasis on Qualified Teachers: The judgment reinforced the importance of qualified teachers for quality education and upheld the statutory qualifications laid down by the NCTE.
• Invalidation of Appointments: The decision led to the invalidation of the appointments of a large number of Shiksha Mitras as regular teachers, creating a significant impact on the education sector in Uttar Pradesh.
• Need for Compliance: The judgment made it clear that state governments cannot bypass mandatory qualifications for teachers and must adhere to the statutory provisions.
• Long Term Impact: The judgment had a long-term impact on the teacher recruitment process and the education system in Uttar Pradesh, leading to the need for proper planning and implementation of teacher training programs.
• Opportunity for Shiksha Mitras: While the appointments were invalidated, the court provided an opportunity for Shiksha Mitras to acquire the necessary qualifications and seek appointment as teachers in accordance with law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. is a landmark decision that reaffirmed the importance of qualified teachers for quality education. The court made it clear that no consideration can be above the rule of law. The judgment emphasized that the right to education is the right to quality education, and that statutory qualifications for teachers cannot be relaxed by the State Government. The case serves as a reminder of the need for strict adherence to statutory provisions in the education sector and the importance of maintaining the quality of educators for the betterment of the education system.