LexBASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. versus UPENDRA RAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 707 -; ~ BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. A v. UPENDRA RAI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8034 of 2001) FEBRUARY 12, 2008 B (H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) .. ~· U.P Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981: r. 8 - Assistant Teacher of Basic School - Training qualification for - U.P Government Circular dated 11.8.1997 c - Prescribing training qualification from U.P. Government Training Institutes and specifically canceling equivalence to BTC granted earlier to other certificates - Challenged by candidate holding a certificate of Diploma in Education from an institute in M. P recognized under NCTE Act- HELD: Grant D ~ or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision ... taken by experts appointed by Government and is in sole discretion of authority concerned - Court would not interfere with such a policy decision unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision - Circular dated 11. 8. 1997 E is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - On facts, D. Ed. Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the circular dated 11.8.1997 - Therefore, candidate holding D. Ed. Certificate was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant ~--- Teacher of a Basic School in U.P - The word 'institution' as F defined in s.2(e) of NCTE Act, only means teachers' training institute and not ordinary educational institutions - NCTE Act and U. P Basic Education Act/Rules operate in two different fields, as explained in judgment- Therefore, NCTE Act cannot be said to override U.P Act/Rules -Article 254 of Constitution G ~ has no application to facts of the case - National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 - ss. 2(e), 2(m), 3(1), 12(d), 14(1), 14(5), 17(1) and 17(4) - Constitution of India -Articles 14 and 254 - Seventh Schedule - List Ill - Entry 25 - 707 H 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A Administrative Law - Policy decision of State Government - Interference by Court. Words and Phrases: Word "institution" as defined in s.2(e) of National Council s for Teachers Education Act,· 1993 - Meaning of The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a circular • ·v dated 11.8.1997 in terms of Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1997prescribing that the posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools of the C Basic Education Board would be filled up only with the candidates trained in the U.P. Government Training Institutes and possessing B.T.C. (Basic Teacher Certificate) or Hindustani Teaching Certificate or teaching certificate of Junior Teacher. It was specifically mentioned D in the circular that equivalence to BTC granted earlier to other certificates was cancelled. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 8034 of 2001, who held a Diploma in Education awarded by DIET Jabalpur, M.P., challenged the said circular dated 11.8.1997 and the advertisement pursuant E thereto issued on 28.4.1999 on the ground that the D.Ed. Certificate awarded by DIET, Jabalpur was earlier recognized as equivalent to BTC of U.P. Certain other writ petitions were filed before the High Court. The single Judge of the High Court rejected the claim and upheld F the circular. However, the Division Bench, in special appeals, quashed the circular as also the advertisement. This gave rise to the instant appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1.1 Grant of equivalence and for revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in ~ H the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in ... 1 I BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. v. UPENDRA RAI 709 AND ORS. such matters. Court should exercise judicial restraint and A not interfere in it. [para 15] [715-F, G] 1.2 The respondent in C.A. No. 8034 of 2001 does not possess the qualification mentioned in Circular dated 11.8.1997. The D.Ed. Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the circular dated 11.8.1997. This B was a policy decision of the U.P. Government, and the Court cannot interfere with it unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision. The respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher of a Junior Basic School in U.P. [para 14] [715-C, C D, E] 2.1 The two Acts, namely, the NCTE Act and th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.