LexDEVESH SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 167 : 2023 INSC 704 167 CASE DETAILS DEVESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023) AUGUST 11, 2023 [ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether National Council for Teacher Education-NCTE vide notifi cation dated 28.06.2018, was right in including B.Ed. qualifi cation as an equivalent and essential qualifi cation for appointment to the post of primary school teacher (Level-1); and whether the High Court was justifi ed in quashing the said notifi cation, holding the B.Ed. candidates to be unqualifi ed for the posts of primary school teachers (Level-1). Right to Education Act, 2009 – s. 23(1) – Appointment to the post of primary school teachers – Inclusion of B.Ed as a necessary qualifi cation by NCTE vide notifi cation dated 28.06.2018 – Justifi cation: Held : Not justifi ed – B.Ed. is not a qualifi cation for teachers at Primary level of schooling – Pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected from a B.Ed. Trained teacher – They are trained to teach classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and above – For Primary level i.e. class I to class V the training is D.El.Ed-Diploma in elementary education – Thus, by implication the inclusion of B.Ed. as a qualifi cation amounts to lowering down of the ‘quality’ of education at Primary level – Need for ‘quality’ and meaningful primary education has been emphasized by the legislature as well as by the academic authority – In primary education, any compromise on ‘quality’ of education would mean going against the very mandate of Article 21A and the RTE Act – Thus, the decision of the NCTE to include B.Ed. as a qualifi cation for teachers in a primary school is arbitrary, unreasonable and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act – NCTE had so far consciously kept B.Ed. Degree out of the eligibility 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. requirement – Thus, the High Court rightly struck down the notifi cation dated 28.06.2018. [Paras 27, 29, 31, 33 and 34] Administrative law – Policy decision – Introduction of B.Ed. as a qualifi cation for teachers in primary school by NCTE vide notifi cation dated 28.06.2018, on the directions of the Central Government – Interference with: Held : Policy decisions of the Government should normally not be interfered with, by a constitutional Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review – Powers of judicial review must be exercised only if the policy decision itself is contrary to the law and is arbitrary and irrational, or a decision has been taken without proper application of mind, or in total disregard of relevant factors – Decision to include B.Ed. as a qualifi cation is not an independent decision of NCTE, but was the decision of the Central Government and NCTE was simply directed to carry it out being a direction u/s. 29 of NCTE Act – This cannot be seen as a policy decision – Even presuming it to be a policy decision, the decision is not correct as it is contrary to the purpose of the Act – It goes against the letter and spirit of Art. 21A and the RTE Act, which calls for a free, compulsory and meaningful primary education to children – By including B.Ed. as a qualifi cation for teachers for primary school, the Central Government has acted against the provisions of the Constitution and the laws – Notifi cation dated 28.06.2018 is quashed and set aside – National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 – s. 29 – Judicial review. [Paras 36 and 37] Constitution of India – Art.21A – Right to education – Fundamental right: Held : Every child upto 14 years of age, has a fundamental right to have ‘free’ and ‘compulsory’ elementary education, which has to be of good ‘quality’ – The same is the object and purpose of the Right to Education Act, 2009. [Para 17] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Unni Krishnan J.P. versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2178 : [1993] 1 SCR 594; Dilip Kumar Ghosh and Others versus Chairman and Others (2005) 7 SCC 567 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 158; 169 DEVESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. P.M. Latha and Another versus State of Kerala and Others (2003) 3 SCC 541 : [2003] 2 SCR 653; Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi (2003) 3 SC 548 : [2003] 2 SCR 662; Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 6 SCC 1 : [2012] 2 SCR 715; Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minist
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.