LexSTATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. versus ANAND KUMAR YADAV & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 10 S.C.R. 428 STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. v. ANAND KUMAR YADAV & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 9529 of 2017 etc.) JULY25, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Comp11/sory Ed11cation Rules, 2011: c r.16-A [inserted by Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) R11/es, 2014} - Prescribing absorption of 'Shiksha Mitras' as Assistant Teachers in junior basic schools - By relaxing minimum educational qualifications for the post provided u/s. 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Executive orders D issued for absorption of 1,24,000 'Shiksha Mitras' as Assistant Teachers - Constitutional validity of - Held: The fundamental right of right to education is right to quality education - To make the right to education meaningful, a qualified teacher has significant role - In view of clear mandate of law statutorily requiring minimum E qualification/or appointment of teachers, no appointment was permissible without such qualifications - Since 'Shiksha Mitras' were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications and are not covered by relaxation order uls. 23(2) of 2009 Act, they could not be appointed as teachers in breach of s. 23(2) of 2009 Act-State is not competent to relax the qualijlcatioi1s - In the peculiar F facts of present case, 'Shiksha Mitras' are given opportunity to be considered for recruitment, !f they have acquired or now acquire requisite qualification - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - s.23. G Disposing of the appeals and Writ Petitions, the Court HELD: 1. Fundamental right to free and compulsory education is one of the most important rights. Right to education is right to quality education. To make the right to education meaningful, a qualified teacher undoubtedly has significant role. It is not correct that even unqualified teachers ought to be allowed H to continue ignoring the legislative mandate or that this Court 428 STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. v. ANAND KUMAR YADAV & - 429 ORS. ETC. should exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 to undo the said A mandate. Consideration for career of 1.78 lac -Shik.sha Mitra.s, over and above their legal right, cannot be at the cost of fundamental right of children to free quality education by duly qualified teachers in terms of legislative mandate. [Paras 16,17 and 19] [457-F; 459-A; 466-G-H] A.shoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 : (2008] 4 SCR 1 - relied on. Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB) - approved. B 2. In view of clear mandate of law statutorily requiring C minimum qualification for appointment of teachers to be appointed after the date of Notification dated 23'd August, 2010, there is no doubt that no appointment was permissible without such qualifications. Appointments in the present case arc clearly after the said date. Relaxation provision could be invoked for a limited D period or in respect of persons already appointed in terms of applicable rules relating to qualifications. The Sltik.slta Mitra.s in the present case do not fall in the category of pre 23'd August, 2010 Notification whose appointment could be regularized. Therefore, the Shiksha Mitra.s have not, under the law, right to be appointed or absorbed as teachers de /tors the prescribed E qualifications. [Paras 20, 21] [467-A; 476-D-E) 3. Appointment of Slrikslta Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of teacher nor in pay scale of teachers. Thus, they could not be regularized as teachers. Regularization could only F · be of mere irregularity. The exceptions carved out by this Court do not apply to the case of the present nature. [Para 22) [476-F- G] . 4. Thus, since the Shiksha Mitras were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications and arc not covered G by relaxation order under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children _ to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, they could not be appointed as teachers in breach of Section 23(1) of the said Act. The State is not competent to relax the qualifications. [Para 23] (476-G-H] H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IO S.C.R. A 5. In the peculiar fact situation, Sllikslla Mitras ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquire
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.