Supreme Court: If a person is not allowed to be recruited, how will he gain post-qualification teaching experience (Read Full)

Sakunjay Vyas

Published on: April 14, 2022 at 11:25 IST

The Two Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka of the Supreme Court overturned the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna Bench, dismissing the writ petition, stating that the appellants were non­suited under the premise in terms of the qualifications prescribed by Central Council of Indian Indigenous Act, 1970 and notification passed.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that when you don’t permit a person to be recruited into service as a teacher on the basis of his academic qualification, how he will gain post ­qualification teaching experience of three years as the condition of eligibility and how both these twin conditions would meet together?

The Two Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka was hearing an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna Bench, dismissing the writ petition, stating that the appellants were non­suited under the premise in terms of the qualifications prescribed by Central Council of Indian Indigenous Act, 1970 and notification passed.

The Apex Court, by analyzing the facts and evidence of the present case stated that we would like to take note of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent State that the notification dated 09th December, 1986 has to be read alongwith Section 6(2) of the Act which casts an obligation on the Committee of experts to examine the bio­data of each of the members of the teaching staff and to ascertain whether appointment, promotion and confirmation was made in accordance with the Act, Statute or Regulations of the University concerned

That the aforesaid stated examination process has to be done keeping in view the guidelines of statutory authority and the recommendation made under sub­Section (2) of Section 6 was to be considered by the State Government for taking a final decision under sub­Section (3) of Section 6 of the Act 1985.

The Apex Court stated that we find a complete fallacy in the submission made by the State   Counsel.

Once a State Government in its wisdom has come out with the statutory notification issued in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act that the Screening Committee constituted has to consider the eligibility of the employees/teachers regarding minimum qualifications and teaching skills as on the cut­off date, hence the recommendation made by the Screening Committee will be considered by the State Government for absorption or for continuance in service or for termination.

The Apex Court while considering the decision made by the High Court stated it is a misconception under the law to consider eligibility if a teacher recruited on an academic basis to be judged on post-qualification teaching experience.

“ to examine the eligibility of the teachers as on the date they initially entered into service in the year 1978­1979 and arriving to the conclusion that the teachers who were not holding the post-qualification teaching experience of three years from recognized Ayurvedic college as referred to under the Statute would not be eligible for absorption in terms of the notification dated 09^th December, 1986, in our considered view, is a clear misconception of law and deserves rejection..” the Court said.

That the Apex Court further stated that making the post qualification teaching experience a pre-requisite is totally in contravention with the recruitment process as when a person is not allowed to be recruited on the basis of his academic qualification, how will he gain post-qualification teaching experience. In no circumstance both these conditions can go hand in hand.

“…when you don’t permit a person to be recruited into service as a teacher on the basis of his academic qualification, how he will gain post-qualification teaching experience of three years as the condition of eligibility and how both these twin conditions would meet together..  i.e. Lecturer in the instant case, are two different ends which are not possible to meet.” the Court said.

As a result, the Apex Court overturned the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna Bench by stating that all the appellants are considered eligible for the post they were terminated from and shall be reinstated with the benefits mentioned, appeals allowed accordingly.