Summary
The Court quashed the NCTE notification of 28 June 2018 making B.Ed. holders eligible to teach classes I–V. B.Ed. training for higher classes was not an adequate substitute for elementary-teacher training. The change lacked independent expert assessment and conflicted with the statutory and constitutional commitment to meaningful, quality primary education. Calling it government policy did not immunise it from judicial review.
Issues
- Whether B.Ed. could validly be added as a qualification for primary-school teachers.
- Whether Central Government policy directions insulated the notification from judicial review.
- Whether Rajasthan could disregard the notification before its judicial invalidation.
Provisions considered
- Article 21A, Constitution of IndiaThe right of children aged six to fourteen to free and compulsory education entails meaningful, quality education, informing scrutiny of primary-teacher qualifications. (¶¶ 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, 29, 32, 36)
- Section 23(1) and (2), Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009The academic authority prescribes minimum qualifications, while government relaxation is subject to statutory conditions and duration. The impugned change lacked the required justification and defeated the statutory purpose. (¶¶ 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36)
- Section 29, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009The child-centred curriculum and evaluation requirements reinforced the need for teachers trained in elementary pedagogy. (¶¶ 25, 27, 32)
- Sections 12A and 29, National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993Qualification-setting powers and binding written policy directions did not authorise an arbitrary change inconsistent with the RTE Act and Article 21A. (¶¶ 30, 35, 36)
- Amendments concerning classes I–V, NCTE notification dated 28 June 2018The addition of graduation with B.Ed., coupled with a compulsory six-month bridge course after appointment, was quashed. (¶¶ 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37)
Held
- Primary teaching requires pedagogy suited to children entering school. The D.El.Ed. course provides elementary training; B.Ed. prepares teachers for higher classes and is not a superior substitute in this setting. The requirement of a later bridge course itself acknowledged the gap, and no such course was available when the High Court decided the case. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32)
- The notification followed government instructions rather than an independently deliberated expert assessment by NCTE. Recruitment difficulties in central schools and an assertion that B.Ed. was a higher qualification did not justify extending eligibility nationwide, particularly when Rajasthan had sufficient elementary-trained candidates. The change was arbitrary and lacked a nexus with quality primary education. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36)
- Government policy ordinarily receives judicial restraint, but illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality, disregard of relevant considerations and procedural impropriety permit review. Even treating the direction as binding policy under Section 29 of the NCTE Act could not sustain a measure contrary to the RTE Act’s purpose and Article 21A. (¶¶ 35, 36)
- Rajasthan nevertheless could not ignore the operative statutory notification when inviting applications. It remained binding until stayed or invalidated by a competent court; the State’s view of its legality was insufficient to disregard it. (¶¶ 34, 36)
Result
Appeals dismissed; Rajasthan High Court judgment upheld and the NCTE notification dated 28 June 2018 quashed. Writ petitions and pending applications disposed of accordingly.