1997 (12) TMI 647 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in S.L.P(C) Nos. 10462, 14389 & 26032 of 1995.
2. Legality of amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973.
3. Legality of the procedure and criteria for the selection of Assistant Teachers under the Operation Black Board Scheme.
4. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to strike down the amendments and circulars.
5. Non-joinder of necessary parties in the original applications before the Tribunal.
6. Allegation of excessive delegation of powers to the State Government.
7. Requirement for consultation with the General Administration Department.
8. Reasonableness and fairness of the prescribed qualifications for Assistant Teachers.
9. Method of inviting applications for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in S.L.P(C) Nos. 10462, 14389 & 26032 of 1995:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the special leave petitions (S.L.P(C) Nos. 10462, 14389 & 26032 of 1995) and granted leave for these petitions as well as for S.L.P. (C) No. 4579 of 1997.

2. Legality of amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973:
The amendments made by notifications dated 10.5.1993 and 17.6.1993, and the circulars dated 5.8.1993 and 9.8.1993, were challenged. The Tribunal had struck down these amendments and circulars, which related to the criteria and procedure for the selection of Assistant Teachers under the Operation Black Board Scheme.

3. Legality of the procedure and criteria for the selection of Assistant Teachers under the Operation Black Board Scheme:
The amendments introduced a proviso to Rule 10(3) allowing the State Government, in consultation with the General Administration Department, to prescribe criteria and procedure for selection in specific circumstances. The qualifications prescribed were a Basic Training Certificate or B.Ed. Degree.

4. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to strike down the amendments and circulars:
The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal's decision was vitiated due to the non-joinder of necessary parties, as the selected/appointed candidates were not made parties to the applications. This omission distorted the entire exercise.

5. Non-joinder of necessary parties in the original applications before the Tribunal:
The Tribunal's decision was flawed as it did not include the selected/appointed candidates who were directly affected by the outcome. This was a serious defect, as observed in previous cases like Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and Ishwar Singh & Ors. Vs. Kuldip Singh & Ors.

6. Allegation of excessive delegation of powers to the State Government:
The contention that the proviso to Rule 10(3) conferred unguided and excessive delegation of powers was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the power to frame criteria and procedure was given to the State Government itself, not to a subordinate authority, thus avoiding excessive delegation.

7. Requirement for consultation with the General Administration Department:
The consultation requirement was deemed fulfilled as the General Administration Department had placed the scheme before the Governor for approval and subsequently returned it to the School Education Department. The formal approval was considered unnecessary as the department had already obtained the Governor's approval.

8. Reasonableness and fairness of the prescribed qualifications for Assistant Teachers:
The prescribed qualifications (Basic Training Certificate or B.Ed. Degree) were challenged as discriminatory. The Court upheld these qualifications, noting that they were superior to other qualifications like Montessory and Mahilla Bal Sevika Prasikshan Pramanpatras, and thus not unreasonable or discriminatory.

9. Method of inviting applications for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers:
The procedure of inviting applications through Employment Exchanges instead of by advertisement was challenged. The Court found this method justified due to the time-bound nature of the Operation Black Board Scheme. The Court also referenced previous decisions supporting recruitment through Employment Exchanges.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the amendments to the Recruitment Rules and the circulars related to the selection criteria and procedure. The Tribunal's judgments and orders were set aside. The Court found no grounds to fault the prescribed procedure or qualifications and maintained the appointments made under the prescribed procedure. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →