2005 (9) TMI 656 - SC - Indian Laws

Advertisement for filling up the post of Primary School Teachers - denied awarding marks against the training qualification as they were not holders of Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers Training Certificate (JBT/PTTC) - Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal - HELD THAT - It is clear that the circular was issued permitting the incumbents to draw higher pay scales because they were teaching for a long time in the institution without qualification of JBT/PTTC. This argument is not tenable because it is well settled principle of law that circular cannot override the rules occupying the field. This apart, Rule 35 of the rules, as referred to above, repeals all previous rules and orders and therefore after the recruitment rules came into force in 1991 the circular of 1971 relied on by the counsel is non est. The rules purposely laid an emphasis that all the candidates for teachers in primary schools who possessed JBT/PTTC should be appointed for the development of the child. The primary education is upto 4th standard. There is a middle education and then secondary and higher secondary education. For teaching in the primary school, therefore, one must know the child psychology and development of a child at tender age. As already noticed, the candidates like the appellants who are trained in B.Ed degree are not necessarily to be equipped to teach the students of primary class. They are not trained and equipped to understand the psychology of a child of tender age. It is in this context, Rule 2(n), Rule 6 and Rule 9 are to be read in conjunction. Rule 2(n) defines trained candidate. The term 'trained candidate' if read and understood in the context of appointment of teachers in the primary school, would mean a candidate who possessed JBT/PTTC. Rule 6(d) as quoted above expressly put a prohibition that no extra credit shall be given to higher academic qualification for the purpose of selection of a teacher. A conjoint reading of Rule 2(n) and Rule 6(d) would make up abundantly clear that for appointment of a teacher in primary school only the candidates who possessed the academic qualification prescribed under the rules JBT/PTTC shall be considered and the candidates like the appellants who possessed higher academic qualification like BA/B.Ed shall not be given any credit. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Equivalence of B.Ed. Degree with Junior Basic Training/Primary Teacher Training Certificate (JBT/PTTC) for Primary School Teacher appointment.
2. Interpretation and ambit of Rule 2(n) of the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal Rules of 1991.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Equivalence of B.Ed. Degree with JBT/PTTC:

The primary issue for determination was whether the appellants holding B.Ed. degrees could be equated with candidates holding JBT/PTTC for the purpose of appointment as Primary School Teachers under the Rules. The appellants, who had applied for the post of Primary School Teacher, were denied marks for their training qualifications as they did not hold JBT/PTTC. The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order that had favored the appellants, leading to this appeal.

The court emphasized that the rules were framed to ensure that teachers specifically trained to teach primary school students, who possess JBT/PTTC, should be appointed. The rationale is that primary education requires teachers who understand child psychology and development at a tender age, which is a focus of the JBT/PTTC curriculum but not necessarily of B.Ed. programs.

The court concluded that B.Ed. degree holders are not necessarily equipped to teach primary school students as they lack specific training in child psychology and development. Therefore, the appellants' higher academic qualifications did not entitle them to extra credit or equivalence with JBT/PTTC holders for primary school teacher appointments.

2. Interpretation and Ambit of Rule 2(n):

Rule 2(n) defines a "Trained Candidate" as one who has obtained a JBT/PTTC or its equivalent issued under the authority of the Director or any other officer empowered by the Government. The court interpreted this rule in conjunction with Rule 6(d), which expressly prohibits giving extra credit for higher academic qualifications during the selection of teachers.

The court held that Rule 2(n) and Rule 6(d) together make it clear that only candidates possessing JBT/PTTC are considered trained for primary school teacher appointments. Higher qualifications like B.Ed. do not qualify for extra credit or equivalence under these rules.

Additional Points:

- The court dismissed the argument that a 1971 circular allowing higher pay scales for teachers without JBT/PTTC qualifications could override the 1991 rules. It reiterated that circulars cannot override statutory rules and that Rule 35 repealed all previous rules and orders contrary to the 1991 rules.
- The court referred to the syllabus and courses of studies of primary teachers training institutes, emphasizing that the JBT/PTTC curriculum is specifically designed for primary education, focusing on child development and psychology, unlike the more generic B.Ed. curriculum.
- The court cited previous judgments, including Medical Council of India vs. State of Rajasthan and P.M. Lata vs. State of Kerala, which upheld the principle that higher qualifications do not necessarily equate to eligibility for specific posts requiring specialized training.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming that for the appointment of primary school teachers, only candidates with JBT/PTTC qualifications are eligible, and higher academic qualifications like B.Ed. do not entitle candidates to equivalence or extra credit. The rules were designed to ensure that primary school teachers possess specific training to cater to the educational needs of young children.