Judgment · High Court · 2012

#12. In the backdrop of the above noticeable features of the cases of the pet itioners, in the present set of writ petitions, which all have been heard togeth er on the request made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned inasmuch as all these writ petitions have raised common issues, based on substantially i dentical facts, all these three writ petitions are being disposed of by this com mon judgment and order. 13. With effect from 19-03-1979, teaching of Elementary Education, in Assam, was provincialised by the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Governor by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules divided the Elementary Education into two parts, lower primary school and upper primary school, the low er primary school being required to impart education upto Class-IV, whereas uppe r primary school was required to impart education upto Class-VII including ME sc hools or MV schools or ME Madrassa or Senior Basic School individually or in com bination of any two or three of or all the four categories of these institutions .

#14. The conditions of recruitment of Assistant Teachers, constitution of Sel ection Committee, procedure for selection and appointment have all been provided for in the said Rules, which are hereinafter referred to as the ’Provincialisat ion Rules, 1977’. In terms of the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, the age of a ca ndidate of general category ought to be between 18 years and 36 years on 1st Jan uary of the year of the advertisement, but the upper age limit, in the case of c andidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ought to be as per rules mad e by the Government. As far as qualification is concerned, the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, provide the minimum qualification for Assistant Teacher, the quali fication being Higher Secondary or any other examination of equivalent standard having 45% marks in any one of the qualifying examination (Higher Secondary of H SLC) for candidates of general categories and minimum 40% marks for candidates o f reserved categories. The Provincialisation Rules, 1977, further provide for re servation in favour of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class, M ore Other Backward Class, etc. Thus, the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, were a s et of comprehensive rules for selection and appointment of Assistant Teachers in lower primary as well as upper primary schools, which impart elementary educati on, the effect of the provincialisation being that the salary and allowances of a provincialised teacher became the responsibility of the State by deeming them to be public servants.

#15. On coming into force of Provincialisation Rules, 1977, with effect from 19-03-1979, the sole mode of recruitment, for Assistant Teachers, in lower prima ry as well as upper primary schools, in order to treat them as validly appointed teachers, were required to made, and ought to have been made, in terms of the P rovincialisation Rules, 1977. The National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as 16. ’NCTE’) came to be set up, in the year 1973, by the resolution of Government of India as a national expert body to advise the Central and the State Governments on all matters pertaining to education of teachers. As the role assigned to the NCTE was purely advisory in nature, it did not have desired impact on standardiz ation of teachers’ training institutions in the country and led to unplanned gro wth. In order to empower the NCTE to make qualitative improvement in the system of teachers’ training, National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as ’the NCTE Act, 1993’) was enacted by the Parliament by best owing statutory recognition on the NCTE, the Preamble to the NCTE Act, 1993, mak ing it clear that the Act was enacted with a view to attaching plan and coordina ted development and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teachers’ e ducation system, etc., throughout the country. Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993, confers on the NCTE the power to make 17. regulations inasmuch as Section 32 provides that NCTE may lay down minimum quali fications for a person to be employed as a teacher under Clause(d) of Section 12 .

#18. In exercise of its power conferred by Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993, the NCTE made a set of Regulations, namely, National Council for Teacher Educati on (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schoo ls) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 2001 Regulations’). In th e schedule to the Regulations, so framed by NCTE, the minimum academic and profe ssional qualifications for recruitment of teachers, at different levels, have be en stipulated. The qualifications prescribed for selection and appointment of a teacher, in an elementary/primary school, being as under: (cid:28)(i) Senior Secondary School Certificate. (ii) Diploma of certificate in basic t eachers training of a duration of not less than two years, or bachelor of Elemen tary Education (B.E.Ed.) (cid:29)

#19. On the insistence of the NCTE that its Regulations be adhered to in resp ect of appointments of teachers in schools in Assam, the State of Assam had amen ded, with effect from 10-11-2005, the Provincialised Rules, 1977, the amended Ru les being called the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization)(Amendment) R ules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ’Amended Rules, 2005’), whereunder instea d of making the requirement of a diploma in teachers training mandatory, as stip ulated in the Regulations framed by the NCTE, the Amended Rules, 2005, provided that preference to trained candidates would be given. Schedule-I to the Amended Rules, 2005, stipulated that such preference would be in the form of 10 addition al marks to trained teachers in the selection process for the recruitment of tea chers. Having carried out the said amendments, an employment notice, dated 2nd D ecember, 2005, was issued, in the newspapers, inviting applications for filling up of 5372 posts of Assistant Teachers. The prescribed minimum educational quali fication was higher secondary with preference to trained candidates.

#20. Aggrieved by the amendments introduced by the help of the Amended Rules, 2005, waiving thereby the requirement of diploma for selection of teachers, a s et of writ petitions were filed seeking quashing of the Amended Rules, 2005, on the ground, inter alia, that the amendments were not in conformity with the stat utory Regulations framed by the NCTE. In the writ petitions, the writ petitioner s also sought for setting aside and quashing the advertisement, dated 02-12-2005 , aforementioned. A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the said wr it petitions, took the view that the requirement of adherence to the statutory R egulations, framed by the NCTE, cannot be left to be determined at the discretio n of the authorities of the State Government of Assam. That apart, the Regulatio ns, framed by the NCTE, have the effect of enhancing the quality of education at the primary level and, in the absence of any compelling reasons to justify a de parture therefrom, the Court would lean in favour of an interpretation that woul d advance the cause of quality education in the State. The Division Bench accord ingly set aside the Amended Rules, 2005, by holding the same as illegal. However , while holding the Amended Rules, 2005, as ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993, and setting aside the Amended Rules, 2005, the Division Bench allowed the State to c omplete the recruitment process already initiated pursuant to the advertisement, dated 02-12-2005, aforementioned.

#21. Aggrieved by the fact that the Division Bench had allowed the recruitmen t of teachers, to proceed, as mentioned above, pursuant to the advertisement, da ted 02-12-2005, while the Amended Rules, 2005 have been held to be ultra vires, the NCTE Act, 1993, the writ petitioners carried the matter, in appeal, to the S upreme Court, the Supreme Court, which agreed with the conclusions reached by th e Division Bench of this Court to the effect that the Regulations, framed by the NCTE, had to be adhered to by the State Government for making selection and app ointment and, hence, when the Amended Rules, 2005, had been nullified by holding the same to be ultra vires the Provincialised Rules, 1977, the recruitment, pur suant to the advertisement, dated 02-12-2005, could not have been allowed to be continued, because this would amount to perpetuating and encouraging an illegali ty. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the selection process, which had been set into motion by the advertisement, dated 02-12-2005. This decision has come to be reported in the case of Ranu Hazarika and Ors. -vs - State of Assam and Ors, reported in 2001 (1) GLT 52. In the face of the decisi on of Ranu Hazarika (supra), there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Regulations, framed by the NCTE, are mandatory in nature and the appointments o f teachers, in schools, including the primary schools, have to be in terms of th e prescriptions of the Regulations so framed by the NCTE. In the backdrop of the above facts, let me set out, in substance, as to 22. what the case of the writ petitioners is and what reliefs they have sought for a nd in the light of the objections raised by the State respondents and the provis ions of law relevant thereto, whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief s, if any. The case of the petitioners is, in a nutshell, thus: (i) The petitioners herein were, upon selection by Village Education Committee ( VEC), engaged as Siksha Mitras (Education Volunteers) pursuant to the Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS). Each of the writ petitioners were engaged as Siksha Mitr as and entered, in this regard, into an agreement with the VEC, which provided, inter alia, that the contract agreements, appointing the petitioners, as Sikshya Mitras, would stand terminated on completion of a period of 11 months unless re newed and also that any service, rendered under the agreement, should not, under any circumstances whatsoever, would give a Sikshya Mitra the right to claim abs orption in regular vacancies that existed then or to be arisen, in future, in th e State or in any other educational institution, the Sikshya Mitras being, howev er, entitled to an honorium of Rs. 1,000/- pm, which was, later on, enhanced to Rs. 1,700/- pm. The terminations and re-engagements of the petitioners as Sikshy a Mitras, on completion of 11 months, were, according to the writ petitionrs, ar tificial in nature inasmuch as the agreements, re-appointing the writ petitioner s as Sikshya Mitras, were renewed after lapse of every 11 months. In consequence thereof, the writ petitioners have, in effect, continued to work as Sikshya Mit ras since the introduction of the EGS. (ii) By virtue of orders issued, on 31-12-2009 and 31-12-2010, by the State Gove rnment, the EGS Centers have been upgraded to LP Schools and the Government has disengaged the petitioners as Sikshya Mitras; whereas the writ petitioners, havi ng worked for almost a decade as Sikshya Mitras and having acquired the experien ce of teaching, ought to have been continued. The disengagement of the petitione rs as Sikshya Mitras is also artificial inasmuch as some of them are still worki ng in the EGS Centers, which have been upgraded to LP Schools, but they are not being paid their dues. The State has the obligation of absorbing the writ petiti oners, particularly, those, who have the minimum qualifications required for bei ng appointed as teachers in the sense that those, who have passed higher seconda ry examination with requisite percentage of marks.

#23. In effect, thus, contending that with the upgradation of the EGS Centers to LP Schools, the services of the writ petitioners ought to have been provinci alised or regularized, the writ petitioners have filed a set of writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, following r eliefs: (cid:28)1. Issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade/provinci alise the services of the petitioners along with the up gradation of their EGS C entrs into LP Schools within a stipulated time period. 2. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing/restraining the respondents from att achment of teachers from nearby LP Schools with the petitioners upgraded EGS Cen ters. (cid:29)

#24. I have heard Mr. AK Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. BC Das, learned Senior Counsel, and Mr. MK Choudhury , learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners. As far as the remaining learned counsel for the writ petitioners are concerned, they have adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel. I have also heard Mr. D Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, and Mr. M. R. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. The case of the State respondents is, in brief, as under:

#25. (i) EGS was introduced in, the year 2002-03, as Centrally sponsored scheme and w as executed by Sarba Siksha Abhayan, commonly known as SSA, Assam. The basic obj ective of the scheme was to assist the local community of schoolless habitation to establish EGS Centers to achieve the goal of universalisation of elementary e ducation. Under the scheme, one Sikshya Mitra was engaged in each EGS Center. Th e selection was limited and kept confined to the candidates coming from the Gaon Panchayat concerned and the selection of Sikshya Mitra was, thus, made by the V illage Education Committee (VEC) from the candidates belonging to a given Gaon P anchayat. The minimum educational qualification for Sikshya Mitras was higher se condary passed and he was to get Rs. 1,000/- per month as honorium and this amou nt was, later on, enhanced to Rs. 1,700/- per month. (ii) The appointment of Sikshya Mitra was, thus, under a given scheme and at the time, when this scheme was implemented, the appointment of Sikshya Mitras were not in keeping with the conditions of recruitment, as prescribed by the Provinci alisation Rules, 1977, inasmuch as the minimum educational qualification, prescr ibed by the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, had not been adhered to, while appoin ting Sikshya Mitras. As the appointment of the Sikshya Mitras were not in tune with the conditions of recruitment, as contained in the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, it becomes crystal clear that the Sikshya Mitras, even if treated as teac hers, they cannot be treated to have been appointed as teachers in terms of the relevant recruitment rules, in force, in the State at the relevant point of time and they were mere appointees, as Sikshya Mitras, under an inherently temporary scheme, namely EGS, and they all along knew the actual nature of their respecti ve appointments. (iii) What cannot and must not be ignored is that the agreement, which the petit ioners, as Sikshya Mitras had entered into with VEC, clearly stipulated, inter a lia, that the contract agreements, appointing the petitioners, as Sikshya Mitras , would not, under any circumstances whatsoever, would give a Sikshya Mitras the right to claim absorption in regular vacancies that existed then or to be arise n, in future, in the State or in any other educational institution. (iv) Thus, at the time of their appointments as Sikshya Mitras, the writ petitio ners knew that they cannot claim absorption/regularization of their services int o the mainstream of Assistant Teachers in lower or upper primary schools. In oth er words, the Sikshya Mitras knew, at the time of their appointment, that their appointments were not in tune with the Provincialization Rules, 1977, and that t hey would not be, therefore, entitled to claim absorption/regularization of thei r services into main stream as teachers. Moreover, absorption or regularization of the petitioners, as Assistant Teachers in LP schools, would be contrary to co nstitutional mandate inasmuch as the selections and appointments of Sikshya Mitr as were not open to all eligible candidates, because selection had been kept con fined to the candidates at the level of the Gaon Panchayats concerned; whereas a regular teacher has to be appointed, in the light of the fundamental guarantees enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and in terms of the relevant recruitment rules, by making available the opportunities of selection to all eligible candidates o f Assam and not by restricting the selection process confined to the level of Ga on Panchayats. (v) With the Regulations, framed by the NCTE, having come into force, no appoint ment of a person to teach, in Class-I to VIII, can be made by violating the mini mum educational qualification, which the NCTE Regulations prescribe. That apart, a candidate has to pass Teachers Eligibility Test (popularly known as TET) to b e conducted by appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed b y the NCTE for that purpose and in order to become eligible to participate in th e selection process for appointment as a teacher in Class-I to VIII. (vi) Before, therefore, seeking their selections and appointments as teachers of LP Schools, the writ petitioners ought to pass the TET. A TET has already been held on 10.01.2012, wherein as many as 3,30,927 candidates have already appeare d and the results have already been announced on 25.01.2012, wherein the total n umber of candidates, who have qualified is 52,722 and many of them may have been earlier Sikshya Mitras. (vii) The total number of Sikshya Mitras appointed was 7979 and out of them, as many as 977 Sikshya Mitras had merely passed HSLC, though the EGS had stipulated passing of Higher Secondary examination as the minimum qualification for appoin tment as Sikshya Mitra. The said 977 Sikshya Mitras do not, therefore, satisfy t he minimum requirement of having passed Higher Secondary examination. In fact, 4 (four) of the Sikshya Mitras are even non-matriculate; whereas NCTE’s Regulatio ns prescribe 50% marks, in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and tw o years of diploma in elementary education, as mandatory for being able to parti cipate in the process of selection for appointment as teachers in LP Schools. Th e State of Assam had already framed the Amended Rules, 2005, for reducing the st andards of recruitment by not adhering to the requirement of NCTE’s Regulations. These amendments have been struck down by the High Court and the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Ranu Hazarika (supra). No appointment can, theref ore, be made by the State Government by ignoring and/or defeating the very NCTE’ s Regulations, which prescribe the minimum qualification.

#26. In support of his submission that the appointment of the writ petitioner s as Sikshya Mitras were under a given scheme, the scheme does not satisfy the r equirement of the NCTE’s Regulations, which have to be adhered to by the State G overnment, the writ petitioners cannot claim to be absorbed/regularized as regul ar teachers in the LP Schools, which have been formed as a result of upgradation of the EGS Centers to LP Schools, Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate General, has pla ced reliance on Ranu Hazarika and Ors. -vs- State of Assam and Ors, reported in 2001 (1) GLT 52, Surindar Prasad Tiwari -vs- U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Par ishad & Ors. reported in 2006 (7) SCC 684, Ram Sukh & Ors. -vs- State of Rajast han & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 592), Andhra Kesari Education Society -vs- Director of S chool Education & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 183), Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. - vs- Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, Kameswar Prasad Bodoni & Anr. - vs- ONGC & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) GLT 493, and Md. Abdul Kadir & Anr. -vs- D irector General of Police, Assam & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 611.

#27. Other than Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel, the remaining learned co unsel for the writ petitionrs have contended that since the writ petitioners hav e been serving for almost a decade as Sikshya Mitras by teaching students at the primary level, their services ought to be regularized by the Government, when t he Government has chosen to upgrade the EGS Centers to LP Schools.

#28. However, as far as Mr. Dutta is concerned, he has taken this Court exten sively through various provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsor y Education Act, 2009 (in short ’the Act of 2009’) and, more particularly, Secti on 23 thereof. Relying on the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Ac t of 2009, Mr. Dutta has contended that with the upgradation of EGS Centers to L P Schools, the Sikshya Mitras, particularly, those, who had satisfied the requir ements for appointment as Sikshya Mitras under the EGS, ought to be treated as t eachers, rendering service in LP Schools, and they must be allowed to continue a s teachers on upgradation of EGS Centers to LP Schools subject to the condition that they must acquire minimum qualifications, within a period of 5 (five) years as prescribed by the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 23, especially, when the Central Government has already, points out Mr. Dutta, dispensed with the re quirement of obtaining diploma in elementary education till 31-03-2015. In this regard, Mr. Dutta has also referred to the definition of ’school’ as contained i n Section 2 (n) of the Act of 2009 and contended that the EGS Centers, on its up gradation to LP Schools, fall within the definition of ’school’ as given in Sect ion 2(n).

#29. Let me, first, determine the correctness of the above submissions by Mr. Dutta. While determining the correctness of the above submissions of Mr. Dutta, it is imperative to bear in mind that, under the NCTE’s Regulations, the minimu m educational qualification for appointment of teachers, in elementary schools, is senior secondary with, at least, 50% marks and 2 years of diploma in elementa ry education. Coupled with this, one has to pass, in order to become eligible fo r selection and appointment as a teacher, TET to be conducted by the appropriate Government. Bearing the above aspects of the requirements of the Regulations of the

#30. NCTE in mind, let me, now, turn to Section 23, which, I find, reads as under: (cid:28)23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teach ers- (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an a cademic authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or traini ng in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid d own under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central G overnment may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifi cations required for appointment as a teacher, for such period not exceeding fiv e years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess m inimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such min imum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of servic e of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed. (cid:29)

#31. Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 makes it clear that any person, possessing such minimum qualification as prescribed by the academic authority, that is, NC TE, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher, meaning thereby that a perso n, in order to be appointed as a teacher, must satisfy the minimum eligibility c riteria fixed by NCTE’s Regulations. Section 23(2), however, introduces an excep tion to this mandatory requirement by laying down that a teacher, who, at the co mmencement of the Act of 2009, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid d own under sub-section (1) of Section 23 thereof, shall acquire such minimum qual ifications within a period of five years. This shows that when a State does not have adequate institutions, offering courses or training, for teachers’ educatio n or where sufficient number of teachers are not possessing the minimum qualific ation as laid down by Regulations, then, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, relax, by notification, the minimum qualification required for appoi ntment as teacher for such period as may be specified in the notification, but s uch relaxation cannot be for a period longer than 5 (five) years.

#32. Thus, where a State does not have either adequate institutions offering courses or training in teachers education or where sufficient number of persons, having minimum qualifications, are not available, the Central Government may gi ve relaxation as indicated in Sub-Section (2). The relaxation, thus, relates to two defined parts inasmuch as Sub-Section (2) covers two definite areas, namely, (i) the area of teachers training and (ii) the minimum qualification of teacher s.

#33. As far as the State of Assam is concerned, persons, with minimum educati onal qualification of 50% in higher secondary, are available. On this aspect, th ere is no dispute. What is not available is the sufficient number of persons, wh o have diploma in elementary education, because there is dearth of institutions offering teachers’ education.

#34. What the Central Government has, therefore, done is that it has not disp ensed with the minimum educational qualification of a candidate having 50% marks in higher secondary examination; but it has relaxed the requirement of having d iploma, in education, for a period of 5 (five) years. What has also not been rel axed is the requirement of a candidate passing TET.

#35. Thus, a person, having minimum educational qualification as prescribed b y the Regulations of NCTE and having passed TET, can only participate in the pro cess of selection for appointment as a teacher of LP School, in Assam, even if h e does not have diploma in elementary education, but this relaxation will remain in force till 31-03-2015 and within 31-03-2015, such a candidate, if selected a nd appointed, would have to obtain the diploma in elementary education.

#36. Now, what the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 relates to is the question. In this regard, it needs to be noted that the proviso states that a t eacher who, at the commencement of the Act of 2009, does not possess minimum qua lifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum quali fications within a period of five years, meaning thereby that a person, who is t eaching in lower primary school, may not have the minimum qualification as laid down by Sub-Section (1) of Section 23, but he must acquire such minimum qualific ation within a period of 5 years. This would obviously apply to teachers, who we re recruited in terms of the relevant recruitment rules of the State concerned. Considering the fact that, in the State of Assam, the recruitment rules, in the form of the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, were in place, a person, in order to obtain the benefit of the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 23, must be a t eacher, who must have been, otherwise, appointed in tune with the essential cond itions of recruitment, as provided by the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, though he may not have had the diploma in elementary education and may not have passed TET. The proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 23 cannot be applied to a pers 37. on, who has been working under a scheme, which required limited minimum qualific ation contrary to, and inconsistent with, the conditions of recruitment, as prov ided for in the Provincialisation Rules, 1977. It needs to be noted, in this reg ard, that the minimum educational qualification for appointment, as an Assistant Teacher, in LP School, under the Provincialisation Act, 1977, was Higher Second ary or any other examination of equivalent standard having 45% marks in any of t he qualifying examination for general category candidates and minimum 40% marks for reserved category candidates; whereas under EGS, the minimum educational qua lification was merely passing of Higher Secondary Examination with no minimum ma rks.

#38. Thus, the recruitment of the petitioners, as Sikshya Mitras, were contra ry to, and inconsistence with, the relevant recruitment rules as regards appoint ment of Assistant Teachers in LP Schools. Such Sikshya Mitras cannot be said to be covered by the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 inasmuch as the provi so would relate to a person, who, in accordance with the relevant recruitment ru les, for appointment as Assistant Teachers in LP Schools, has been serving in a LP School, but did not satisfy the complete requirement of the Regulations of NC TE on the Regulations coming into force and, in such circumstances, such a teach er is required to obtain the requisite minimum qualification within the period o f relaxation, which would come to an end on 31-03-2015.

#39. Turning to the authorities, which the learned Additional Advocate Genera l has relied upon, it needs to be pointed out that while considering the case of Surinder Prasad Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court, in Surinder Prasad Tiwari (s upra), has held that in the backdrop of Constitutional philosophy, it would be inappropriate for the Courts to give directions for regularization of services o f persons, who are working as daily wage earner or who are working as ad hoc, te mporary or casual employees and not appointed following the procedures laid down under Article 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in Surinder Prasad Tiwari (supra), pointed out that, while deciding the right of a casual employee to seek regularization in a public employment, it is the duty of the Court to determine if the appointment had been made according to the Con stitutional scheme. The Constitutional scheme would obviously include the Rules of recruitment framed by taking recourse to the proviso to Article 309 of the C onstitution and/or any other law relevant thereto.

#40. In the present case, the Constitutional scheme of recruitment would incl ude the conditions of recruitment, as embodied by the Provincialisation Rules, 1 977, at the time, when the ’Sikshya Mitras’ were appointed. The Supreme Court, in Surinder Prasad Tiwari (supra), has pointed out that directions for regulariz ation of a person, who has not been appointed in accordance with the Constitutio nal scheme, would amount to perpetuating the illegality in the matter of public employment and would negate the Constitutional scheme of public employment. Ref erring to the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) a nd others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court, in Surinder Prasad Tiw ari (supra), has held that when the recruitment rules are made, the employer wou ld be bound to comply with the same and any appointment, in violation of such ru les, would render the recruitment a nullity in law. 41. In the present case, the ’Sikshya Mitras’ were appointed under a schem e and they cannot be equated with the regularly appointed teachers, in terms of the provisions of the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, particularly, when, at the time of their recruitment, the conditions of recruitment, as embodied in the Pro vincialisation Rules, 1977, had not been followed. Yet another hurdle, in the w ay of absorption or regularization in the vacancies of the duly sanctioned teach ers, is the fact that they do not satisfy the requirements of the Regulations fr amed by the NCTE, when they have not passed the TET, because it is only on the p assing of the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) that they would become eligible to participate in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant T eachers in LP Schools.

#42. The reference, made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, t o the case of Ram Sukh & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., reported in AIR 199 0 SC 592, is also not misplaced inasmuch as the Supreme Court, in Ram Sukh & ors . (supra), pointed out, while deciding the issue of removal of untrained primary teachers in Rural schools under Panchayat Samities, that inspite of being sympa thetic to the petitioners, who are out of job, the Court cannot forget the welfa re of those, who are not before the Court inasmuch as those, who are not before the Court, are tiny tots, who require proper handling by well-trained teachers. Thus, when the ’Sikshya Mitras’ are not qualified and yet to fulfill the prescr ibed eligibility norms, their services cannot be regularized nor can they be dir ected to be absorbed as against the existing vacancies of Assistant Teachers. In Andhra Kesari Education Society vs. Director of School Education and 43. others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 183, which has also been relied upon by Mr. Saik ia, the Supreme Court has pointed out that a teacher alone can bring out the ski lls and intellectual capabilities of a student, who is the engine of educational system, and, in this regard, ill-trained or sub-standard teachers would be detr imental to the educational system, if not a punishment to the children. 44. Thus, when the NCTE has framed the Regulations, prescribing the minimum qualifications of a teacher, which are mandatory in nature and when the ’Sikshya Mitras’ do not satisfy the mandatory qualifications, their services cannot be directed to be regularized, particularly, when they had not been recruited in te rms of the relevant recruitment rules, namely, the Provincialisation Rules, 1977 , which were in force at the given point of time. The Supreme Court, in Uma Devi (supra), has noted that when a person ent 45. ers a temporary appointment or gets engaged as a contractual or casual worker an d the engagement is not preceded by a proper selection process, as recognized by the Rules or procedures, and when the person is aware of the consequences of hi s appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature, such a person ca nnot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post . The relevant observations, appearing at Para 47 of Uma Devi (supra), reads as under: (cid:28)47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contrac tual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as r ecognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the p ost when an appointment to the post could be made only be following a proper pro cedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Ser vice Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be succe ssfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also b e held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons eith er to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot c onstitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot b e invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. (cid:29) (Emphasis supplied) 46. In the case at hand, the ’Sikshya Mitras’ were engaged and worked under a given scheme and, at the time of their engagement, they knew that they cannot claim absorption or regularization in regularly sanctioned posts of teacher. T hus, when the petitioners, as ’Sikshya Mitras’, worked with their eyes open and with the full knowledge of the fact that their appointments were under a scheme, their engagements, as Siksha Mitras, were inherently temporary in nature and no t in tune with the conditions of recruitment, embodied in the relevant recruitme nt rules, namely, the Provincialisation Rules, 1977, they cannot, now, invoke th e theory of legitimate expectation for seeking absorption/regularization as teac hers. In the case of Md. Abdul Kadir & Anr vs. Director General of Police, Ass 47. am & Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611, the Supreme Court has reiterated that w hen the petitioners therein were appointed on temporary or ad hoc basis in conn ection with a particular project or scheme, they cannot, when threatened with di scontinuation of the scheme, claim absorption/regularization of their services. The Supreme Court further pointed out, in Md. Abdul Kadir (supra), that an ad h oc appointment, under any scheme, is, normally, co-terminus with the scheme. Th e relevant observations, appearing in the case of Md. Abdul Kadir (supra), at pa ragraph 13, 14 and 15, laying down the law on the subject succinctly. The relev ant observations read as under: (cid:28)13. The fact that the appellants were employed under the PIF Additional Scheme is not disputed. The duration of the PIF Additional Scheme under which they are employed was initially two years, to be reviewed for continuation along with the original PIF Scheme. The said Scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued. If the temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in con nection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the project or scheme would come to an end , on completion/closure/cessation of the project or the scheme. 14. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would no t entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation. Even if any posts a re sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or tempor ary posts coterminous with the Scheme and not of permanent posts. 15. On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such project or scheme cannot c laim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularisation in some other pro ject or service. [See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, Delhi Development Hortic ulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Employees’ Union, U.P. Land Development Corpn. v. Amar Singh, Madhyamik Shiks ha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), India n Council of Medical Research v. K. Rajyalakshmi and Lal Mohammad v. Indian Rail way Construction Co. Ltd.] In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularisation. (cid:29)

#48. The decision, in Md. Abdul Kadir (supra), laying down the law on the sub ject of appointment under a scheme or project, squarely applies to the case at h and. From the decision, in Md. Abdul Kadir (supra), it becomes more than clear that on completion or discontinuation of the EGS, the petitioners, who were enga ged as ’Sikhsya Mitras’, in connection with the said scheme, cannot claim any r ight to continue in service, they can also not seek regularization under the pro visions of the Act of 2009 nor can they be heard to contend that they are covere d by the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Act of 2009, when their appointments were on contract basis under a scheme, which was inherently tempor ary in nature, and when their appointments were not made by following the condit ions of recruitment, covering the field of appointment of teachers, as evidenced by the Provincialisation Rules, 1977. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do 49. es not find that the petitioners have been able to make out any case for obtaini ng the reliefs, which they have sought for. These writ petitions, therefore, I am constrained to hold, fail and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 50. No order as to costs.