The Allahabad High Court has said that it was not necessary for a teacher to have specialization in any subject to teach in Kasturba Schools (Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya).
A single-judge bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Kuldeep Kumar Saxena And 19 Others.
The bunch of writ petitions is by the teachers engaged on contractual basis in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, and have been continuing as such for the last more than 10 years. They are aggrieved by a circular dated July 14, 2020, issued by the State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board, insofar as it contemplates categorization of existing contractual teachers into Sangat (consistent) and Asangat (inconsistent) categories and consequential direction not to renew the term of Asangat contractual teachers from the academic session 2020-2021, on the basis of such categorization.
A further prayer has also been made to command the respondents not to interfere in the working of petitioners as warden/whole time teachers/part time teachers and to ensure payment of monthly emoluments to them.
After the right to education was recognized as a fundamental right for children in the 6-14 age group, 86th amendment to the Constitution of India, the Government of India launched a scheme, known as Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) for establishment of residential schools at upper primary level for girls belonging to socially and economically weaker sections and other minorities for backward areas of the country with an specific intent to target drop outs. This scheme was later merged with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which is a scheme of State known as ‘UP Education for all Project’.
The need to establish these institutions was felt necessary as the rural female literacy rate was much below the national average as per the 2001 census.
The KGBV institutions were established by the State Government with financial support from the Central Government under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The ratio of financial contribution between the Central Government and State Government stood at 65:35. A total number of 746 KGBVs are stated to have been established and functional in the State of U.P., as of now. Guidelines laying down financial norms for such institutions as also budgetary allocation for the staff etc. is provided by the State from time to time.
The State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, on April 15, 2005 issued a circular after approval was obtained from the State Government for establishment of KGBV.
In pursuant to circular, a committee at district level was formed in each district of Uttar Pradesh to appoint one warden-cum-teacher with qualification of “trained graduate” and was to receive honorarium of Rs 7,000 per month, whereas four posts of full time teachers were sanctioned drawing honorarium of Rs 6,000 per month with trained graduate qualification in Science, Mathematics, Biology and other teachers. Post of three part time teachers was also created in Hindi, Home Science and Science. The warden-cum-teacher and full time teachers were expected to stay in the institution. Preference was to be given to female candidates. These appointments were to be contractual in nature for a period of almost one year (11 months & 29 days) and could be extended with the approval of the district level committee.
A subsequent circular issued on May 16, 2006 specified the committee for appointment of teachers and also the blocks in which these institutions were to be established.
The State Project Director of U.P Education for all under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan issued a circular on January 8, 2011 directing commencement of KGBVs w.e.f February 15, 2011.
A committee consisting of various officers with District Magistrate as Chairman, Chief Development Officer as Vice-Chairman and District Basic Education Officer as Member Secretary was constituted in each district for management and supervision of these KGBVs. The objectives for establishing KGBV institutions were specified as providing education to female students belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, OBC, Minority or other female children from below the poverty line. The norms for selecting location as also the targeted admission figures were specified. Admission of 100 girl students was contemplated with representation of SC/ST and minority girls to the extent of 75% and remaining 25% from below the poverty line. The targeted students were girls, who were not a part of any school education programme. Various camps etc were organized for motivating the family members to encourage them to send their female child to KGBV.
The procedure for appointment has been specified, as per which advertisements were to be issued in two State level newspapers and the manner for selection was specified for these institutions.
A circular then came to be issued on October 12, 2012 providing for renewal of contractual teachers engaged in KGBV. This circular provided that teachers whose services were not found suitable shall not be continued in the next session but before their discontinuance an opportunity would be given to improve their working or else they be discontinued by giving a month’s notice. The discontinuance of contractual engagement could, however, be made only with the approval of the District Magistrate.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, issued yet another circular on July 29, 2013 in which the district level selection committee was re-constituted and two categories were created in KGBV, namely Model-1 and Model-2. Model-1 was to be in respect of institutions having 100 girls with total staff capacity of 15, whereas Model-2 KGBVs were to have 50 girl students with total staff capacity of 12. A provision was made in this Government Order for appointment of Urdu language teachers only in areas where members of minority communities were in substantial numbers.
The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education and Literacy revised the norms of institutions in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on March 24, 2014, whereby maintenance grant per girl came to be enhanced from Rs 900/- to Rs 1,500/- per month. The warden as per the financial norms were now to receive Rs 25,000/- per month and the full time teachers as per The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 norms were to receive Rs 20,000/- per month. Urdu teachers were to receive Rs 12,000/- per month, whereas part time teachers were to receive Rs 5,000/- per month. Various other heads were specified for increased financial support to the KGBV institutions.
The Secretary, Basic Education Department, thereafter issued a circular on June 30, 2015 modifying the provisions in the light of a circular issued by Government of India on March 24, 2014. Posts for different subjects were also sanctioned in the said circular.
Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel for petitioners, submitted that though the authorities could scrutinize the engagement of contractual teachers with an intent to renew their term but such examination must remain relevant and be based on provisions of law rather than a misdirected approach based on an erroneous understanding of law.
Also Read: Gauhati High Court disposes of PIL on road from Jamiri to Buragaon
Shashi Nandan, Senior Counsel appearing for the State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, U.P, assisted by Durga Singh, Advocate, opposing the petition contends that the circular in question merely ascertains relevant information so that the KGBVs function in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009.
It is also argued on behalf of respondents that they have complete right to engage teachers for KGBV and the authorities and are otherwise acting as per law. Submission, accordingly, is that no interference with the impugned circular is thus called for.
It is also urged that irrespective of the above the arguments advanced in this bunch of writ petitions have already been repealed by the Court in a batch of writ petitions with leading Writ Petition, decided on August 12, 2021.
Also Read: Manipur: Senapati police rescue youth from mob justice over charges of raping minor
“In view of the above discussions the Court is of the considered view that qualification for appointment of teacher in an upper primary school is not with reference to any subject but is trained graduate with TET as per notification of NCTE dated 29th July, 2011 inasmuch as the notification issued by NCTE is not only binding upon State Governments but also has and overriding effect,”
-the court observed.
According to the petitioners, part time teachers are those who do not stay in the KGBVs while full time teachers stay in the school but they both remain in school throughout the school timings. It is therefore urged on behalf of petitioners that distinction between full time and part time teacher needs to be properly defined and all part time teachers attending the KGBV throughout the day cannot be denied salary at par with full time teachers since both remain in school throughout the school hours. According to petitioners discrimination is being practiced in the garb of classification.
On behalf of the respondents it is sought to be urged that part time teachers work only for a few hours, but no specific provision in any applicable circular or policy is placed before the Court, which may demonstrate that lesser working hours are prescribed for part time teachers engaged in KGBV. This aspect therefore does require necessary classification by the respondents or else the purpose of undertaking the impugned exercise would be futile.
Also Read: Allahabad HC dismisses PIL as infructuous
The Court further observed that,
“The circular has not taken note of the NCTE regulations which prescribe the qualifications for appointment of teachers for upper primary classes and has also not examined the issue of engagement of teachers with reference to curriculum formulated by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Respondents have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that subjects specified in Schedule appended to Sections 19 and 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 are exhaustive and therefore do not require additional subjects cannot be taught, is wholly fallacious.
The distinction drawn between Sangat (consistent) and Asangat (inconsistent) teachers coupled with the direction for renewal of contract to be made as per classification clearly unsustainable. Resultantly the circular dated July 14, 2020, issued by the State Project Director, cannot be sustained and stands quashed.
The Court directed the respondents to revisit the issue, in the light of qualifications prescribed vide NCTE regulations as also the curriculum prescribed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad for Classes VI to VIII and to proceed for the reasons mentioned herein above thereafter.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bunch of writ petitions.