http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 3897 of 2001

PETITIONER:

Yogesh Kumar and others

RESPONDENT:

Government of NTC Delhi and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/2003

BENCH:

Brijesh Kumar & D.M. Dharmadhikari

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Dharmadhikari J.

This is an appeal by candidates who are holders of B.Ed

degree seeking recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in

the Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The

division bench of Delhi High Court by impugned common

judgment dated 6.2.2001 in Public Interest Petition and

Original Petitions filed by B.Ed. candidates dismissed the claim

of B.Ed. candidates for appointment to the post of primary

teachers. The candidates holding B.Ed. degree have

approached this Court in this appeal.

The first contention advanced by the learned counsel

appearing for the B.Ed. candidates is that under the terms of

the advertisement for recruitment issued on 21.9.2000, B.Ed.

qualification is included in the prescribed qualification and just

at the nick of final selection the authorities were not right in

issuing the impugned Circular to declare them ineligible for

recruitment. The relevant part of the advertisement for

recruitment containing the requirements of essential

qualifications reads as under:

"A (I) Higher Secondary pass of recognised

board/University with an elective subject in the

Matric level.

(ii) Two year teacher training certificate from

the recognised institute OR

B(I) Intermediate or equivalent from a

recognised board/university with an elective

subject in the required language at the Matric

level.

(ii) One year Teacher Training Certificate from

a recognised institution.

Note: The candidate applying for the post of

Assistant Teacher (Primary) Hindi must have

passed Hindi as an elective subject at the Matric

level."

(Underlining for emphasis)

The submission made on behalf of B.Ed. candidates is

that as prescribed in clause B(ii), one year's Trained Teachers

Certificate is not granted anywhere by any institution and

therefore the aforesaid qualification should be treated to be to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

meant to indicate B.Ed.degree which is a one year teacher's

training course after Graduation.

The second contention advanced is B.Ed. qualification

should be treated as higher qualification than TTC because

primary teachers recruited on TTC qualification can get

promotion as teachers to teach higher classes and B.Ed. is the

prescribed qualification for higher classes.

The division bench of the Delhi High Court in the

impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in

great detail. In our considered opinion it has rightly come to

the conclusion that B.Ed. qualification, although a well

recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education -

being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the

B.Ed. candidates who took a chance to apply for the post

cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find

that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher

training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for

teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to

teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be

compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree.

Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to

the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed.

is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B.Ed. is a

higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature

of TTC qualification the High Court rightly held that it is not

comparable with B.Ed. degree qualification and latter cannot be

treated as higher qualification to the former.

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants urged that

undisputedly for the last several years for recruitment of

primary teachers in Municipal Corporation Schools, candidates

with B.Ed. degree were considered and appointed. This long

standing practice should be taken as aid to construe the terms

of the advertisement and particularly clause B(ii) on which

reliance is placed by B.Ed. candidates to consider them eligible.

In support of the above contention - learned counsel

placed reliance on the decision of this Court in N.Suresh

Nathan vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 584].

This last argument advanced also does not impress us at

all. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in

accordance with the terms of advertisement and the

recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows

entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who

could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past

some deviation and departure was made in considering the

B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of

the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent

illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well

aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are

available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only

to TTC pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities

to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from

which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed.

qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No.

1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this

appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification

cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because

the natures of training imparted for grant of certificate and

degree are totally different and between them there is no

parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more

candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from

B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category. Whether for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be

prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered

by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed.

candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In

our view, the division bench of the Delhi High Court was fully

justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were

rightly excluded by the authorities from selection and

appointment as primary teachers. We make it clear that we

are not called upon to express any opinion on any B.Ed.

Candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to

advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to

the advertisement which was under challenge before the High

Court and in this appeal.

The case of N.Sureshnathan (supra) on which reliance

is placed is clearly distinguishable. There a different question

of computing minimum prescribed period of service for

promotion of Diploma Engineers had arisen and on the basis of

long practice, the contention of the Department was accepted

that minimum required period of service to make diploma

engineers eligible for promotion would be reckoned from the

date on which they acquire degree while in service and not

from the initial date of their appointment.

In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.