BIBI SAKINA KHATOON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unqualira, Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Umesh Kumar Mishra, Sarvesh Kr.Singh, Umesh Kumar Mishra, Sarvesh Kr.Singh, Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Manoj Kumar Manoj, Sunil Kumar Singh fied and untrained teachers are the bane of any system of education, in which, the students; often celebrated as the citizens of tomorrow, wallow in ignorance and get mired in misinformation, thus, stultifying the development and growth of a Nation State. Quite realizing the importance of a robust educational system; for maintaining and upgrading the teaching standards, with a vision to strengthen the social fabric of democracy and further the Directive Principles of State Policy, the crucial role of elementary education was emphasized by the Union Parliament in enacting the Right of Children to Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('RTE Act', in abbreviation), mandating free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years.

(2.) The statement of objects and reasons indicate that despite numerical expansion of elementary schools, the goal of universal elementary education eludes us as a Nation, also by reason of the ever increasing drop-outs from the disadvantaged and weaker Sec. ; which prompted the subject enactment, aimed at enabling full time elementary education to every child, as a matter of right, expanding the horizons of equal opportunities. The need to provide quality teaching was emphasized in the enactment, which provision; under challenge in the writ petitions, mandates appointment only of such qualified teachers, while providing a short hiatus insofar as enabling appointment of even those unqualified and untrained, at the same time ensuring that they do acquire such qualification and training in the interregnum. The provision, requiring enhancement of the standards of teaching, required those teachers in place, also to enhance and upgrade their capabilities by acquiring the teacher's training qualification, within the time provided.

(3.) The writ petitions challenge the proviso under Sec. 23 of the RTE Act which provided a further period of four years after the initial hiatus of five years, on grounds of it being arbitrary, illegal and manifestly wrong. The petitioners assert that the proviso introduced abruptly extinguished the right of those appointed, who were not able to get a training qualification in the interregnum; either on account of their own default or on the disinclination of the State to provide sufficient opportunities to acquire such training. Immediately we have to notice that the rigor brought in, was by Sec. 23 (1) and subsec. (2) only provided a conditional engagement, the proviso of which required attainment of the required qualification within the initial period itself; which has not been challenged. The challenge is to a proviso introduced subsequently providing a further period for attaining the qualification. That proviso, relaxed the rigor of the earlier requirement and if interfered with, would only result in persons who obtained the training qualification after the initial five years also being terminated.