RAJESH KUMAR MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPORTABLE Under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules of 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1994' and 'the Rules of 1996'), advertisements were issued by various Zila Parishad for the post of Teacher Gr III. All the petitioners applied for the post, however, apprehending rejection of their candidature, these writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submit that elementary education is now a fundamental right in view of the amendment in the Constitution of India. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') was enacted by the Union of India after the amendment in the Constitution to achieve object of free and compulsory education to all children at the age of six to fourteen years. Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009 empowers Central Government to authorise academic authority to lay down minimum qualification.

(3.) A reference of the proviso to section 23(2) of the Act of 2009 is also given to indicate that the teachers who do not possess minimum qualification as laid down under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act of 2009, may acquire minimum qualifications within a period of five years. If petitioners are not in possession of required qualification then they should be governed by the proviso and not only to treat them eligible but to give them further period of five years to possess requisite qualification. Accordingly, petitioners' case is covered by the proviso to section 23(2) of the Act of 2009. This is more so when the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') were amended vide Notification dated 11.5.2011. As per the amended Rules, the qualification for teacher at level-I and II would be as provided by the NCTE pursuant to section 23(1) of the Act of 2009. In the aforesaid background also, section 23 of the Act of 2009 comes in picture along with proviso to section 23(2) of the Act of 2009.