ARUNA VARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Mr. Aruna Varma who in response to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 published by Respondent No. 2 applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III Special Education Level (I) Primary. The petitioner has passed Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2000 with second division. The petitioner then took admission in the Diploma Course in the Special Education Mental Retardation and she was given admission by National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped, Jaipur. She on securing 64.2% marks was declared pass. Copy of the diploma certificate has been placed on record by the petitioner. According to the aforesaid advertisement minimum eligibility for Teacher Grade III Special Education Level (I) Primary was that one should be having qualification of Senior Secondary with 50% marks and Two years Diploma in Special Education. However, in Clause 7(4) of the advertisement it was mentioned that the only such diploma would be valid which is recognised by Rehabilitation Council of India as per their letter dated 11.01.2012. The petitioner contends that not only her diploma course is recognised by Rehabilitation Council of India which is on record as Annexure -6, but also Rehabilitation Council of India in its reply to writ petition has admitted that diploma held by the petitioner is duly recognised. Rehabilitation Council of India in fact place on record copy of letter dated 13.04.2012 which was addressed by it to all the State Governments contending that diploma in special education of one year and also of two years duration in various disability specializations approved by RCI are equivalent qualifications provided the candidate has valid registration with Rehabilitation Council of India. It is contended that the petitioner immediately after obtaining diploma applied for registration with Rehabilitation Council of India as per Section 19 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. Registration Certificate issued in her favour by Rehabilitation Council of India is on record as Annexure -3. It is contended that the petitioner despite appearing sufficiently high in merit i.e. 4th place in OBC category has not been considered for appointment. It is contended that at the time when she undertook Diploma Course there was only one year Diploma available and two years Diploma had not yet started. Respondents 1 and 2 in their reply have disputed the claim of the petitioner contending that the qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III has been prescribed by NCTE and for Special Education one should possess diploma or degree recognised by RCI, but it should be of two years as per NCTE regulations. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have also relied upon Notification dated 23.08.2010 contending that according to it a candidate for appointment on the post Special Education Teacher has to possess Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and two years Diploma in Education (Special Education). According to Clause 2 of the said notification, for the of purpose of Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education) a course recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 has also contended in the reply that as per amended Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the qualification as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub -section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2009') from time to time shall be applicable. It is, therefore, contended that in so far as general qualification is concerned it is to be recognised as per the recommendations made by NCTE simultaneously for Special Education recognised by RCI would be valid, but the mandate of Section 3 of the Act of 2009 has not been deleted nor diluted.

(2.) SECTION 3(1) of the Act of 2009 inter alia provides that every child of the age of 6 to 14 years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education. Section 3(2) of the Act of 2009 provides that for the purpose of sub -section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her pursuing and completing the elementary education. Proviso thereto stipulates that a child suffering from disability, as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996'), shall have the right to pursue free and compulsory elementary education in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the said Act.

(3.) IT is thus evident that in so far as education in general is concerned, National Council for Teacher Education is authorized to laid down the qualification as per provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act of 2009 but in regard to special education required for educating the children suffering from various kinds of disabilities, power has been vested with Rehabilitation Council of India to make prescription for such qualification. This is the case of the parties before this Court.