KURIAN, J.
1. The application(s) for impleadment/intervention is/are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. In all these cases, the Panchayat teachers are sought to be removed from service on the ground that they have failed to clear the evaluation test conducted by the State.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as per the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 under which they were appointed, the evaluation test was intended only for the purpose of increment and there was no provision to terminate them from service in case they failed to secure the minimum prescribed marks in the evaluation test. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, after the introduction of the Right to Education Act, 2009, the whole scheme of education, particularly at the primary level, has undergone a sea change. Post amendment, only a candidate who has passed the Teachers’ Eligibility Test alone can be appointed, whereas under the 2006 Rules, even untrained candidates could be appointed as teachers. It is in that background that an evaluation test was made compulsory and the State also amended the rules for weeding out the dead wood, after giving three chances.
5. No doubt, the evaluation test was originally intended for the purpose of increment, but we find from the rules that the teachers who were appointed prior to the introduction of the new Scheme are to be given training. It is not clear as to whether the appellants herein, who have been appointed prior to the introduction of the Right to Education Act, have been given the training before subjecting them to the evaluation test.
6. In L. Muthu Kumar and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 618, this Court has referred to the need for appointment of qualified and trained teachers, in particular, at the primary stage. This Court, in many cases, has addressed the need for adequate training. The operative portion of the Judgment is reproduced as under :-
“14...........We are of the considered opinion that before teachers are allowed to teach innocent children, they must receive appropriate and adequate training in a recognised training institute satisfying the prescribed norms, otherwise the standard of education and careers of children will be jeopardised. In most civilised and advanced counties, the job of a teacher in a primary school is considered an important and crucial one because moulding of young minds begins in primary schools. Allowing ill-trained teachers coming out of derecognised or unrecognised institutes or licensing them to teach children of an impressionable age, contrary to the norms prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers, and educational institutions also play a vital role. In cases like these, interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to the larger public interest. ”
7. Having heard both the parties, we are of the view that in order to give a quietus to the whole issue, it is only appropriate that the State is directed to subject the teachers, who have failed in the evaluation test for the third time, to a further training of six months. At the end of such six months, they shall be subjected to an appropriate evaluation test, prescribing minimum marks. Passing the evaluation test thus conducted, on completion of the training, would mean the successful completion of the training.
8. It is made clear that if any of the candidates fail to successfully complete the training as above, it will be open to the State to remove them from the service.
9. In view of the above, these appeals are disposed of.
No costs.
. J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ] . J.
[ R. BANUMATHI ] New Delhi; October 31, 2017.
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 38759/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-08-2016 in CWJC No. 10434/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Patna) NIRMALA KUMARI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 2/2016 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 94839/2017 WITH SLP(C) No. 3555/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 3564/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 5755/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 5754/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 9775/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 10746/2017 (XVI) (and IA No.95969/2017-impleading party and IA No.95972/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.95978/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS and IA No.95981/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.109554/2017-impleading party) SLP(C) No. 10480/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 12223/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 15315/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 150/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 995/2017 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 20703/2017 (XVI) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53163/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP and IA No.53167/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53165/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) SLP(C) No. 19696/2017 (XVI) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.49614/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP and IA No.49618/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.49611/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP and IA No.49621/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) SLP(C) No. 23967/2017 (XVI) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.75699/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.75701/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.75705/2017-APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO BRING ON RECORD SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AND DOCUMENTS and IA No.75708/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.75700/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP and IA No.75703/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) Diary No(s). 32540/2017 () (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.105845/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.105848/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.105842/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA No.105852/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) SLP(C) No. 22422/2017 (XVI) ( IA No.72858/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.72860/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.72851/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP and IA No.72865/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) SLP(C) No. 22833/2017 (XVI) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.75715/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.75718/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.75722/2017-APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO BRING ON RECORD SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AND DOCUMENTS and IA No.75723/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.75717/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP and IA No.75720/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) SLP(C) No. 22836/2017 (XVI) (IA No.74929/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.74934/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.74988/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.74932/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP and IA No.74937/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT and IA No.74963/2017-PERMISSION TO PLACE ON RECORD SUBSEQUENT FACTS [TO BE TAKEN UP ALONGWITH ITEM NO. 48 I.E. D.NO.24704/2017]) SLP(C) No. 24065/2017 (XVI) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.) SLP(C) No. 26849/2017 (XVI) (IA No.80134/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.80135/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.80136/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 26690/2017 (XVI) (IA No.80652/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.80655/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.80656/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.80650/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA No.80657/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) SLP(C) No. 26688/2017 (XVI) (IA No.81332/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.81333/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.81330/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA No.81336/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) Diary No(s). 29877/2017 () (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.98982/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.98984/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.98980/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA No.98987/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) Diary No(s). 24329/2017 () (and IA No.98625/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA No.98630/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.98633/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING and IA No.98636/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.98640/2017-impleading party) Diary No(s). 29100/2017 () (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.95513/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.95519/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.95511/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA No.95515/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) Diary No(s). 31231/2017 () (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.103098/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.103109/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.103107/2017-APLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO DELETE PROFORMA RESPONDENTS and IA No.103097/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP ) SLP(C) No. 28006/2017 (XVI) (IA No.100020/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100024/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.100018/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA No.100029/2017-DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT) Date : 31-10-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI Counsel for the parties Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Dhanmohan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Srikant Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Adv.
Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Adv.
Mr. N. N. Jha, Adv.
Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Adv. Dr. M. S. Verma, Adv.
Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Divya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shrikant Dubey, Adv. Ms. Poonam Seth, Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Vohra, Adv. Ms. Shashi Singh, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv.
Mr. Avinash Sharma, Adv Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Moazzam Ali, Adv.
Dr. (Mrs) Vipin Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv.
Mr. M. K. Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Talesara, AOR Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.
Mr. Chandan K. Jha, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Purnima Krishna, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)