New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday termed as
"appalling" Uttar Pradesh government`s failure to fill 60,000
vacant teachers posts in primary institutions.
It held that the Right to Education guaranteed by Article
21A would remain illusory if government does not take steps to
set up the required number of schools with qualified teachers.
"The Right to Education guaranteed by Article 21A would
remain illusory in the absence of State taking adequate steps
to have required number of schools manned by efficient and
qualified teachers," a Bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and
S S Nijjar said in a judgement.
The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing UP
government`s appeal challenging the Allahabad Full Court
judgement quashing the state`s policy restricting the
eligibility for Special Basic Training Course 2007 only to
those who passed B.Ed. from institutions recognised by the
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as arbitrary and
unreasonable.
"Although appalling and almost unbelievable, the fact
remains that in the state of Uttar Pradesh, more than 60,000
posts of Assistant Teachers in primary institutions run by
Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad are lying vacant and
unfilled for a long time for whatever be the reasons thereof,"
Justice Reddy, writing the judgement, said.
The apex court said that before teachers are allowed
to teach the children, they are required to receive
appropriate and adequate training from a duly recognised
training institute. But the restrictions imposed by the state
was arbitrary and unreasonable.
"Such is the importance of proper training to the
teachers before they are allowed to teach the children of
impressionable age. Part of the mantra of development
economics today is a stress on universal primary education,
including specific emphasis on educating girls," the apex
court said.
However, in the present case, the UP government had
imposed restriction which had no link to the objective sought
to be achieved, the Bench said.
"In our considered view, the state government cannot
make any distinction between the degrees obtained from the
existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force but
received recognition after the commencement of the Act and the
degrees obtained from the recognised institutions after the
Act coming into force.
"It is not shown how such a classification is based on
an intelligible differential and on a rational consideration
and further how it bears a nexus to the purpose and object
thereof. The impugned action of the state results in the
classification or division of members of a homogeneous group
and subjecting them to differential treatment without any
rhyme or reason," the Bench said.
PTI
