The
Supreme Court today raised more questions on the appointment of
contract or ad hoc teachers by some states, saying “a populist measure
cannot destroy the fabric of education”.
It asked the Gujarat government to furnish by Monday a “long chart” explaining the rules, eligibility and qualifications prescribed for such appointments.“A populist measure cannot destroy the fabric of education. Unless you give us (details of) the selection process adopted, we will not deal with the matter,” a bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Dipak Misra said.
Earlier this week, the bench had said it would examine the constitutional validity of such appointments.
Today, the court said hiring teachers on contract and later absorbing them as regulars was also contrary to constitutional provisions.
Senior advocate U U Lalit, who had come armed to defend the state’s district-wise reservation formulation, was asked by the court, “How do you bring about this policy of Shiksha Sahayak once there exists Article 21A? It is something shocking. These shiksha sahayaks are in Uttar Pradesh too, but we have termed it as shiksha shatru. You must instead appoint primary school teachers.”
When Lalit said he as a citizen of the country shared the court’s concern, the bench said, “A populist principality cannot spoil the future of the country. We want to know two things: How are these sahayaks appointed. If rule provides for a mode of selection, can you provide a promise to somebody to be exclusively considered for regularization. We spoil our education system by bringing promotion scheme in matters of education.”
The judges spiked the Gujarat government’s argument that the ad hoc teachers, called shiksha sahayaks (teaching assistants), were only assistants to regular teachers.
“He (a teaching assistant) is not a teacher. We have all seen teachers in our school days. But we have never seen an assistant to a teacher. How can they be the same? It is like saying the doctor and the compounder are one and the same.”
The Narendra Modi government has reportedly hired around 10,000 sahayaks in the past three years, as have other states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The validity of all such appointments is now being examined.
The Gujarat government, whose case has come up before the court in a seniority dispute among the teachers, pointed out that the selections were made by a state-level selection committee.
The court shot down the contention. “You can’t have such recruitments in contravention of the statute. Why do you appoint a person on contract when you think he is not fit for appointment on regular basis. Please give us a chart explaining the rules, eligibility and qualifications under which they are appointed,” the bench told U.U. Lalit, the state’s counsel.
The advocate said those appointed on an ad-hoc basis would later be absorbed as permanent teachers, prompting the court to point out that such absorption would also violate the law.
“On what basis? How long will you keep them as ad hoc or contract teachers and then absorb them? It cannot be done, because under the rules, you have to advertise every vacancy. By absorbing such teachers, you are not advertising, which is illegal. Mr Lalit, consider the gravity of the issue and come back to us on Monday,” the bench observed, adjourning the matter.
Earlier this week, the bench had described shiksha sahayaks as shiksha shatrus (enemies of education).
The judges had said it was “quite shocking” that some states were inducting contract teachers even after the introduction of Article 21-A in the Constitution. The clause was inserted to pass the Right to Education (RTE) Act that guarantees children from six to 14 years free schooling as a fundamental right.
“If this is the policy, it is a serious matter. We are very concerned because it would be in conflict with Article 21 of the (Right To Education) Act,” the bench had said on Monday.
It asked the Gujarat government to furnish by Monday a “long chart” explaining the rules, eligibility and qualifications prescribed for such appointments.“A populist measure cannot destroy the fabric of education. Unless you give us (details of) the selection process adopted, we will not deal with the matter,” a bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Dipak Misra said.
Earlier this week, the bench had said it would examine the constitutional validity of such appointments.
Today, the court said hiring teachers on contract and later absorbing them as regulars was also contrary to constitutional provisions.
Senior advocate U U Lalit, who had come armed to defend the state’s district-wise reservation formulation, was asked by the court, “How do you bring about this policy of Shiksha Sahayak once there exists Article 21A? It is something shocking. These shiksha sahayaks are in Uttar Pradesh too, but we have termed it as shiksha shatru. You must instead appoint primary school teachers.”
When Lalit said he as a citizen of the country shared the court’s concern, the bench said, “A populist principality cannot spoil the future of the country. We want to know two things: How are these sahayaks appointed. If rule provides for a mode of selection, can you provide a promise to somebody to be exclusively considered for regularization. We spoil our education system by bringing promotion scheme in matters of education.”
The judges spiked the Gujarat government’s argument that the ad hoc teachers, called shiksha sahayaks (teaching assistants), were only assistants to regular teachers.
“He (a teaching assistant) is not a teacher. We have all seen teachers in our school days. But we have never seen an assistant to a teacher. How can they be the same? It is like saying the doctor and the compounder are one and the same.”
The Narendra Modi government has reportedly hired around 10,000 sahayaks in the past three years, as have other states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The validity of all such appointments is now being examined.
The Gujarat government, whose case has come up before the court in a seniority dispute among the teachers, pointed out that the selections were made by a state-level selection committee.
The court shot down the contention. “You can’t have such recruitments in contravention of the statute. Why do you appoint a person on contract when you think he is not fit for appointment on regular basis. Please give us a chart explaining the rules, eligibility and qualifications under which they are appointed,” the bench told U.U. Lalit, the state’s counsel.
The advocate said those appointed on an ad-hoc basis would later be absorbed as permanent teachers, prompting the court to point out that such absorption would also violate the law.
“On what basis? How long will you keep them as ad hoc or contract teachers and then absorb them? It cannot be done, because under the rules, you have to advertise every vacancy. By absorbing such teachers, you are not advertising, which is illegal. Mr Lalit, consider the gravity of the issue and come back to us on Monday,” the bench observed, adjourning the matter.
Earlier this week, the bench had described shiksha sahayaks as shiksha shatrus (enemies of education).
The judges had said it was “quite shocking” that some states were inducting contract teachers even after the introduction of Article 21-A in the Constitution. The clause was inserted to pass the Right to Education (RTE) Act that guarantees children from six to 14 years free schooling as a fundamental right.
“If this is the policy, it is a serious matter. We are very concerned because it would be in conflict with Article 21 of the (Right To Education) Act,” the bench had said on Monday.
सरकारी नौकरी - Government of India Jobs Originally published for http://e-sarkarinaukriblog.blogspot.com/ Submit & verify Email for Latest Free Jobs Alerts Subscribe