मंगलवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उत्तर प्रदेश के जूनियर स्कूलों में बतौर अध्यापक काम कर रहे 1.78 लाख “शिक्षा मित्रों” की नियुक्ति को किया रद्द । सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने नियुक्ति को रद्द करने की वजह सरकार द्वारा ” निःशुल्क और अनिवार्य बाल शिक्षा अधिनियम ” के तहत निर्धारित की गई पर्याप्त योग्यता का ना होना बताया है।
जस्टिस ए०के० गोयल एवं जस्टिस उदय उमेश ललित की बेंच ने अपने निर्णय में कहा कि संविधान के अंतर्गत बालको के योग्य शिक्षको द्वारा निःशुल्क एवं अनिवार्य शिक्षा प्राप्त करने के मौलिक अधिकार को दाव पर लगा कर इनको रोजगार नही दिया जा सकता ।
परंतु कोर्ट ने शिक्षा मित्रो को सहूलियत देने हेतु यह भी कहा की यदि वे अभी भी आवश्यक एवं पर्याप्त योग्यता पर खरे उतरेंगे तो उनको बतौर टीचर भर्ती होने का मौका दिया जाएगा।
साथ ही कोर्ट का यह भी मानना है कि शिक्षा मित्रों की नियुक्ति अध्यापको के लिए जरूरी योग्यता के तहत नही की गई है तथा उनका बतौर टीचर रोजगार करना वाज़िब नही होगा ।
Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the appointment of 1.78 lakh “Shiksha Mitras” whose jobs were regularised as teachers in junior schools in ‘Uttar pradesh’ for not holding adequate qualifications as fixed by Centre under “Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act”.
A bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit held that their jobs could not be regularised at the cost of fundamental right of children to free quality education by duly qualified teachers. The court, however, said that they should be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment as teachers if they have now acquired the requisite qualification. It also allowed the state government to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption.
“On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 lakhs persons to be regularized in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, It may be permissible to give some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with. Regularization of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible,” the bench said.
The court held that appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher and they could not be regularized as teachers. “Regularization could only be of mere irregularity,” it said.
“In view of our conclusion that the Shiksha Mitras were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications and are not covered by relaxation order under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, they could not be appointed as teachers in breach of Section 23(1) of the said Act. The State is not competent to relax the qualifications,” the court said.
We are unable to agree that even unqualified teachers ought to be allowed to continue ignoring the legislative mandate or that we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 to undo the said mandate. Consideration for career of 1.78 lakh Shiksha Mitras, over and above their legal right, cannot be at the cost of fundamental right of children to free quality education by duly qualified teachers in terms of legislative mandate,” it said.
In 2010, the National Council Teachers’ Education (NCTE) ruled that only those who qualify Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) will be appointed as teacher from the primary level upwards. However, it had given an exemption of five years to those who were already teachers.