NDLI: Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	2009 – s. 23(1) Right to Education Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Issue for consideration : Whether National Council for TeacherEducation-NCTE vide notifi cation dated 28.06.2018, was right in includingB.Ed. qualifi cation as an equivalent and essential qualifi cation for appointmentto the post of primary school teacher (Level-1); and whether the High Courtwas justifi ed in quashing the said notifi cation, holding the B.Ed. candidatesto be unqualifi ed for the posts of primary school teachers (Level-1).Right to Education Act, 2009 – s. 23(1) – Appointment to the post ofprimary school teachers – Inclusion of B.Ed as a necessary qualifi cationby NCTE vide notifi cation dated 28.06.2018 – Justifi cation:Held : Not justifi ed – B.Ed. is not a qualifi cation for teachers at Primarylevel of schooling – Pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher atPrimary level is not expected from a B.Ed. Trained teacher – They are trained toteach classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and above – For Primarylevel i.e. class I to class V the training is D.El.Ed-Diploma in elementaryeducation – Thus, by implication the inclusion of B.Ed. as a qualifi cationamounts to lowering down of the ‘quality’ of education at Primary level –Need for ‘quality’ and meaningful primary education has been emphasized bythe legislature as well as by the academic authority – In primary education,any compromise on ‘quality’ of education would mean going against the verymandate of Article 21A and the RTE Act – Thus, the decision of the NCTE toinclude B.Ed. as a qualifi cation for teachers in a primary school is arbitrary,unreasonable and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by theAct – NCTE had so far consciously kept B.Ed. Degree out of the eligibility requirement – Thus, the High Court rightly struck down the notifi cationdated 28.06.2018. [Paras 27, 29, 31, 33 and 34]Administrative law – Policy decision – Introduction of B.Ed. as aqualifi cation for teachers in primary school by NCTE vide notifi cationdated 28.06.2018, on the directions of the Central Government –Interference with:Held : Policy decisions of the Government should normally notbe interfered with, by a constitutional Court in exercise of its powers ofjudicial review – Powers of judicial review must be exercised only if thepolicy decision itself is contrary to the law and is arbitrary and irrational,or a decision has been taken without proper application of mind, or in totaldisregard of relevant factors – Decision to include B.Ed. as a qualifi cationis not an independent decision of NCTE, but was the decision of theCentral Government and NCTE was simply directed to carry it out beinga direction u/s. 29 of NCTE Act – This cannot be seen as a policy decision– Even presuming it to be a policy decision, the decision is not correctas it is contrary to the purpose of the Act – It goes against the letter andspirit of Art. 21A and the RTE Act, which calls for a free, compulsoryand meaningful primary education to children – By including B.Ed. as aqualifi cation for teachers for primary school, the Central Government hasacted against the provisions of the Constitution and the laws – Notifi cationdated 28.06.2018 is quashed and set aside – National Council for TeacherEducation Act, 1993 – s. 29 – Judicial review. [Paras 36 and 37]Constitution of India – Art.21A – Right to education –Fundamental right:Held : Every child upto 14 years of age, has a fundamental rightto have ‘free’ and ‘compulsory’ elementary education, which has to beof good ‘quality’ – The same is the object and purpose of the Right toEducation Act, 2009. [Para 17]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 704
Petitioner	Devesh Sharma
Respondent	Union Of India And Ors.
SCR	[2023] 11 S.C.R. 167
Judgement Date	2023-08-11
Case Number	5068

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ramesh Bejoy Sharma and Ors. Vs. Pashupati Rai and Ors.

Vikas Sankhala & Ors. Etc. Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Etc.

Romesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

R. C. Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.

K. Posayya and Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar

Union of India & Ors Vs. Shiv Raj & Ors.

Dilip Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

S. Rathinam@ Kuppamuthu and Ors. Vs. L.s. Mariappan and Ors.

Union of India Vs. Kishan K. Sharma and Ors.

Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ramesh Bejoy Sharma and Ors. Vs. Pashupati Rai and Ors.

Vikas Sankhala & Ors. Etc. Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Etc.

Romesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.

R. C. Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.

K. Posayya and Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar

Union of India & Ors Vs. Shiv Raj & Ors.

Dilip Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

S. Rathinam@ Kuppamuthu and Ors. Vs. L.s. Mariappan and Ors.

Union of India Vs. Kishan K. Sharma and Ors.

Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.