B.Ed. course is not a suitable course for primary classes
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5068 OF 2023
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20743 OF 2021)
DEVESH SHARMA Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
....
3. What lies at the core of the dispute before this Court is the
notification dated 28.06.2018, issued by the National Council for
Teacher Education (hereafter NCTE), made in exercise of its
4
powers under Section 23(1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). This notification made B.Ed.
degree holders eligible for appointment to the post of primary
school teachers (classes I to V). All the same, in spite of the
above notification, when the Board of Secondary Education, State
of Rajasthan, issued an advertisement on 11.01.2021, for
Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (RTET Level-1), it excluded
B.Ed. degree holders from the list of eligible candidates. This
action of the Rajasthan Government was challenged before the
High Court. The petitioner Shri Devesh Sharma has a B.Ed.
degree, and as per the Notification dated 28.06.2018, he was
eligible, like many other similar candidates. Consequently, he
filed his petition before the Rajasthan High Court, inter alia,
praying that the advertisement dated 11.01.2021 be quashed, as
it was in violation of the notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by
the NCTE.
4. Apart from the above batch of petitioners, there was another
set of petitioners, with their own grievance. These are the
candidates who are diploma holders in Elementary Education
(D.El.Ed.)1
, which was the only teaching qualification required for
1 It is possible that this diploma is called by different names in different States. It is for this reason
that at some place it may just be referred as a diploma in elementary education.
5
teachers at primary level, and who are aggrieved by the inclusion
of B.Ed. qualified candidates.
....
11. The Indian Constitution is first and foremost a social
document, writes Granville Austin2
. The Rights contained in
Part III and the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in
Part IV together establish conditions which further the goal of
this social revolution3
. Austin goes on to call Part III and Part IV
of the Constitution as The Conscience of the Constitution4
. Free
and compulsory education for children was a part of the social
vision, of the framers of our Constitution.
12. Elementary education for children is today a Fundamental
Right enshrined under Article 21A of Part III of the Constitution
of India. Every child (upto 14 years of age), has a fundamental
Right to have free and compulsory elementary education. But
then free and compulsory elementary education is of no use
unless it is also a meaningful education. In other words,
elementary education has to be of good quality, and not just a
ritual or formality!
13. Our progress, in achieving this constitutional goal, has been
slow. In some ways, it is still a work in progress. Prior to the
Constitutional 86th Amendment, the Right to Education was in
2 Austin, Granville. The Conscience of the Constitution. The Indian Constitution, Cornerstone of a
Nation, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 50
3 Ibid pp 50.
4 Ibid pp 50.
9
Part-IV of the Constitution (Article 45), as a Directive Principle of
State Policy. Directive Principles, as we know, are a set of goals
which the state must strive to achieve. The goal set out in Article
455
of the Constitution (as it stood at that time), was to make
elementary education free and compulsory for all children up to
age of 14 years, within 10 years of the promulgation of the
Constitution. All the same, it would take much more than ten
years to achieve this goal.
14. The 1986 National Policy on Education, modified in the year
1992, declared that free and compulsory elementary education of
satisfactory quality be given to all children up to the age of
fourteen years, before the nation enters the next century i.e., 21st
Century.
15. Later in the seminal judgment of this court in Unni
Krishnan J.P. versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (AIR
1993 SC 2178), it was held that children have a fundamental
right to free education, till they complete the age of fourteen
years.
5 Article 45 of the Constitution as it existed prior to the 86th Amendment:
Provision for free and compulsory education for children. The State shall endeavour to
provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and
compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.
10
16. In the year 1997, in order to make free and compulsory
education a fundamental right the 83rd Constitutional
Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament, to insert a new
Article in Part III of the Constitution of India, which was to be
Article 21A. The Bill was sent for the scrutiny of the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development. The Standing Committee not only welcomed the
amendment but in addition emphasizes on the quality of
elementary education. This is what it said.
The eminent educationists felt that the Bill is silent on the
Quality of Education. They suggested that there should be a
reference to quality of education in the Bill. The Secretary,
Education agreed that the quality aspect also has to be seen.
Education definitely must mean quality education and anything
less than that should not be called education. Therefore, the
emphasis would be through strengthening the teacher education
content, the Secretary stated.6
Finally, by way of the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act of 2002,
Article 21A, was inserted as a Fundamental Right in Part III of
6 Para 13 of the Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development.
11
the Constitution, and made effective from 01.04.2010. Article
21A of the Constitution reads as under:
Article 21A: The State shall provide
free and compulsory education to all
children of the age of six to fourteen
years in such manner as the State may,
by law, determine.
17. In order to fulfil the above mandate Right to Education Act,
2009, was passed by the Parliament on August 20, 2009, which
became effective from 01.04.2010. The object and reasons of the
Act declared loud and clear that what the Act seeks to achieve is
not merely free and compulsory elementary education, but
equally important would be the Quality of this education! The
Preamble to the Act states that every child has a right to be
provided full time elementary education of satisfactory and
equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain
essential norms and standards.
18. When the validity of the Act was challenged before this
Court7
, this Court, while upholding its validity emphasized that
the Act, was intended not only to impart free and compulsory
education to children, but the purpose was also to impart
quality education!
7
7
In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1]
12
The provisions of this Act are intended not only to
guarantee right to free and compulsory education to children, but
it also envisages imparting of quality education by providing
required infrastructure and compliance of specified norms and
standards in the schools. [See Para 8, (2012) 6 SCC 1]
19. As we can see, the purpose behind bringing this
pathbreaking legislation was not to complete the formality of free
and compulsory elementary education for children, but to make
a qualitative difference in elementary education and to impart it
in a meaningful manner. Provisions like Right to be admitted in a
neighbourhood school8
, No denial of admission9
and Prohibition
of physical punishment and mental harassment10, are some of
the heartwarming provisions of the Act.
20. The Act sets down certain norms and standards which have
to be followed in elementary schools, and this is with the purpose
of providing a meaningful and quality education. To name some
of these requirements such as:-
A. The necessary infrastructure requirement.
B. Pupil teacher ratio which is 30:1 and
8 Section 3 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
9 Section 15 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
10 Section 17 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
13
C. The absolute necessity of trained as well as qualified
teachers.
21. Free and compulsory education for children becomes
meaningless if we make compromise on its quality. We must
recruit the best qualified teachers. A good teacher is the first
assurance of quality education in a school. Any compromise on
the qualification of teachers would necessarily mean a
compromise on the quality of education. Jacques Barzun, the
American educationalist and historian, in his seminal work
Teacher in America, says teaching is not a lost art, but the
regard for it is a lost tradition11. Though this comment was for
the state of higher education in America, it is equally relevant
here on the treatment of Primary education in our country, as it
emerges from the facts before us.
22. Elementary education in India is at two levels. A is the
Primary level i.e. class I to V, and B is the Senior primary level
i.e., classes VI to VIII. Presently we are only concerned with the
primary level of education.
23. Section 23 of the Act is extremely important as it not only
provides as to who shall determine the qualifications of teachers
11 Barzun, Jacques. Profession: Teacher. Teacher in America, published by Little Brown 7 Co. in
association with Atlantic Monthly Press, 1945, pp. 3-13
14
in a Primary school, but as to who can relax these qualifications,
and for how long.
It reads as under :-
Section 23. Qualifications for
appointment and terms and
conditions of service of teachers .(1)
Any person possessing such minimum
qualifications, as laid down by an
academic authority, authorised by the
Central Government, by notification,
shall be eligible for appointment as a
teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate
institutions offering courses or training
in teacher education, or teachers
possessing minimum qualifications as
laid down under sub-section (1) are not
available in sufficient numbers, the
Central Government may, if its deems
necessary, by notification, relax the
minimum qualifications required for
appointment as a teacher, for such
period, not exceeding five years, as may
be specified in that notification:
Provided that a teacher who, at the
commencement of this Act, does not
possess minimum qualifications as laid
down under sub-section (1), shall
acquire such minimum qualifications
within a period of five years:
[Provided further that every teacher
appointed or in position as on the 31st
March, 2015, who does not possess
minimum qualifications as laid down
under sub-section (1), shall acquire such
minimum qualifications within a period
of four years from the date of
15
commencement of the Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education
(Amendment) Act, 2017.]
(3) The salary and allowances payable to,
and the terms and conditions of service
of, teachers shall be such as may be
prescribed.
24. Whereas sub-Section (1) of Section 23 is the provision
where the academic authority has been empowered to prescribe
qualifications for teachers in elementary schools, sub-section (2)
of Section 23 empowers the Central Government to relax the
minimum qualifications prescribed by the academic authority,
under certain circumstances and for a limited period.
The Academic Authority under Section 23(1) of the Act is
the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), which
brought a notification on 23.08.2010, laying down the necessary
qualifications for teachers, both at primary, as well as upper
primary level. Inter alia, this notification prescribes as under:-
1. Minimum Qualifications: -
(i) Classes I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with atleast 50%
marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known)
OR
16
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with atleast 45%
marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known), in accordance with NCTE
(Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with atleast 50%
marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education
(B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special
Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance
with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for its purpose.
The above notification dated 23.08.2010, does not provide
B.Ed. as a qualification for appointment to the post of primary
school teachers. Later this notification was amended, but B.Ed.
was never included (till the impugned notification dated
28.06.2018), as an essential qualification for teachers of primary
school i.e. for classes I to V.
A candidate for the post of a teacher in a primary school was
to have these three qualifications.
A. He must have passed higher secondary level.
17
B. He must have a Diploma in elementary education
(D.El.Ed.), by whatever name it was called in that State.
C. He should then pass an examination to be conducted by
the State known as Teachers Eligibility Test or TET.
25. The academic authority, which is NCTE considered the
appointment of trained and qualified teachers as an absolute
necessity in primary schools. It is for this reason that the
qualification which was prescribed for a teacher in primary school
was a diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.), and not any
other educational qualification, including B.Ed. Apart from this
the teachers eligibility test or TET would further test the skills of
a candidate to handle students at primary level.
It must be emphasised that the pedagogical approach
required from a teacher at primary level is in some manners
unique. These are the initial formative years where a student has
just stepped inside a classroom, and therefore needs to be
handled with care and sensitivity. A candidate who has a diploma
in elementary education (D.El.Ed.) is trained to handle students
at this level, as he has undergone a pedagogical course
specifically designed for this purpose.
18
The Academic Authority which is NCTE is mandated by the
Act to set up a curriculum and evaluation procedure for the all
round development of a child, mindful of all the fears and
anxieties which a child may have. Section 29 of the Act reads as
under :-
29. Curriculum and evaluation procedure.(1)
The curriculum and the evaluation procedure for
elementary education shall be laid down by an
academic authority to be specified by the
appropriate Government, by notification.
(2) The academic authority, while laying down the
curriculum and the evaluation procedure under
sub-section (1), shall take into consideration the
following, namely:
(a) conformity with the values enshrined in
the Constitution;
(b) all round development of the child;
(c) building up child's knowledge,
potentiality and talent;
(d) development of physical and mental
abilities to the fullest extent;
(e) learning through activities, discovery and
exploration in a child friendly and childcentered manner;
(f) medium of instructions shall, as far as
practicable, be in child's mother tongue;
(g) making the child free of fear, trauma and
anxiety and helping the child to express
views freely;
(h) comprehensive and continuous
evaluation of child's understanding of
19
knowledge and his or her ability to apply
the same.
As we can see the curriculum and evaluation procedure
which the Academic Authority is mandated to set up requires a
pedagogical approach which can be best given by teachers who
are trained to deal with child students.
A person who has a B.Ed. qualification has been trained to
impart teaching to secondary and higher secondary level of
students. He is not expected to impart training to primary level
students.
In order to appreciate the difference between Diploma in
Elementary Education (it is called by different names in each
State), and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), we look no further
than the Notifications issued by National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) itself from time to time.
The Appendix 2 to the NCTE Regulations, 2009 spells out as
to what is the aim of Elementary Education. It is stated to be as
follows:
1. Preamble
1.1 The Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) is a
two year professional programme of teacher education. It
20
aims to prepare teachers for the elementary stage of
education, i.e. classes I to VIII. The aim of elementary
education is to fulfill the basic learning needs of all
children in an inclusive school environment bridging
social and gender gaps with the active participation of
the community.
1.2 The elementary teacher education programme carries
different nomenclatures such as BTC, J.B.T, D.Ed. and
(Diploma in Education). Henceforth, the nomenclature of
the programme shall be the same across all states and it
shall be referred to as the Diploma in Elementary
Education(D.El.Ed).
The same Regulation in its appendix 4 describes B.Ed as
follows:
1. Preamble
The Bachelor of Education programme, generally known
as B.Ed., is a professional course that prepares teachers
for upper primary or middle level (classes VI-VIII),
secondary level (classes IX-X) and senior secondary level
(classes XI-XII). The programme shall be offered in
composite institutions as defined in clause (b) of
Regulations 2.
It is therefore clear that a B.Ed. course is not designed for
teaching at primary level.
Moreover, the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates for primary
classes is in the teeth of several decisions of this Court, as this
Court has consistently held that Diploma in elementary
education (D.El.Ed.) and not B.Ed., is the proper qualification in
Primary Schools.
21
26. In Dilip Kumar Ghosh and Others versus Chairman and
Others12
, this Court had to decide on the question whether B.Ed
degree candidate can be equated with a candidate who holds
training in Primary School teaching or in other words who is
trained specifically for Primary Schools. The Contention of the
appellants (in the aforesaid case) who were B.Ed. candidates was
that, their course (B.Ed.), equips them to teach Primary Classes.
Their contention was rejected by this Court. In Para 9, it stated
as under:
In B.Ed. curriculum such subjects like child psychology
are not found. On the other hand, the curriculum is of a
generic nature and deals with subjects like the principle
of educational-curriculum studies, educational
psychology, development of education in modern India,
social organization and instructional methods, etc.
Then again in Para 10 it was stated as under:
For teaching in the primary school, therefore,
one must know the child psychology and development of
a child at a tender age. As already noticed, the
candidates like the appellants who are trained in B.Ed.
degree are not necessarily to be equipped to teach the
students of primary class. They are not trained and
equipped to understand the psychology of a child of
tender age.
In P.M. Latha and Another versus State of Kerala and
Others13 the argument that B.Ed. qualification is a higher
12 (2005) 7 SCC 567
13 (2003) 3 SCC 541
22
qualification than Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.)
was rejected. Again, it was a case before the Apex Court where
B.Ed candidates, were claiming appointment as Primary School
teachers on the basis of the claim that their educational
qualification (i.e. B.Ed.) was even higher than the Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) which was held by the other
candidates. In para 10 of the said case, it was stated as under:
We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced
by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher
qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed.
candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for
the post.
These findings were reiterated by Supreme Court in Yogesh
Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi14
, holding that though
B.Ed. is a well-recognized qualification in the field of teaching, yet
it is a training which equips a candidate to teach higher classes,
not classes at primary level.
27. B.Ed. is not a qualification for teachers at Primary level of
schooling. The pedagogical skills and training required from a
teacher at Primary level is not expected from a B.Ed. trained
teacher. They are trained to teach classes at higher level, post
primary, secondary and above. For Primary level i.e. class I to
14 (2003) 3 SC 548
23
class V the training is D.El.Ed or what is known as diploma in
elementary education. It is a D.El.Ed. training course which is
designed and structured to impart skills in a teacher who is to
teach Primary level of students.
Therefore, by implication the inclusion of B.Ed. as a
qualification amounts to lowering down of the quality of
education at Primary level. Quality of education which was such
an important component of the entire elementary education
movement in this country, which we have discussed in the
preceding paragraphs of this order.
28. We are also conscious of the fact that, till the notification
dated 28.06.2018, the consistent policy of NCTE had been to
exclude B.Ed. candidates from the eligibility criteria of Primary
School Teachers. In the 23.08.2010 notification the first given
by NCTE in its capacity as the academic authority under
Section 23 of the RTE Act, which has been referred in the
preceding paragraphs, B.Ed. qualified teachers were not
considered for primary classes. All the same, purely in order to
equip the various State governments to establish enough training
colleges/centres for imparting specialised training centres for
24
elementary teachers, the B.Ed. candidates were to continue for a
very limited period.
29. This was during the initial period starting from the year
2010 onwards, when the Act and the subsequent order of NCTE
laid down the qualifications for Primary School Teachers
throughout the country. But essentially B.Ed. qualified teachers
were kept out from the purview of the eligibility of the teachers in
primary schools as B.Ed. was not considered a qualification for
teachers at primary level.
The inherent pedagogical weakness in B.Ed. courses (for
primary classes), is well recognised, and it is for this reason that
in the impugned notification itself it is provided that B.Ed.
trained teachers will have to undergo a six months training in
elementary classes, within the first two years of their
appointment.
In this background, the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates for
primary level classes is beyond our comprehension.
We have seen so far that the need for quality and
meaningful primary education was emphasized by the legislature
as well as by the academic authority all throughout. In primary
25
education, any compromise on quality of education would mean
going against the very mandate of Article 21A and the Act. The
value of Primary education can never be overstated.
Myron Weiner in his important book on Child Labour in
India15, links child labour problems in India to the lack of
effective measures in the past in the field of elementary
education. Great care must be taken to nurture these institutions
as our future takes shape in these classes. Victor Hugo had
famously said one who opens a school door, closes a prison.
Children still working in hazardous environment and juveniles in
conflict with law, in some measure, do point towards the
weakness in our elementary education system, both on its
accessibility and its quality.
The pedagogical skills of a teacher must be given a very high
priority. But our priority seems to be different. It is not to impart
quality education, but to provide more job avenues to B.Ed.
trained candidates, as this seems to be the only reason for their
inclusion, in presence of overwhelming evidence that B.Ed.
course is not a suitable course for primary classes.
....
We have already examined this aspect in great detail. B.Ed.
is not a qualification for teaching at Primary level of classes,
much less a better or higher qualification, in context of Primary
34
classes. This finding is self-evident in the very admission of NCTE
which mandates that all B.Ed. qualified teachers who are
appointed to teach Primary level classes must mandatorily
undergo a pedagogical course for elementary classes within two
years of their appointment.
32. In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v.
Union of India & Anr. (supra) this Court while upholding the
validity of the RTE Act, held that primary education, which is
now a part of fundamental right under Part III of the
Constitution, has to be a meaningful education, and not just a
formality. When Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.), was
placed as an essential qualification for teachers in Primary
school, it was with a purpose, and the purpose was to declare
only such teachers as qualified who are trained to impart
education to children at primary level. The pedagogy for a child
who has just entered the school, is an important consideration. A
child has come to face a teacher, so to speak, for the first time
in a class room. It is the beginning of a journey for the child
student and therefore world over great care is taken in laying
down proper foundations in these formative years. Well qualified
and trained teacher in elementary school is an extremely vital
35
aspect. A teacher must be trained to teach students at primary
level, and this is precisely what the training of Diploma in
elementary education (D.El.Ed.) does; it trains a person to teach
children at primary level. B.Ed. is not a higher qualification, or a
better qualification, as is being canvassed in its favour, while
comparing it with Diploma in elementary education. B.Ed. is a
different qualification; a different training. Even assuming it is a
higher qualification, it would still not be a suitable qualification
for primary level of classes. Unlike Diploma in elementary
education (D.El.Ed.), B.Ed. does not equip a teacher to teach at
primary level. This fact is implicitly recognised in the Notification
as well (notification dated 28.06.2018), which still requires a
person, who is appointed as a teacher with B.Ed. qualification to
mandatorily undergo a six-month Bridge Course in Elementary
Education. This defeats the very logic of including B.Ed. as a
qualification, as the very notification which pushes for the
inclusion of B.Ed., also recognises its inherent pedagogical
weakness in its relation to primary classes. It is to cover this
defect, that all such candidates, must undergo a mandatory six
months Bridge Course in elementary education! The irony here
is that all this is being done when the State of Rajasthan already
36
has more than the required number of Diploma qualified
candidates available. This is besides the fact that there is
presently no such bridge course available; at least there was
none till the disposal of the petition by the Rajasthan High Court.
33. Under these circumstances, we are unable to comprehend
as to what was the pressing need to include B.Ed. candidates,
who are admittedly not fully trained to take up Primary Classes!
Consequently, the decision of the NCTE to include B.Ed. as a
qualification for teachers in a primary school seems arbitrary,
unreasonable and in fact has no nexus with the object sought to
be achieved by the Act i.e. Right to Education Act, which is to give
to children not only free and compulsory but also quality
education.