No Deviation In Teachers’ Capability Who Teach In Either Vocational Or Technical Courses, Same Standard Of Selection Be Followed By All States: Punjab & Haryana HC
|The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that there must be no deviation in the capability of teachers who teach in either vocational or technical courses and same standard of selection must be followed by all the States.
The Court was deciding a batch of writ petitions as common question of law was raised and the prayer made was also identical in all the cases.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed, “… so far as education whether technical or vocational is concerned, the standard ought to be maintained universally all over India. More so, as a candidate has a right of seeking employment in any State, need of the RAC is to provide similar standard of education to all students in all the States. There should be no deviation in the capability of the teachers, who are required to teach and instruct in the various courses whether vocational or technical. In view thereto, it is essential that same standard of selection should be followed by all States.”
Senior Advocates Akshay Bhan and Anu Chatrath represented the petitioners while Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, Senior Panel Counsel Somesh Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel Anil Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General Shruti Jain Goel, Senior Advocates D.S. Patwalia, and Gurminder Singh represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioners were those who had passed National Trade Certificate/ National Apprenticeship Certificate. They had cleared one year course in Craftsman Training for Instructor under Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS). They also possessed two years’ experience of working. The bone of contention raised by the petitioners was with regard to the qualifications prescribed by the State of Haryana for appointment of Craft Instructor as laid down in the Industrial Training Department Haryana Field Offices (Group-C) Service Rules, 2013 (Group-C Rules-2013).
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “The word ‘vocational’ has to be understood differently from that of ‘technical’ training, which means training in various Craft courses like Tailoring, Interior Decoration and Designing, Carpenter, Book Binder, Fitter, Painter Domestic, Turner, Clock and Watch Repairer, Leather Goods Maker, Artisans etc. which are relating to various daily jobs required in society and have nothing to do with engineering courses or science training of higher standard. The technical courses are governed by the guidelines and syllabus laid down by All India Technical Council.”
The Court directed that the appointments be made to the posts of Instructors on the terms of the advertisement. It held that Rule 9(3) and the communication of the DGT allowing the State Government to continue with appointments to those candidates, who do not possess CITS certificate, challenged in the writ petitions also fails.
“It is not a case where there is any difficulty in providing CITS training in Punjab and Haryana on account of any reasons, therefore, it is necessary that the State Government should take steps to incorporate the said condition as a pre qualification in their service rules in order to maintain the same standard of all the Instructors. Those instructors, who do not possess CITS qualification, should be asked to obtain such a training even after appointment so that the standard is maintained by all Instructors while performing their duties. Accordingly, we direct the State Government to take steps keeping in view our observations, as above, and make amendments in the rules accordingly for future”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the official respondents to proceed further and give appointments to all the candidates as per their merits expeditiously.
Cause Title- Dinesh Kumar and others v. Union of India and others (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:045189-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Akshay Bhan, Anu Chatrath, Advocates Amandeep Singh Talwar, Abhijeet Singh Rawlaey, Abishai George, Nikhil Singh, Sandeep Dhull, and Somesh Gupta.
Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, Senior Panel Counsel Somesh Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel Anil Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General Shruti Jain Goel, Senior Advocates D.S. Patwalia, Gurminder Singh, Advocates H.S. Oberoi, Lalit Rishi, Vivek Aggarwal, B.S. Patwalia, Akshit Pathania, and Jatinder Singh Gill.