Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that teachers with B.Ed. qualifications are eligible as trained teachers under the 1979 resolution and the 1981 Rules, and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The petitioners, the State of Maharashtra, appealed against a Bombay High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of graduate teachers holding B.Ed. qualifications as "trained teachers" in primary schools up to the 7th standard. The respondents, a group of private school teachers, had been re‑classified in 2001 as "untrained" and their salaries reduced, despite earlier approvals as trained teachers. The core dispute centered on whether the Government Resolution of 14 November 1979 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 required a D.Ed. qualification for primary school teachers, or whether a B.Ed. degree sufficed. The High Court, relying on the decision in Kondiba v. State of Maharashtra, held that B.Ed. qualified teachers were eligible for the upgraded pay‑scale. The State argued that the Full Bench decision in Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. State of Maharashtra mandated D.Ed. as the minimum qualification and that the resolution was mis‑interpreted. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework, the resolutions, and the precedents, concluding that the High Court correctly applied the 1979 resolution and that the teachers met the eligibility criteria. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s order intact.

Issues considered

Whether a graduate teacher possessing a B.Ed. qualification qualifies as a "trained teacher" under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 and the Government Resolution of 14 Nov 1979.
Whether the Government Resolution of 14 Nov 1979 requires a D.Ed. qualification for appointment to the upgraded pay‑scale for teachers of standards 5‑7 in primary schools.
Whether the Full Bench decision in Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. State of Maharashtra is applicable to the facts of the present case, or whether the Division Bench decision in Kondiba v. State of Maharashtra is controlling.

Subjects

teacher qualificationB.Ed.D.Ed.primary school teachersgovernment resolutionpay scaletrained teacherMaharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rulesdiscriminationappointment criteria

Judgment

~
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. A
---1 .... v.
TUKARAM TRY AMBAK CHAUDHARI AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 20, 2007

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
B

Education/Educational Institutions:

·Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981-Rule 6-
Graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification are eligible to continue as
c
trained teachers in primary schools-Resolution dated 4.Il.1979.

Respondents were all graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and
had been appointed to teach in Primary schools conducting classes upto the
7th standar(,!. In most of the cases, approval was granted for their appointment D
as Trained Teachers. Subsequently, however in 2001, they were all informed
that they would be treated as untrained teachers and would be paid their
"t salaries accordingly. Respondents filed writ petitions before High Court
l contending that in terms of Government Resolution dated 26.10.1982, they
were entitled to be appointed and continued as Trained teachers in the B.Ed.
E
scale.

High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that teachers who possess
B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualification are duly qualified and are eligible to continue
as Trained Teachers. Hence these appeals.
F
- Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Though standards 5 to 7 were attached to both primary
schools as well as secondary schools, these classes in fact, represented the
middle schools for which different standards were being followed. [Para 20]
[844-B]
G

Jayashree Su nil Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2000) 3 Mah.
,,..._ L.J. 605, referred to.

1.2. Conscious of such disparity in respect of teachers who are similarly B
835
' t'

836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
p
A situated but were treated differently on account of their being attached to .
.-.~~
primary schools and/or secondary schools, the State Government resolved to
eliminate such differences and to make provisions for trained graduate
teachers to be upgraded to a higher scale to the extent of 25% of the posts.
The Resolution dated 4.11.1979 consciously refers to in service graduate
primary teachers who were eligible for appointment to the posts in the
B
increased pay-scale. In fact, one of the conditions for appointment of in service
graduate primary teachers to the converted post carrying the higher pay-scale
was that such teacher should have obtained a degree in Arts or Science and
had also obtained a degree in education namely, B.Ed. While adopting the "t
aforesaid Resolution, the Government was, therefore, fully aware of the fact
c there were graduate teachers teaching in standards 5 to 7 in the primary
schools. (Para 21) (844-C-Ff

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 863 of2007. -
From the common Judgment and final Order dated 6.5.2004 of the High
D Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 4632/99, 3323 3340, 3553,
3564/02,4325/99,4645/99,5157,5160,5166,5600,5684,5685,5824,5963,6150/
99, 6472/00, 6481, 6605/99, 6695/00 and 8382/03. ·•
S.K. Dholakia, Ravindra Keshvrao Adsure for the Appellants.
E
R.S. Apte, Vinay Navare, Mayuresh Lagu, Naresh Kumar, Makrand D.
Adkar, Vijay Kumar and Vishwajit Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F ALTAMAS KABIR,J. I. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
;,..
2. The private respondents in all these special leave petitions had filed
several writ petitions in the Bombay High Court questioning the decision of
the authorities to treat them as Untrained Teachers although they were all
graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and approval having been granted
G for their appointment as trained teachers. According to the said respondents,
they had all been appointed as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools which
conducted classes up to the 7th standard, from about the year 1988 onwards.
It is only after a decision was taken to treat them as untrained teachers, 4
despite being fully trained and qualified, that they were compelled to move
H the several writ petitions which were all allowed by a common judgment of
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA>: TUKARAM TRYAMBAK Cll>\UDHARI [ALTAMAS KABiR, !.] 837
the Bombay High Court dated 6th May, 2004. A
3. The case of the writ petitioners before the Bombay High Court was
that they were all graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and that they
had been appointed to teach in Primary Schools conducting classes up to the
7th standard. In most of the cases, approval was granted for their appointment
as Trained Teachers. Subsequently, however, in 2001, they were all informed B
on different dates that they would be treated as untrained teachers and would
be paid their salaries accordingly. According to the writ petitioners, in terms
of Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1982, they were entitled to be
appointed and continued as Trained Teachers in the B.Ed. scale. The
respondents in the several writ petitions, who are the appellants before us, C
had contended before the High Court that B.Ed. qualification was not sufficient
for being treated as Trained Teacher in the Primary Schools and that what was
required was a D.Ed. qualification. It was contended that before joining the
school, the teacher concerned was required to hold the qualification ofS.S.C.
and D.Ed. and that the teacher was also required to acquire a graduation
degree while in service along with a B.Ed. degree. D
4. Relying on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in
the case of Kondiba v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., referred to in paragraph
3 of the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Bombay High Court
allowed all the writ applications and set aside all the impugned orders upon
holding that teachers who possess B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualification are duly E
qualified and are eligible to continue to receive their salaries as Trained
Teachers from the date on which they were appointed along with all
consequential benefits and were also entitled to be paid the difference and
any other consequential benefits within the period stipulated.
F
5. The State of Maharashtra is in appeal before us against the aforesaid
decision of the Bombay High Court. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. S.K.
Dholakia, learned senior counsel, submitted that in the State of Maharashtra
classes from 5th to 7th standard are attached either with primary schools or
with secondary schools. He submitted that the provisions of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 provides for the qualification of G
teachers for appointment to primary schools. Rule 6 provides that the minimum
qualifications for the posts of teachers and the non-teaching staff in the
primary schools are those specified in Schedule "B" which reads as follows:-

"Qualjiications for Primary Teachers":- (I) Appointment to the posts
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A of Primary school teachers (other than special teachers Drawing
teachers) shall be made by nomination from amongst candidates who
have passed S.S.C. examination or Matriculation examination or
L'okshala examination or any other examination recognised as such by
Government and the Primary Teachers Certificate Examination or
Diploma in Education Examination, or Diploma in Education (Pre-
B Primary of two years duration)

Note.- A person holding a Diploma in Education (Pre-primary of
two years' duration) shall be qualified to teach standards I to IV only
notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions 'r

c (a) Candidates who were recruited before the coming into force
of these rules in accordance with the recruitment rules then in
force and who were thereafter discharged for want of vacancies
shall be eligible for reappointment.
(b) Other things being equal, preference may be given to
D (i) candidates who have passed the S.S.C. or other equivalent
examination with English, Mathematics and Science or any
two of them and -I

(ii) eligible women candidates obtaining the qualification
mentioned at item (i) through condensed courses.
E
2. Appointment to the post of Special Teacher (Drawing Teacher) in
Primary Schools shall be made by nomination from amongst candidates
:-vho have passed S.S.C. examination and possess Art Teaches Diploma
or Drawing Teachers Certificate or Drawing Masters Certificate.
F 3. Primary School teachers whose date of first appointment as such ,_
teachers in the service of a Zilla Parishad or Municipal School Board ~

or Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council or recognised private
primary school is 15th October 1966 or any prior date are exempted
~rom acquiring S.S.C. and training qualification.

G 4. Primary School teachers recruited prior to the 30th June 1972 and
who are possessing academic and training qualification according to
the rules in force at the time of their appointment are exempted from _,
the S.S.C. and D.Ed. qualifications. Those who were recruited after the
30th June 1972 and who do not possess the S.S.C. and training
H
"'--:!

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA"· TUKARAM TRYAMBAK CHAUDHARI [AL TAMAS KABIR, J] 839

·~
qualifications should acquire the same before June 1985. Failure to A
acquire these qualifications before June 1985 shall make them liable
for termination of their services.

5. The Primary School teachers with S.S.C. plus S.T.C. or T.D. or D.T.
(one year) or Diploma in Education (one year) qualification who have
been appointed in service on or before the 30th September 1970 in B
primary schools shall be regarded as trained and held eligible for the
scale of pay for trained S.S.C. teachers."
-..(
~ 6. Mr.Dholakia submitted that the petitioners were all graduate teachers
having B.Ed. qualification and they were appointed to teach in primary schools
conducting classes from I st standard to 7th standard. While the writ petitioners c
were functioning as teachers in the primary schools, the Government of
Maharashtra in its Education, Employment and Youth Services Department,
adopted a Resolution on 14th November, 1979, with the aim of gradually
removing any discrimination regarding availability of teachers and other facilities
for 5th to 7th standard classes attached to secondary schools and 5th to 7th
D
standard classes attached to primary schools run by Local Self Governing
t Bodies. In the Notification itself it was nc..ticed that in Maharashtra State,
there is similar syllabus for 5th to 7th standard classes in primary and
f
secondary schools but for these very classes there was a difference in
staffing pattern and other facilities. It was also noticed that as per the staffing
pattern then existing, for 5th to 7th standard classes attached to secondary E
schools, for each class 1.3 teachers are appointed. In these three standards,
out of the four teachers, the first three teachers have H.S.C. and D.Ed.
qualification and the 4th teacher is a trained graduate teacher (graduate and
B.Ed). It was resolved that in primary schools also for the 5th to 7th standard
..... classes, if the conditions are prescribed and attendance of students was
F
) fulfilled then for each standard 1.3. teacher is provided. All teachers in these
classes attached to the primary classes are with H.S.C. and D.Ed. qualifications
but in these classes of the primary schools at the existing point of time there
was no permission given for appointing trained graduate as teachers. In order
to remove this difference in the staffing pattern of 5th to 7th standard classes
in these two kinds of schools, the Government decided that in primary schools G
run by Local Self Governing Bodies where such schools are entitled to four
"""'" or more teachers, for 25% of approved strength of teachers in those classes
pay-scale could be available for trained graduate teachers in the increased
scale of pay.
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A 7.. It was also stipulated that the post of Primary Teaches converted into
Trained Graduate Teachers should only be from the cadre/category of Primary
Teachers and only in service Primary Teachers who were in full time service
and who fulfilled the educational qualifications mentioned should be appointed.

8. Paragraph 5 of the said Resolution further stipulated as follows:-
B
"On these converted post of increased pay scale of Rs.365-760/- in
primary schools, from below mentioned category, in service graduate
primary teachers (inclusive of trained teachers, who have completed
stipulated training course (D.Ed.) or primary teachers) should be
appointed on following conditions:-
c
(a) Trained primary teachers who have obtained degree in Arts
or Science (at least by taking one subj.,ct which is being taught
in primary schools) and obtained degree in education i.e. B.Ed.
(b) Trained primary teachers who have done graduation in other
D subjects (without taking any subject which is being taught in
primary schools) but obtained degree in education i.e. B.Ed.
Primary teachers, falling in this category, should be given new
increased pay scale on such condition that "within 5 years of
their appointment in the post of increased pay scale of Rs.365-
760/-, they - at their own cost/expenses - should obtained degree
E by taking at least one subject which is being taught in primary
schools". If this condition is not fulfilled, then for such teachers
further increment in this new pay scale should be stopped till he
acquires that degree.
(c) Trained primary teachers who have done graduation in other
F subjects (without taking any subject which is being taught in
primary school) and who have also not obtained degree in
Education i.e. B.Ed. Primary teachers, falling in this category,
should be given new increased pay scale on such condition that
"within 5 years of their appointments in the post of increased pay
scale of Rs.365-760/-, they - at their own costs/expenses - should
G
obtained degree by taking at least one subject which is being
taught in primary schools and also obtained degree in Education
i.e. B.Ed. If this condition is not fulfilled, then for such teachers
further increment in this new pay scale should be stopped till he
acquires those degrees."
H
'~

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA"· TUKARAM TRYAMBAK CHAUDHARI [AL TAMAS KABIR. l.J 841
9. Mr.Dholakia submitted that as trained graduate teachers the writ A
~-~
petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as indicated in paragraph 5 of
the Resolution extracted hereinabove and accordingly they were informed

- that they would be treated as untrained teachers and paid salary accordingly.

10. Aggrieved by the decision of the State Government to treat them as
untrained teachers, despite their having the B.Ed. qualification, purportedly B
as per the Government Resolution dated 14th November, 1979, the private
respondents in these appeals filed separate writ applications which, as indicated
-(
hereinbefore, were all taken up for hearing together and disposed of by a
common judgment dated 6th May, 2004.

11. Mr. Dholakia urged that although the Government Resolution of 14th c
November, 1979 had been brought to the notice of the High Court, the High
Court relied on a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in case of
Kondiba v. State of Maharashtra (supra), in arriving at the conclusion that
in schools having I st to 7th standards, it was permissible to appoint one
teacher having B.Ed./B.Sc. as per the State Government Circular. D
t 12. Mr. Dholakia also submitted that ~. Full Bench decision of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. State of
' Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2000) 3 Mah. L.J. 605, taking a different
view, had been brought to the notice of the High Court but the said decision
appears not to have been considered by the High Court while· deciding the E
writ petition~ filed by the private respondents herein. Mr. Dholakia pointed
out that in the said decision the same question had fallen for consideration
and it had been answered by the Full Bench by holding that D.Ed. is the
requisite minimum qualification for teaching students in primary schools and
-:.. a B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as equivalent thereto. In paragraph 22
F
! of the judgment, the opinion of the State Teachers Board to show how D.Ed.
education is better suited for teaching primary teachers was considered and
it was mentioned that it was the opinion of the State Teachers Training Board
that candidates holding B.Ed. qualification could not be treated as candidates
holding the qualification equivalent to D.Ed. by giving them mere training of
two-three months. G

'Y-
13. Mr. Dholakia submitted that the mere fact that B.Ed. qualification
was a higher qualification than D.Ed. qualification could not be the reason for

H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A holding that trained graduates holding B.Ed. degree were also eligible in tern1s
of the Government Resolution of 14th November, 1979 to be appointed in the
4th post of Assistant TeachPr in primary schools conducting classes for the
5th and 7th standards. In fact, such an argument was repelled by the Full
Bench.

B I4. Mr. Dholakia urged that by ignoring the Full Bench decision referred
to above, the Bombay High Court misinterpreted the Government Resolution
dated 14th November, 1979. On account of such error, the Bombay High Court
committed a further error by holding that of the 25% posts of the approved
).
strength of teachers to be converted into the pay scale of Rs.365-15-500-20-
C 660/-, the same was meant for trained graduate teachers which included
graduate teachers holding a B.Ed. degree, which was not the intention of the
Gove~ment Resolution dated 14th November, 1979. Mr. Dholakia submitted
that paragraph 5 of the Resolution made it clear that only in service graduate
primary teachers, inclusive of trained teachers who had completed stipulated
training course (D.Ed.) could be appointed to the converted posts in the
D increased pay-scale. It was urged that such an interpretation finds support
from the Full Bench decision. Submitting that the approach of the High Court
and its findings were erroneous and contrary to the Government Resolution
dated 14th November, 1979, Mr. Dholakia urged that the impugned judgment
of the High Court was liable to be set aside.
' .
E 15. Mr. Dholakia's submissions were strongly opposed on behalf of the
respondents by Mr .R.S. Apte, advocate who urged that the High Court had
correctly interpreted the Government Resolution of 14th November, 1979 and
the interpretation now being sought to be given on behalf of the State was,
in fact,.erroneous.
F
16. Mr. Apte contended that the Government Resolution of 14th
November, 1979 had been duly noticed by the High Court in its correct
perspective which was to bring about a parity between the facilities given to
the teachers of 5th to 7th standards attached both with primary schools as
well as secondary schools. In the Resolution itself it was indicated that 25%
G of the teachers teaching in the 5th to 7th standards attached to secondary
schools were enjoying the benefit of a higher scale of play for the 4th teacher
who was a trained graduate teacher being a graduate as well as having the
B.Ed. degree, while for the same classes attached to primary schools there

H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA•·. TUKARAM TRYAMBAK CHAUDHARI [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 843

., was no such arrangement. It was noticed that all teachers in these classes of A
primary schools were with 1-1.S.C. and D.Ed. qualifications and that in these
I -~
classes of primary schools there was no permission for appointing trained
graduate as teachers. In order to remove the difference in the staffing pattern
of these classes in these kinds of schools, the Government decided that in
primary schools run by local self governing bodies and having 5th to 7th B
standard classes, 25% of the posts of approved strength of teacher in those
classes should be converted into increased pay-scale which was meant for
those very classes in the secondary schools. It was submitted that the
Government consciously provided for the appointment of trained graduate
teachers for the 5th to 7th standards attached to primary schools.

17. Mr. Apte submitted that paragraph 5 of the Government Resolution
c
also indicated that in the converted posts to the higher scale in service
graduate primary teachers, inclusive of trained teachers who had completed
the D.Ed. course could be appointed on the conditions as stipulated. Mr.
Apte contended that the said paragraph was an inclusive paragraph meant
to include those trained teachers who had completed the D.Ed. course with D
in service graduate primary teachers who would thereafter be required to
obtain the B.Ed. degree.

18. Mr. Apte contended that the Full Bench decision of the Bombay
f
High Court in the case of Jayashree Sunil (supra) had dealt with the question
as to whether the D.Ed. qualification is the requisite minimum qualification for E
teaching students in primary schools and also whether the B.Ed. qualification
could be treated as equivalent thereto. He urged that although the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools Rules 1981 had been considered and referred
_,
to by the Full Bench, and in particular Schedule 'B' thereof, the Government
Resolution dated 14th November, 1979 had not been brought to its notice. On p
the other hand, the said Resolution was considered in detail by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kondiba (supra) which had
been decided on 12th September, 2002. The Full Bench decision was made on
5th May, 2000 and dealt with the question regarding the eligibility of the
holder of a B.Ed. degree to be appointed as a teacher in a primary school. Mr.
Apte submitted that the subject matter of consideration, as also the facts were G
..., different in the cases before the Full Bench and the Division Bench and the
decision rendered by the Full Bench had no application to the facts of the
instant case, whereas, the issue in Kondiba 's case (supra) was directly on the
point and the High Court correctly arrived at the decision in deciding the
instant case. H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A I 9. Mr. Apte submitted that the order passed by the High Court and
impugned in the instant proceedings had been correctly made and no
interference was called for therewith.

20. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties. Having particular regard to the fact that though standards
B 5 to 7 were attached to both primary schools as well as secondary schools,
these classes in fact, represented the middle schools for which different
standards were being followed.

21. Conscious of such disparity in respect of teachers who are similarly
C situated but were treated differently on account of their being attached to
primary schools and/or secondary schools, the State Government resolved to
eliminate such differences and to make provisions for trained graduate teachers
to be upgraded to a higher scale to the extent of 25% of the posts. The said
Resolution consciously refers to in service graduate primary teachers who
were eligible for appointment to the posts in the increased pay-scale. In fact,
D one of the conditions for appointment of in service graduate primary teachers
.to the converted post carrying the higher pay-scale was that such teacher
should have obtained a degree in Arts or Science and had also obtaimed a
degree in educ:ition namely, B.Ed. While adopting the aforesaid Resolution,
the Government was, therefore, fully aware of the fact there were graduate
teachers teaching in standards 5 to 7 in the primary schools. This fact was
E also referred to by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment under
appeal. It has been mentioned that one of the contentions raised on behalf
of writ petitioners was that in terms of Government Resolution dated 26th
October, 1982, the petitioners were entitled to be appointed and continued as
I-
trained teachers in B.Ed. scale.
I!-
F
· 22. As has been pointed out by Mr. Apte, the said Government
Resolution does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Full
Bench which rendered its decision on the reference made to it on the basis
of the Maharashtra Rules of 1981 in respect whereof conflicting views had
been taken with regard to the eligibility of a graduate, also holding the B.Ed.
G degree to be appointed in a primary school. The Resolution of 1979 was
dealing with a situation which was prior to the enactment of the said Rules
and which contemplated the existence and appointment of graduate teachers
in primary schools.

H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA"· TUKARAM TRYAMBAK CHAUDHARI [ALT AMAS KABIR, J] 845

23. The decision rendered in Kondiba's case (supra) is closer to the A
facts of this case. The High Court, in our view, did not commit any error in
following the same upon distinguishing the decision rendered by the Full
Bench on account of the said Resolution and the Resolution dated 12th
November, 200 I adopted on the basis thereof.

24. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision rendered B
by the High Court which has been impugned in these appeals which are
accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.

c

I