Honorable Chief Minister, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh , Shimla.
Subject: To re-engage and re-appoint Special Educators terminated on 01-04-2013 under SSA in HP due to non-sanctioning of SSA AWP & B Grant which may darken the future of 26370disabled/CWSN students.
The C.W.S.N. (Classwise Special Need)/disabled children studying at elementary level in Himachal Pradesh have been deprived of the special education w.e.f. 01st April, 2013 without making any alternative for their education and also making clear injustice with 146 Special Educators appointed under SSA for their education for last two years. The policy for engagement of these Special Educators has varied from time to time. Earlier advertisement made on 13-11-2010 published in Dainik Bhaskar shows that the interviews of the Special Educators were taken with eligibility of 10+2 pass with D.Ed./B.Ed. in special education. The state has appointed all the Special Educators with the required eligibility norms fixed and revised by NCTE on 23-08-2010 and their course is also recognized by R.C.I.
The grievance arises here is as below:-
- The candidates were appointed them to by S.S.A. under the posts advertised by H.P.School Education Society and their interviews were taken by D.P.O. SSA, Distt. Welfare officer Officer and Special Education Officer. So they were not appointed by any S.M.C. and later , the SSA has asked them to sign an agreement with SMC for continuation of service. The service was renewed every year on contract . The disengagement has also caused them service break. It is worthy to note that such policy is not fair as the appointing authority was not S.M.C.
- The services of Special Educators have been terminated on 01-04-2013 without any prior notice of one month.
- The Special Educators were shown that they have been disengaged from their services.. This letter has been issued by DPO SSA while SMC is sending letters to continue the services of these Special Educators in the state. Then why they are not listening to SMCs demands if they are the employees working under SMC.
- The system of grant-in –aid shows that the Special Educators were getting Rs. 7500 per month and this aid is released by SPO SSA under the head inclusive education. Then SSA cannot deny that these Special Educators are the employees of the SSA.
- If SSA budget for the said head is not approved, should we discontinue the education of these 26370 students with various disabilities? Isn’t it the case of clear violation of RTE act and the right of education given under constitution to these students has been discontinued due to this disengagement. The state has very little number of teachers capable of teaching these students because their needs are special and IE centres are the worthy of fulfilling their needs. Hence, most of the students having 40 -100% disability are now living at home. They are not getting any type of education. Is the state interested in such an illegal act ?
- The home based education system conducted by Special Educators for totally disabled students has also been discontinued now. Does the state has its no responsibility for the education of these students ?
- The state cannot claim that SSA fund is not available as the fund for RTE act is available in the state. The RTE act cannot allow any state to discontinue the education of 26370 students. RMSA funds are available . Various grants under SSA may be utilized for said purpose. There is the need to change the head of grant and allow the said grant to be used for continuation of the services of Special Educators. They must be appointed on JBT post because they fulfill the norm of D.Ed. in Special Education and the state must ensure that it has such Special Educators available every time for teaching of the special /CWSN students.
- There must be a permanent post for teaching of these CWSN students. The state cannot make any temporary arrangement which is vanished by the ending of any campaign like SSA. The education of these CWSN/Disabled students is the responsibility of the state and quality education award winner state like HP cannot do such injustice with pre-appointed Special Educators and 26370 students. So they must be given letter of joining within 15 days of this petition, failing to which the issue may be raised in HP High Court in public and employee interest.
- The appointments have been discontinued without making alternative of the education of these 26370 students. So the services of these Special Educators may be continued. The amount of Rs. 1.3 crore may be demanded from centre govt. in this context which is used for the salary of these Special Educators. The state may ask SPD SPO SSA to send proposal again to centre govt. with the abovementioned plea. The state must ensure that it supports the said proposal in letter and spirit.
Some of the co worthy judgements are worthy to be noted as below:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP
Through Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Ms. Kusum Sharma, Mr. Mannu Mohan, Advs.
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Through: Mr. N. Waziri, Adv. for GNCTD Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Adv. for UOI Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv. for MCD Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Siddhi Arora, Advs. for NDMC Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for NCTE Mr. Umang Shankar, Adv. for DCPCR Mr. R.K. Singh, Ms. Deepa Rai, Advs.
Ms.Anuja Saxena, Adv. for RCI
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R 16.09.2009
1. On 19th February, 2009, this Court had directed respondents to
file an Action Taken Report with regard to mapping, improvement of
Infrastructure and upgradation of Human Resources and Management
so as to facilitate good quality education to disabled children.
- The Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi has filed an action taken report outlining the measures that it has undertaken and that it proposes to take in the future.
- The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights has filed its response to the aforesaid action taken report. In the said response, it has been stated that the training provided to teachers during the SCERT orientation is not adequate and further that there is non-cooperation between PWD and DSIIDC in consideration of infrastructure facilities. In the said response, it has been highlighted that neither the number of special educators and teachers to teach the disabled are adequate nor good quality of teachers are available. The Commission has emphasized that there must be detailed planning so as to ensure integration of disabled children in regular school and for this purpose, there must be a policy to admit disabled children at an early age and all teachers in regular school should be sensitized to the different types of disabilities and handling of the said disabilities. The said affidavit suggests that in the B.Ed. course for teachers training, special education to deal with disabled children should be incorporated.
4. The Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘RCI’) has filed an affidavit with regard to the special educators to be appointed. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:-
“9. I say and submit that the centrally sponsored scheme of IEDC is to be implemented through the State Government/UT Administration/ Autonomous Organizations of stature having experience in the field of education and/or rehabilitation of the disabled. Because the scheme is to be implemented in schools, the Education Department is the implementing agency. The State Government may take the assistance of voluntary organization also for this purpose as may be feasible.
10. I say and submit that a bare perusal of the aforesaid scheme would reveal that at serial No. 11 and 12 provisions for appointment of special teacher have been made and for the sake of convenience of this Hon’ble Court they are being reproduced below:-
Except for the children with locomotor disabilities, special education teachers may be appointed in schools where the scheme is in operation to provide specific attention to the disabled children.
Sec.12 Appointment of Special Teachers
The teacher – pupil ratio for special education teachers envisaged under the scheme is 1 : 8. This ratio will be the same for normal classes as well as for preparatory pre-school classes. The same teachers will provide counseling to the parents. In accordance with the ratio, the requisite number of special teachers may be appointed in schools (or for cluster of schools) for children requiring special teacher support.
- I say and submit that under Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) of Inclusive Education of Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) Government of India under clause vi of 5.2 II the Special Educator will be appointed in the ratio 1 : 5. Ideally every school where disabled children are enrolled should have the services of at least one special teacher. Without prejudice, I would like to submit that once we are considering the ratio between special children and special teacher at secondary level should be 1 : 5 then at primary level it should be not more than 1 : 2 (copy of the scheme is enclosed herewith as Annexure – A2).
- It is submitted that B.Ed. Special Education is a degree programme for one year and minimum qualification for entrance is graduation and the successful candidates are eligible to impart education to the secondary level of students. Hence it is equivalent to B.Ed. (General). Diploma in Special Education (DSE) course is a 2 year regular course of the Council and the successful candidate will be eligible to teach the pre-primary level of education and hence this course is equivalent to the D.Ed./TTC(General). Without prejudice, I further say and submit that the successful candidates of B.Ed. Special Education in broader aspects are much more trained in comparison to the B.Ed. (General) and D.Ed./TTC (General) because apart of training of teaching, under this course they are getting the training to how to teach physically challenged children. Therefore, these candidates should get priority to be appointed as teachers in schools as they can teach general as well as children with special needs. At present the Council has already been registered 23,191 Special Educators.
- I say and submit that DSE programme of the Council is a Diploma level programme of 2 years duration. The entry qualification to this course is 10+2 pass. It can be conducted by any institution fulfilling the RCI’s prescribed norms. The course curriculum has been upgraded to suit all kinds of educational setting for disabled children i.e. exclusive integrated or inclusive special schools regular schools. The DSE qualified candidates are at par with D.Ed./TTC course and should be considered eligible for recruitment for primary teachers etc. as is admissible/permissible to D.Ed./TTC candidates.
- I further say and submit that Council is a statutory body to regulate the training programme in the field of disability. Section 13 sub clauses 2(b) of Act provides that no person other than qualified and registered with the Council can teach children with disability. In some of the state govt. has already considered the equivalence B.Ed. (SE) with B. Ed(General) and D.Ed.(SE) with D.Ed./TTC for the purpose of appointment of the Special teachers in all the special schools as well as integrated school in the state.
- It is pertinent to mention here that under Sarva Shikshan Abhiyan policy of Government of India, all children with disability to seek education in the nearby school and envisages that an all inclusive barrier free environment be created for providing education and training of children with disability. To make Sarva Shikshan Abhiyan a success and education of children with disability a reality, it is necessary that a qualified trained special teacher is also employed in the general school as resource teacher. The D.Ed./B.Ed. special education degree is not only at par in duration and content but in fact as far greater inputs for a teacher than are incorporated in the general teachers training programme. I say and submit that RCI through its letter dated 31.10.2005 Ref. No. 8-351/2005-RCI/2210-43 sent to the all States Education Secretaries to declare B.Ed. Special Education at par with the B.Ed. (General) Education.
16. It is worthwhile to mention here that in B.Ed.(SE) the successful candidates are trained in teachers training as well as special education for disabled children. In a welfare state, it is necessary that in general school the special teachers must be appointed to the physically challenged children so that they could feel themselves at par with the children of general category.”
5. National Council for Educational Research & Training (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCERT’) has also filed a brief note with regard to employment of special educators/counselors in school. The relevant portion of the said note reads as under:-
“The Central Sponsored Scheme (CSS) of Inclusive Education of the Disabled at Secondary Stage Children is being implemented by the Delhi Govt. through the CSS IEDC Cell in the Department of Education (DOE) of Govt. of
NCTD in all Govt. Schools. In-service training programmes are also conducted by the IEDC Cell of DOE for Heads of Schools, EVG counselors and teachers in order to sensitize them. The SCERT has added a component about IEDC in all its training programmes for teachers of NCT of Delhi. The staff and officers of IEDC Cell and the District Coordinators have also set up a mechanism for looking into the grievances of children/parents of children with disabilities.
The IEDC Cell DOE has identified about 10,065 CWSN, out of which 7,694 have been assessed on the basis of check-list provided by the SCERT and about 2,824 CWSN have been recommended for aids/appliances.
As the Teacher : Pupil ratio prescribed is in the ratio 1:5, the Delhi Govt. would require about 2000 trained Special Educators. At present, the RCI has about 45021 (13263 Professionals plus 31758 trained Personnel) registered with it as per its all India Central Rehabilitation Register. Its Delhi Chapter has about 701 registered trained Professionals and Personnel. There are about 19 recognized Institutions in Delhi, which run various Special Educators training programmes/courses.
Although, ideally every school where disabled children are enrolled should have the services of at least one Special Teacher, but to start with, two or three schools in a ‘cluster’ can avail the services of the ‘itinerant’ Teacher (the same teacher would go around teaching in these schools located in the same vicinity). To achieve this, mapping of both the children with special needs as well as the Schools where they are enrolled is imperative.
While Special Teachers are to be trained through regular programmes run by the National Institutes/Apex Institutes of RCI, in-service teachers can also be inducted/roped in for training as resource teachers (incentives must be offered to them) so as to equip them with handling of specific disability area, depending upon the kind of disability of children enrolled in any particular school on short term basis (during vacations and long holidays) to fill in the gap. Short term Orientation programmes for Principals and Educational Administrators is a must to sensitize them towards needs of the children with disability.
Special Educators/Rehabilitation Professionals registered with nearby states such as Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and UP should also be sourced by Delhi Govt. through adequate public advertisements to meet the shortfall of trained Special Teachers.
There should be provision of resource rooms and equipment for the resource rooms at least in one school per block/urban cluster.
Multidisciplinary Resource Teams (MRT) to be established in all districts, which would include Para-medical Professionals, Psychologists & Counselors, School Administrators, General & Spl. Teachers, Spl. Education & Rehab. Experts, Parents & Care Givers.”
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid affidavits, we are of the opinion that respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 should try to achieve teacher pupil ratio of 1:5 at the secondary level and 1:2 at the primary level. We further direct respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to grant equivalence to B.Ed. (SE) with B.Ed.(General) and to D.Ed. (SE) with D.Ed./TTC for the purpose of appointment of special teachers in all the schools in the State as well as schools run by local bodies namely NDMC, MCD and
Cantonment Board. Needless to say that the service conditions of the special teachers shall be same as that of the regular teachers holding the qualification of general teachers. We also request the respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to consider granting preference and priority to candidates holding B.Ed.(SE) and D.Ed.(SE) degrees in appointment of teachers in all their schools. The school authorities shall ensure that each school shall have at least two special teachers and further that necessary teaching aids and reading materials are provided. This shall be done within six months.
7. In our opinion, till adequate number of special educators are available, two or three schools in a cluster should avail the services of itinerant teacher as mentioned by NCERT in its affidavit. We also direct RCI as well as respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to start programmes to train in-service teachers as resource teachers so that they are equipped to take care of disabled children. Respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are also directed to start short term orientation programme for principals and educational administrators so as to sensitise them towards the needs of a disabled children.
8. It is brought to our notice that in some cases the disabled children are being denied admission on the ground that the school do not have the necessary facility. This is clearly contrary to our order dated 19.2.2009. It is made clear that no disabled child shall be refused admission in any of the schools either run by the State Government or the local bodies.
In regard to issue of mapping, we are informed that no steps have been taken by the State Officials so far. The concerned Secretary Mr. Rakesh Mohan is directed to remain personally present
in the court on 23 September, 2009.
CHIEF JUSTICE MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
NEXT IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT BY HP HIGH COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 11861 of 2011-G
Reserved on : 11.12.2012 Decided on : 19.12.2012
Sheetal Sharma, W/o Sh. Mahesh Sharma, resident of 52/5, Haripur Colony, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Education), Government
of HP, Shimla.
- Mission Director, SSA (Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan), H.P., Shimla.
- State Project Director, SSA (Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan), HP, Shimla.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy
Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
The petitioner was appointed as Special Educator on
contractual basis on 28.11.2005. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-
shell, is that she is not allowed the benefit of merger of 50% of
dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.2006.
2. The State of Himachal Pradesh has taken a conscious
decision to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale on 09.05.2006. The Executive Committee of SSA (Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan) (hereinafter referred to as “the SSA” for the sake of convenience), in its meeting held on 22.09.2006, has decided to give the benefit of merger of 50% of
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to all the contractual employees w.e.f. 01.09.2006. The only reason to deny the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of pay scale of the petitioner is that the salary/honorarium of the petitioner is being claimed on the specific intervention, i.e., inclusive education for CWSN (Children With Special Need) and continuity of her appointment solely depends on the approval of this scheme by the Project Approval Board (PAB) of Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on year to year basis.
3. The respondents could not make distinction in giving
the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale only on the basis of mode of recruitment. The petitioner and other staff of SSA have been appointed on contract basis. The focus of the respondents should be to provide better conditions of service to the employees who are directly involved in SSA instead of giving benefits to those employees who are though employed in SSA, but working as Ministerial Staff. The fact that the salary of the contract staff and the sanctioned establishment of the S.S.A. would be met from the Management of S.S.A. and the salary of the petitioner is claimed against specific intervention/scheme will not come in the way of the petitioner to get benefit of merger of 50% of dearness allowance in the pay. The petitioner has also been appointed by the SSA, even though his salary is claimed against the specific intervention, i.e., inclusive education for CWSN (Children With Special Need). The classification made by the respondents to deny the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to the petitioner only on the grounds that her salary is drawn against Specific Intervention Scheme, is bad in law. The classification made by the respondents to deny the merger of 50% dearness allowance in the pay on the mode of recruitment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, there is no nexus with the objects to be achieved. The conditions of all the employees working under the same employer should be uniform. Once the SSA has adopted the notification issued by the State Government to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale, the same should have been applied uniformly by the Board to all the employees working under it. The decision of the SSA not to grant the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to the petitioner amounts to invidious discrimination and is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and
discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.2006 with interest @ 7% per annum, within a period of ten weeks from today, failing which, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ of 12% per annum till the payment is realized. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge
December 19, 2012.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2010
F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of2009), and in pursuance of Notification No. S.0.750 (E) dated 31 st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)-hereby lays down the following minimum-qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from the date of this Notification :—
Minimum Qualifications.-Classes l-V
a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 – year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
(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 the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A/B.Sc and 2 – year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 – year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed)
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 – year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B. El. Ed)
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./BSc. Ed.
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 – year B.Ed. (Special Education)
(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 the purpose.
NCTE qualifications are also fulfilled by them. If state can regularize the pay scale of the above special educator and she is continuing her services, why other Special Educators are on backfoot ? Please consider the said case as guiding principle for service of all special educators
Please consider the case of these 146 Special Educators and re-engage them on job in interest of 26370 students.
Dated: 12-04-2013 Yours sincerely: Vijay Kumar Heer, State President , H.S.K.M.
& Himachal Shikshak Mahasangh JBT Cell, HP
VPO CHAKMOH , TEHSIL BARSAR, DISTT. HAMIRPUR , H.P. 176039