SPECIAL EDUCATORS UNDER SSA OUT, 26370 CWSN/DISABLE STUDENTS DEPRIVED FROM RTE - GREAT APRIL FOOL
To
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.
Honorable
Sir,
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
+
W.P.(C) 6771/2008
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS
GROUP
Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Ms. Kusum Sharma, Mr.
Mannu Mohan, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
& ANR.
Respondents
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.
for NCERT
Ms.Anuja
Saxena, Adv. for RCI
CORAM:
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.
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.
2.
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.
3.
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.
11.
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).
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
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.
15.
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
rd
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.
.................. Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Education),
Government
of HP, Shimla.
2.
Mission Director, SSA (Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan), H.P.,
Shimla.
3.
State Project Director, SSA (Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan),
HP, Shimla.
Respondents.
Coram:
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
Advocate General.
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
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.
(bhupender)
.
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)
OR
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
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with
at least 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 the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A/B.Sc
and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A./B.Sc.
with at least 50% marks and 1 - year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed)
OR
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
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with
at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B. El. Ed)
OR
Senior
Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or
B.A. Ed./BSc. Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc.
with at least 50% marks and 1 - year B.Ed. (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 the purpose.
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
This is the very big mistake of hp govt who are not understanding that the special educator was giving the excelent performance in last two years,and govt lost the future of disable childrens who are don't know that how to go ahead in life....I request all the hp peoples pls suport spl edu,iam not spl edu but I think that is not happened good with special educators,we seen these teachers performance,so come ahead and suport spl.educators.........v.k thakur
ReplyDelete