List of Current Affairs

Source:  Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta  has held that for the post of Junior Basic Teacher (JBT), either a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) or a Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) is an essential qualification in accordance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. (RTE) and NCTE norms. 

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court held this in the matter of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Sakshi Malik and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Sakshi Malik and others, 2025 Case ? 

• The Chandigarh Administration issued an advertisement on 16th January 2024 inviting applications for Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) positions. 
• As per the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1991 (as amended in 2018), the essential qualifications required were:  
  • Graduate or equivalent from a recognized university, and 
  • Two-year Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) recognized by NCTE, OR 
  • Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) 
  • Pass in Central Teacher Eligibility Test 
  • After the written test was conducted on 28.04.2024, candidates including the respondents were called for document verification. 
• Several candidates possessing Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed) qualification were declared ineligible on the grounds that they did not possess the two-year Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) as specified in the advertisement. 
• Despite being granted an opportunity to submit clarifications, the candidates were ultimately declared ineligible. 
• The affected candidates filed Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). 
• The CAT allowed their applications through orders dated 19.09.2024, 25.11.2024, and 25.10.2024, directing the Chandigarh Administration to consider their candidature. 
• Aggrieved by these orders, the Chandigarh Administration filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that after the National Council for Teacher Education Act came into force, qualifications required for filling teaching posts must be in consonance with the NCTE Act, necessitating amendments to recruitment rules from time to time. 
• The Court noted that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) mandates free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14 years, with the NCTE establishing minimum qualifications for teachers. 
• The Court highlighted that NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010, issued under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, laid down minimum qualifications for teachers of Classes I-V, explicitly recognizing both D.El.Ed and B.El.Ed as qualifying credentials. 
• The Court emphasized that in cases relating to teacher education, "the final authority lies with NCTE" as previously established in State of Maharashtra vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006). 
• The Court observed that the field of education standards is "exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution" and State authorities have no power to encroach upon Parliament's legislative power in this domain. 
• The Court found that post-2010 NCTE Regulations, it was "incumbent on the Chandigarh Administration to have adopted and framed their Rules in conformity with the notification issued by the NCTE" and "a departure could not have been made while issuing the advertisement." 
• The Court determined that "what is essential is that a candidate must possess knowledge in Elementary Education" which can be demonstrated through either D.El.Ed or B.El.Ed qualifications as recognized by NCTE. 
• The Court observed that "default on the part of the Chandigarh Administration cannot give any advantage to a particular individual" and held that the advertisement must be read to include B.El.Ed alongside D.El.Ed as equal qualifications. 
• The Court emphasized that courts "must always attempt to harmonize the provisions of law in order to save the selections which have already been conducted," particularly since the candidates had already participated in the selection process. 

What are the Key Provisions of the Right to Education (RTE) Act in India? 

• The Act provides for free and compulsory education to all children aged six to fourteen years in India. 
• It establishes that every child has the right to full-time elementary education of satisfactory quality in a formal school that meets certain essential norms and standards. 
• The Act mandates a 25% reservation for economically disadvantaged communities in admission to private schools. 
• It prohibits all unrecognized schools from operating and prescribes penalties for those operating without recognition. 
• The Act prohibits physical punishment, mental harassment, screening procedures for admission, and capitation fees. 
• It establishes duties for the Central Government, State Governments, local authorities, parents, and schools in ensuring children receive quality elementary education. 
• It sets provisions for curriculum development and completion certificates for elementary education without any board examination. 
• The Act establishes mechanisms for protecting children's rights through monitoring bodies and grievance redressal systems. 

What is Section 23 of the RTE Act ? 

• Section 23 addresses the qualifications, appointment, and terms and conditions of service for teachers. 
• It mandates that teachers must possess minimum qualifications as laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government. 
• The Central Government may temporarily relax minimum qualification requirements in states with inadequate teacher training institutions or insufficient qualified teachers for a period not exceeding five years. 
• Teachers who did not possess the minimum qualifications at the commencement of the Act were given five years to acquire them. 
• A subsequent amendment provided that teachers appointed or in position as of 31st March, 2015, who lacked minimum qualifications, were given an additional four years from the date of the 2017 amendment to acquire these qualifications. 
• The section specifies that salary, allowances, and terms and conditions of service for teachers shall be as prescribed by relevant regulations. 
• This section aims to ensure quality teaching by establishing minimum professional standards while providing reasonable accommodation for the existing teaching workforce to upgrade their qualifications. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice JB Pardiwala held that the High Court in exceptional circumstances can exercise it’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to grant interim relief. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of M/s Jindal Steel And Power Ltd &  Anr  v. M/s Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2025). 

What was the Background of M/s Jindal Steel And Power Ltd &  Anr  v. M/s Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Case?   

• The appellants issued a work order to Respondent No. 1 (M/s. Bansal Infra Projects Private Limited) on 24th January 2022, for construction of 400 flats at Jindal Nagar, valued at Rs. 43,99,46,924.13. 
• The appellants provided an advance of Rs. 3,73,95,490, which was secured by a bank guarantee (No. 32700IGL0001122) dated 8th March 2022, from Respondent No. 1. 
• The original project completion deadline was set for 30th September 2022, but was later extended to 30th June 2023, and then further extended by 60 days. 
• The project deadline was extended again to 30th September 2023, with the condition that retention money would be forfeited if the project extended beyond this date. 
• Due to quality deficiencies, missed deadlines, and non-compliance with contractual obligations, the appellants terminated the work order in accordance with several clauses in the contract. 
• On 21st February 2024, the appellants sent a letter to Respondent No. 1 highlighting the disregard for construction norms that compromised standards and posed safety risks. 
• When Respondent No. 1 failed to take corrective action, the appellants sent a letter on 25th March 2024, requesting refund of Rs. 4,12,54,904 (attributed to unadjusted advances and other deductions) by 30th April 2024, failing which the bank guarantee would be encashed. 
• Respondent No. 1 filed an Arbitration Petition (No. 14 of 2024) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act), seeking an interim order to restrain the appellants from proceeding with the termination notice and encashing the bank guarantee. 
• When the Commercial Court rejected the application for ex parte injunction, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 11848 of 2024), in which the High Court granted a status quo order regarding the encashment of the bank guarantee. 
• Respondent No. 1 also invoked arbitration proceedings as per Clause 58.3 of the Work Order/Contract dated 24th January 2022. 
• On 20th August 2024, the High Court passed an order continuing the stay on encashment of the bank guarantee until disposal of Arbitration Petition No. 14 of 2024, which is now being challenged by the appellants.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The appeal challenges the High Court's interim order restraining the appellants from invoking the bank guarantee during the pendency of proceedings under Section 9 of the A & C Act. 
• The Court acknowledges the established legal principle that courts should refrain from interfering with bank guarantee invocation except in cases of egregious fraud or where encashment would result in irretrievable injustice. 
• The Court cites Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar and others (1999), which emphasized that bank guarantees serve as the backbone of commercial transactions and must be honored according to their terms. 
• The Court notes that the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the consent of both parties, stating that allowing the appellants to invoke the bank guarantee would likely render the Section 9 arbitration petition infructuous. 
• The Court observes that the High Court's order is merely an interim measure intended to protect the interests of both parties. 
• The Court recognizes that Respondent No. 1 has initiated arbitration proceedings, and pursuant to the High Court's order dated 6th November 2024, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. 
• The Court finds it imperative to maintain the existing position regarding the bank guarantee until the final outcome of the Section 9 arbitration petition, given the ongoing arbitration proceedings concerning the matter. 
• The Court notes that Respondent No. 1 has extended the bank guarantee until 30th June 2025 and has given an undertaking to further extend it until the disposal of the Section 9 arbitration petition. 
• The Court decides not to rule on the legal issues raised and leaves them open for future consideration. 
• The Court directs the parties to advance all their contentions with necessary documents before the Commercial Court, which shall pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. 
• The Court orders that the bank guarantee shall be kept alive and subject to the outcome of the Section 9 arbitration petition.

What is Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)? 

• Article 227 of the COI provides for the power of the High Court of Superintendence. 
• Every High Court has supervisory power over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• The High Court can: 
  • Request reports from lower courts 
  • Make rules and create forms to regulate how these courts operate 
  • Decide how records and accounts should be kept by court officers 
• The High Court can also establish fee schedules for court officials, attorneys, advocates, and pleaders who work in these courts. 
• Any rules, forms, or fee schedules created by the High Court: 
  • Must not conflict with existing laws 
  • Need the Governor's approval before implementation 
• This supervisory power does not extend to military courts or tribunals established under laws related to the Armed Forces. 
• In simple terms, Article 227 gives High Courts the authority to oversee and regulate the functioning of all lower courts in their region, except for military courts.