Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAMPURNANAND SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY THRU. REGISTRAR versus STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. BASIC EDUCATION & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Thru. Registrar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Others - WRIT - A No. 29522 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 1305 (10 May 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Judgement reserved on 4.5.2005

Judgement delivered on 10.5.2005

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29522 of 2004

Sampurnand Sanskrit University, Varanasi through'

Its Registrar.

Versus

State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Basic

Education, Lucknow and others

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 29092 of 2004, 29207 of 2004, 29208 of 2004, 29210 of 2004, 29212 of 2004,  29215 of 2004,  29217 of 2004,  29221 of 2004,  29236 of 2004,  29436 of 2004,  29523 of 2004,  29524 of 2004,  29545 of 2004,  29549 of 2004,  29621of 2004,  29647 of 2004,  29652 of 2004,  29938 of 2004,  29991 of 2004,  30426 of 2004,  30428 of 2004,  30431 of 2004,  30433 of 2004,  30435 of 2004,  30437 of 2004,  30438 of 2004,  30440 of 2004,  30442 of 2004,  30444 of 2004,  30446 of 2004,  30447 of 2004,  30449 of 2004,  30488 of 2004,  31113 of 2004,  31241 of 2004,  31399 of 2004,  31407 of 2004,  31416 of 2004,   31422 of 2004,  31553 of 2004,  31556 of 2004,  31559 of 2004,  31585 of 2004,  31611 of 2004,  31680 of 2004,  31683 of 2004,  31708 of 2004,  31710 of 2004,  31713 of 2004,  31714 of 2004,  31717 of 2004,  31719 of 2004,  31721 of 2004,  31724 of 2004,  31726 of 2004,  31742 of 2004,  31980 of 2004,  31984 of 2004,  32215 of 2004,  32250 of 2004,  32493 of 2004,  32736 of 2004,  33103 of 2004,  33186 of 2004,  33513 of 2004,  33536 of 2004,  33762 of 2004,  33926 of 2004,  33928 of 2004,  33941 of 2004,  34016 of 2004,  34017 of 2004,  34064 of 2004,  34074 of 2004,  34075 of 2004,  34090 of 2004,  34282 of 2004,  34385 of 2004,  35337 of 2004,  33320 of 2004,  36013 of 2004,  36015 of 2004,  35864 of 2004,  35241 of 2004,  37822 of 2004,  40061 of 2004,  42579 of 2004,  40061 of 2004,  42579 of 2004,  42615 of 2004,  32436 of 2004,  43674 of 2004,  43978 of 2004,  44418 of 2004,  47558 of 2004,  47688 of 2004,  47689 of 2004,  47762 of 2004,  48335 of 2004,  49463 of 2004,  49035 of 2004,  49765 of 2004,  50264 of 2004,  50390 of 2004,  503589 of 2004,  52362 of 2004,  52741 of 2004,  52864 of 2004,  53993 of 2004,  54288 of 2004,  4920 of 2004,  33320 of 2004,  7542 of 2004,  8089 of 2004, and 29326 of 2004.

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

1. The Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi ( in short the University)  and  the students who have been awarded 'Shiksha Shastri' degree by the University,  which is the examining body,  from the Faculty of Education of the University at Varanasi, and five affiliated Colleges namely (1) Sri Adarsh Bharati Mahavidyalaya Khetasarai, Jaunpur,  (2) Shrimat Paramhans Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Teekar Mafi, Sultanpur, (3) Shri Sachcha Adhyatma Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Arai, Allahabad, (4)  Shri Sankirtan Bramhacharya Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jhunsi , Allahabad, and (5) Sri Mahaveer Vidyapith Pachhami Vihar, New Delhi,   have filed these writ petitions with prayers to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat their certificates  of 'Shiksha Shastri'' as  equivalent to B.Ed, for the purpose of admission to the Special B.T.C. Course, 2004 designed by the State Government with the approval of the National Council of Teachers' Education  for the purpose of employment as Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The University has also challenged the vires of  Section 14 of the National Council of Teachers Education Act 1993.

2. I have heard Sri Anil Tiwari for the University; Sri Manish Goel in writ petition No. 47765/2004 and Sri Jagdish Pathak in writ petitions no. 29217/2004, 29236/04, 30444/04 and 30449/04 and other counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Joshi for NCTE and Standing Counsel for  the State respondents.

3. The facts briefly stated giving rise to this batch of writ petitions are that the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi is a recognised State University under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Statutes of the University are framed under the provisions of the Act. The University is conducting 'Shiksha Shashri' course as teachers' training course since prior to 1973, after getting sanction and permission from the State and the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi. This course is of one year's duration and is recognised by the State Government  vide its order dated 12.1.1973 as equivalent to B.Ed, and also by the Association of the Indian Universities, New Delhi vide its order dated 15.3.1974.

4. The National Council of Teachers' Education Act 1993 (in short the NCTE Act 1993) was enacted with reference to Entry-66 of the list-1 of the VIIth Schedule appended to Constitution of India to achieve the planned  and coordinated development of teachers' education   and for regulating and maintaining proper norms and standards in the teachers' education. The National Council of Teachers Education established under the Act alone is now competent to lay down the norms, guidelines and standard to be maintained by the institutions involved in teachers education and training. The  validity of the Act was upheld by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shah Goverdhan L. Kalra Teachers College (2002) 8 SCC 228. The Act received assent of the President on December 19, 1993 and came into force on 01.7.1995. The National Council of Teachers Education was established on 17.8.1995, which is the 'appointed day' as defined  under Section 2 (a) of the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for recognition of the institutions  offering  or intending to offer a course or training in teachers  education. Sub Section 1 of Section 14,   relevant for the purse of this Act  is quoted as below;

"14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.- (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations.

Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee."

5. The  Regional Committees  under Section 20 (1) (iii) of the Act were constituted on 6.1.1996. The regulations prescribing the standard for granting recognition were made on 29.12.95 and published on 24.2.1996,  and the institutions offering teachers training course were required to apply for recognition upto 1.4.1997. This date was extended by the Council upto 18.8.1997,  by a notification  issued by National Council of Teachers Education and published in National Dailies informing that more than 90% of the existing institutions have submitted their applications to NCTC Regional Committees during the last three years and only a small number of institutions have still not submitted their applications. The council notified all   such institutions that they may submit their applications in prescribed proforma along with the necessary documents under the NCTE Regulations to the concerned Regional committees up to 31.3.1999. Any institutions approaching the Regional Committees after 31.3.1999 will be treated as an institution "not existing" on the appointed day and will be required to fulfil the requirement as new institutions under the NCE Regulations including the applications of a no objection certificate from the concerned State or Union Territory Government.

6. The University  sent an application for recognition of its faculty and all the six affiliated colleges on 24.5.1997. The Affiliated Colleges on their own did not submit any application. On 14.10.1997 the University/Institutions were informed vide letters issued by the Council,  not to admit any students for the session 1997-98 without recognition/permission of NRC, NCTE. On 25.8.1998 once again an information was sent not to admit any students for academic session 1998-99 as the institution (Faculty of Education)  did not have the required number of teachers. On 30.6.1999  the permission for 90 seats of B.Ed. Course was granted for academic session 1999-2000 to the faculty of education. The NRC granted recognition vide its letter dated 31.7.2000 for annual intake of 90 students in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shashtri) course for academic session in 2000-2001. With regard to the Faculty of Education and the five affiliated colleges the relevant dates as set out in the counter affidavit on behalf of NRC, NCTE Jaipur are detailed as below;

1. SAMPURNANAND SANSKRIT VISHVIDYALAYA, (FACULTY OF EDUCATION) VARANASI.

Session

Date

Status of Recognition

1996-97

24.05.1997

Application for recognition received

1997-1998

14.10.1997

15.10.1997

The concerned institution/university were informed vide letters no. F-3/UP-261/97/5546 not to admit any student for the session 1997-98 without recognition/permission of NRC, NCTE, Jaipur

1998-1999

25.8.1998

Institution was informed further not to admit any students for the academic session 1998-99 without recognition/permission of NRC, NCTE, Jaipur.

1999-2000

30.06.1999

Permission for 90 seats of B.Ed.  Course granted for academic session 1999-2000 vide lettr no. UP/B.Ed./99/8822-25

2000-2001

31.07.2000

Recognition granted vide letter No. F-3/UP-128/B.Ed./2000 dated 31.07.2000 for annul intake of 90 students in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) Course from the academic session 2000-2001.

2. SHRI SACHCHA ADHYATMA SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYA, ARAIL, NAINI, ALLAHABAD.

Session

Date

Status of Recognition

1996-97

No application for recognition was received for this session

1997-1998

30.12.1997

Application for recognition was received

1998-1999

04/02/99

Vide letter No. F-3/13/UP/99/6052-54, the institution was allotted 50 seats in B.Ed. With the condition that the examination being conducted after completion of minimum 190 working days

1999-2000

23.07.1999

Permission for 60 seats of B.Ed. Course for academic session 1999-2000 was granted

2000-2001

22.08.2000

Recognition granted vide letter No. F-3/UP-128/B.Ed./2000/9806-13 for annul intake of 60 students in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) Course from the academic session 2000-2001.

3. ADARSH BHARTI MAHAVIDYALAYA, KHETASARAI, JAUNPUR

Session

Date

Status of Recognition

1996-97

No application for recognition was received for this session

1997-1998

30.12.1997

04.11.1997

Application for recognition was received

Letter no. F-3/UP-266/97/6227-28 was issued to the institution for not admitting any students in the academic session 1997-98

1998-1999

14.12.1998

Vide letter No. F-3/UP/266/98/5124, the institution was informed in case one teacher is appointed than permission for 60 seats for the academic session 1998-99 in B.Ed. Course be granted but the permission was not given as the institute failed to fulfil the condition

1999-2000

27.07.1999

Permission for 60 seats of B.Ed. Course for academic session 1999-2000 was granted vide letter no. F-Seat 99-2000/UP/B.Ed./9313-21

2000-2001

24.7.2000

Recognition granted vide letter No. F-3/UP-7/B.Ed./2000/4230-37 for annul intake of 60 students in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) Course from the academic session 2000-2001.

4. SHRI SANKIRTAN BRAHAMACHARYA ASHRAM SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYA, JHUNSI, ALLAHABAD

Session

Date

Status of Recognition

1996-97

No application for recognition was received for this session

1997-1998

29.09.1997

05.11.1997

Application for recognition was received

Letter No. F-3/UP-265/97/6248 was issued to the institution for not admitting any students in the academic session 1997-98

1998-1999

No permission was granted to institution to run B.Ed. Course for academic session 1998-99.

1999-2000

09/08/99

Permission for 60 seats of B.Ed. Course for academic session 1999-2000 was granted vide letter No. F-3/UP/265/99/9925-9927

2000-2001

24.07.2000

Recognition granted vide letter No. F-3/UP-128/B.Ed./2000/9806-13 for annul intake of 60 students in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) Course from the academic session 2000-2001.

5. SHRI SHRIMAT PARAMHANS SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYA, TIKARMATI, AMETHI, SULTANPUR (UP)

Session

Date

Status of Recognition

1996-97

No application for recognition was received for this session

1997-1998

14.08.1997

23.08.1997

Application for recognition was received

Letter No. F-3/UP-247/97/3490-91 was issued to the institution for not admitting any students in the academic session 1997-98

1998-1999

The institution was not permitted to run B.Ed. Course for academic session 1998-99.

1999-2000

07/07/99

Permission for 60 seats of B.Ed. Course for academic session 1999-2000 was granted vide letter No. NRC/Seat 9-2000/B.Ed./UP/99/8943-49

2000-2001

24.07.2000

Recognition granted vide letter No. F-3/UP-116/B.Ed./2000/3946-3971 for  60  seats of B. Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) Course from the academic session 2000-2001.

6. SHRI MAHAVEER VISHWA VIDYAPEETH, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI

Session

Date

Status of Recognition

1996-97

No application for recognition was received for this session

1997-1998

29.11.1997

11.12.1997

Application for recognition was received

Letter No. F-3/DL-68/97/6947 was issued to the institution for not admitting any students in the academic session 1997-98

1998-1999

Institution was not permitted to run B. Ed. Course for academic session 1998-99.

1999-2000

24.08.99

Permission for 60 seats of B.Ed. Course for academic session 1999-2000 was granted vide letter No. F-3/DL-67/99/12059-10262

2000-2001

31.07.2000

Recognition granted vide letter No. F-3/dh-11/B.Ed./2000/5244-51 for 60 seats  of B.Ed.  (Shiksha Shastri) Course from the academic session 2000-2001.

7. It is agreed between the parties that there is no dispute with regard to the recognition of the course both for the Faculty of Education and  the five Affiliated Colleges for the academic session 1995-96 as the session had started before 17.8.1995 when NCTC was established and for the academic year 1999-2000 when NCTC granted permission for the number of students detailed in the counter affidavit and set out above. For the year 2000-2001 the  recognition was granted  by NRC, NCTE, Jaipur to the Faculty of Education of the University as well as all the six Affiliated Colleges. The dispute as such is confined only to the academic sessions 1996-1997, 1997-98, 1998-99 when it is admitted that the NRC, NCTE , Jaipur  neither gave permission nor recognition for the course. The counsels for the petitioners have also raised a dispute  with regard to dates of application for recognition given to the Faculty of Education, Varanasi and the affiliated Colleges and the consequences thereof under the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the  NCTE Act, 1993.

8. Sri Anil Tiwari appearing for the University submits that the expression  'Institution' and the 'University'  have been defined under Section (e) and (m) of Section 2 of the NCTE Act. An institution under section 2 (e)  means an institution which offers course or training in teachers' education. The ''examining body' under Section 2 (d) means a university agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examinations in teachers' education qualification and the 'University' under Section 2 (m) means university defines in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 (in short, the UGC Act 1956) and includes an institution deemed to be  university under Section 3 of the Act. The University under Section 2 (f)  of the UGC Act 1956 means a university established and incorporated under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any such institution as may in consultation  with the University concerned be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under the Act. Whereas  the University Grants Commission Act  1956 has been enacted to make provisions for  coordination and determination of standards for the universities and for that purpose to establish the University Grants Commission, the National Teachers' Education Act 1993 has been enacted to provide for establishment of National Council Teachers Education with a view to achieve, plan and coordinate development for the teacher education system through out the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. He submits that Section 14 of the Act providing for recognition of the institution offering course and training in teachers education provide for recognition of institutions and not university. Where the university is running teachers education course by its department and unit which is adjunct to the university itself. Both these acts operate in the same field and have been enacted with reference to same entries in the union list and on the concurrent list. The language adopted in the enactment makes it absolutely clear that the University which is an examining body and maintains its own standard is not required to seek recognition for offering a course and training in teachers' education. He has relied upon Bharthidasan University and another vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others (2001) 8 SCC 676, in which the Supreme Court was considering AICTE Act which is pari materia with NCTE Act. Section 10 of the AICTE Act makes it clear that whenever the Act refer a University the same has been specifically provided in the provision of the Act. The definition of technical institution cannot include a University. There is a clear intention of the legislature that an institution whether university or otherwise is to be treated as technical institutions  by the Act and thus the power to grant approval for starting new technical institution and for introduction of new course or programme does not cover university but only technical institution.

9. Sri Anil Tiwari further submits that so far as five affiliated Colleges are concerned the university had initially made an application for granting recognition to these colleges on 15.5.1997. This application according to him should be treated under the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act and thus the University and the institutions were entitled to continue with the courses of teachers' education. The 'Shiksha Shashti' course was recognised by University Grants Commission Act 1956 and was included at Serial No. 38 of the Schedule under Section 22 (3) of the Act. The Council made an advertisement providing a last date for making application for recognition upto 31.3.1999. The  University as well as all affiliated colleges had made their applications for their recognition upto November, 1997 and thus they could pursue the courses. Each of the colleges was affiliated to the university and was maintaining standards for running  the teachers training  classes fixed by the university which is an old and established institution. The permission granted for the academic session 1999-2000 and  the recognition granted to all the colleges for the year 2000-2001 cured any defect  in making applications and also established that the colleges had infrastructure and other standard for teaching and these students in these colleges who were not at a fault should not be deprived of public employment and opportunity to take the special B.T.C. course 2004 for appointment as Assistant Teachers  in Junior High Schools run by the Basic Education Board in U.P. He has also relied upon judgement in J.N. Gantara vs. Morvi Municipality 1996 9 SCC 495 in submitting that where statute prescribing the manner in which powers has to be exercised the power must be exercised in that manner alone for the proposition that until Regional Committees were constituted and the guidelines were framed,  the application for recognition had no meaning whatsoever and that the proviso to Section 14 (1) to that extent  should be read down to extend the dates until regulations were framed by the Council for granting recognition. He has also relied upon judgement in P. Kashi Lingan vs. P.S.G. College of Technology 1995 Supp. 2 SCC 348; Dental Council of India vs. Subharti K.K.V. Charitable Trust and others (2000) 9 SCC 477 and Ambika Shikshan Sansthan vs. Vice Chancellor 2002 (2) ALL. M.R. 752 (Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court) holding that the provisions of NCTE  Act  1993, will become applicable to institution only after regulations were framed in 1998 and that the earlier general regulations of 1995 will not apply to educational programme and technical education.

10. Sri Manish Goel appearing for Hemlata Gaur with degree in Shiksha Shashtri (B.Ed.) in the year 1998-99 from the Faculty of Education of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi submits that it is not necessary in the University to obtain recognition under the NCTE Act 1993, which  has same purpose to achieve. The scheme of NCTE Act 1993 discloses that the University is a separate entity from the institutions. It has a role of the examining body. The Institutions are  affiliated to a University. Where the university is itself imparting teachers' education, it could not be treated to be an affiliated institutions. The scheme of the Act does not provide any University running teachers' training courses to obtain recognition. So far B.Ed. is concerned the conditions of recognition were extended under the regulations for distance education. There are different norms and standard of institutions offering B.Ed. course and institution offering correspondence education and open and distance learning education. the Shiksha Shashtri (B.Ed.) by the Faculty of the University is duly recognised by the U.G.C. Act 1956. The petitioner as such cannot be denied public employment and that the provisions of Section 17 (4) of NCTE Act 1993 do not come into play in the matter where the degree has been awarded from the University. He has relied upon judgements in Dr. Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Bihar 1991 Supp 1 SCC 287 where the Supreme Court held that recognition of the course started by the University with the consent of Medical Council of India and the degree recognised by the State has to be considered for appointment to the post under the State Government and Dr. B.L. Asawa vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982 SC 933, Bhartiya   Homoeopathic   College Bharatpur vs. Students Council of Homoeopathic Medical College Jaipur (1998) 2 SCC 449. He has also pleaded the case of students who were taking education in a University in a course which was recognised both the the UGC Act 1956 and the State Government and has invoked equity in that favour of petitioners  for public employment.

11. Sri Jagdish Pathak appearing for students of the Affiliated Colleges submits that NCTE Act 1993 does not have power to de recognise the degree of B.Ed. (Shisha Shashtri) awarded by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University and its Affiliated Colleges. Any order/conditions regarding withdrawal /refusal to grant recognition has to be passed by Regional Committee and is to be published in the official gazette under Rule 17 (2) (b) of the NCTE Act 1993 and should be published in official gazette for general information. Since  no such information was published, the students cannot be faulted in taking admission in these colleges and pursuing the course. It is the NCTE which is responsible for not warning the students by publishing the refusal of recognition in official gazette. The innocent students, who has passed the entrance test deposited fees and have obtained the degrees after  the examination from old and reputed university recognised by the UGC,  and the State Government,  should not be allowed to suffer. He has relied upon judgements in Kr. Rohini Singh vs. Visitor B.H.U. Presidents of India and others 1991 (1) AWC 3989;  Maharishi Dayanand University vs. M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education 2002 (7) SCC 746; State of U.P. and others vs. Ring Singhal 2000 (9) SCC 391.

12. The validity of the Act has been upheld in Union of India vs. Shah Goverdhan L. Kalra 2002 (8) SCCC 228. The questions  arising for consideration in this writ petition are whether the University  under the scheme of the NCTE Act 1993, is a separate entity from the  Institutions as defined under the Act,  and is not required to obtain recognition from the Regional Committee in pursuing the teachers training courses in the department or unit of the university and further whether the colleges affiliated to the university defaulted in applying for recognition and  therefore the degrees awarded by them in the year 1996-1997, 1997-98, 1998-99 are valid qualifications in teachers' training course for public employment. Lastly the court has been called upon to adjust equities for the students who had pursued the course recognised by the UGC Act 1956 as these colleges had defaulted in making applications for recognition before  the prescribed dates.

13. Sri Rajeev Joshi appearing for National Council of Teachers' Education submits that the University is not a separate entity than the Institutions as defined under the NCTE Act of 1993. He submits that the NCTE Act 1993 even if covers the same field has been enacted subsequent to UGC Act 1956 and operates in a well defined area namely the teachers training and thus even if the course is recognised by the UGC and the State Government after enforcement of NCTE Act 1993, the university was also  required to apply and  to obtain recognition in accordance with Section 14 (1) of the NCTE Act 1993. He further submits that the University and the clause Affiliated  Colleges to university  where restrained from admitting students in 1997-98, 1998-99. They were not given permission to run the courses. The period of six months under the proviso  to Section 14 (1) is applicable to a course  for training in teachers education offered immediately before the appointed day, i.e. 17.8.1995.  The Regional Committees were established by notification  dated 3.11.1995 with immediate effect. It was published in Official Gazette on 6.1.1996. The regulations for recognition were notified on 29.12.1995. In the present case the University or the colleges did not apply within six months, from the appointed day and thus the degrees awarded to the students contrary to the provisions of the Statute are not valid. The permission was granted for the year 1999-2000 and thereafter recognition was given  after satisfaction  that the faculty  and the  colleges were offering courses in accordance with the regulations. The NCTC Act 1993 was enacted with an object to establish National Council of Teachers Education with a view to achieve, plan and coordinate development of the teachers education system throughout the country. The regulations and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected thereof. The NCTE Act 1993 defines  the 'examining body', the 'institution' and the 'university' under Section 2 (d) (e) and (n) respectively. These definitions, however, are  for the purposes of understanding the expressions used in various provisions of the Act. The word 'institutions' in Section 14 is not restricted to  the institutions  other than University. Section 16 of the Act provides that  notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being  force no examining body shall on or after the appointed day (a) grant the affiliation whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution or (b) hold examination whether provisional or otherwise for a course or training conducted by a recognised institutions,  unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under ''section 15. This restriction of holding examination on the affiliating body in a course of training conducted by the institution other than recognised institutions makes it clear that the University which is affiliating body is not to allow students to admit in any examination unless the course is recognised.

14. Section 14 (3) of NCTE 1993 requires the Regional Committee after receiving an application from the institution concerned to be satisfied that  such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that if fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institutions for a course of training in teacher education as may be determined by regulations. These regulations have to be applied to all the institutions. If the University running such a course in its own faculty, department or unit does not have the requisites as provided in sub Section (3) (a) of Section 14, it can also be de-recognised by the Regional Committee.

15. In Bharthidasan University and others (supra) the issue involved was with regard to commencement of the course in technology such an information technology and management,  engineering and bio-technology etc. The Supreme Court after examining the provisions of AICTE Act found that Section 10 (k) does not cover a University but only technical institutions  and that regulations cannot be framed in such a manner  so as to apply to Universities and the Act maintained a complete dichotomy between a University and a technical institution. In section 2 (h) of AICTE Act the technical institution is defined to mean an institution not being a University, which offers course of programmes of technical education and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may in consultation with the Council by notification in the official gazette declare as technical institution. There is no such exclusion of the  University in the definition of the word ''institution' in NCTE Ac 1993, and no such dichotomy is maintained  between a University as an examining and affiliating body and the institutions affiliated to the university. There is no such provision in NCTE Act 1993 as in the AICTE Act, to make inspections of any department and departments  and to advise UGC for declaring an institution imparting technology education as a Deemed University.

16. As discussed above the UGC Act 1956 in a general Act  and that NCTE Act 1993 was enacted as special Act to operate in the field of  teachers'  education. The NCTE Act 1993 does not envisage separate standards  for financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and curriculum for the Universities and institutions. The power to make regulations under Section 31 of the Council do not provide separate standards in Universities and institutions in order to achieve the objects of the Act. The norms, guidelines and standards under  the Guidelines under Section 32  to be framed by the Council have to be common to operate  in the entire country. There is no exemptions or concessions granted to any regional ethos or objects to be achieved by Universities in different parts of the country. The norms, guidelines and standards  made  by the Council will supersede any standards which may have been made by University Grants Commission or State Government for teachers education in the University and the institutions. Any other interpretation will defeat the object and purpose of NCTE Act 1993.

17. The NCTE Act 1993 clearly visualised that it will take some times in establishment of Council and Regional Committees and to prepare guidelines under Section 32 of the Act. At the same time it was found necessary to enforce the provisions of the Act expeditiously, and thus the institutions offering a course or training in teachers education were provided an opportunity to make applications for recognition, to apply for recognition within six months to the establishment of the  regional committees and to continue with the course until the disposal of the application. The word before the appointed day under the  proviso  to Section 14(1) refers to courses for training in teachers education offered by institutions before that date. It is defined under Section 2 (a) to mean the date of establishment of National Council of Teachers Education i.e. 17.8.1995. These institutions were required to make applications to Regional Committees,  which were constituted on 3.11.1995,  and notified on 6.1.1996. The constitution and notification of regional committee was within six months of the establishment of the Council. It is relevant to note here that the academic session ordinarily begins in July and continues upto April/May in the next year. The Council was established on 17.8.1995 and Regional Committees were established  w.e.f. 3.11.1995. Sri Rajeev Joshi appearing for the Council as such rightly states that those institutions which were  offering  teachers training courses  were entitled to continue with the courses for the academic session 1995-96. They however could only continue  with the courses  in the next academic session if they had applied for recognition to the Regional Committees, which were fully constituted and were functional from 6.1.1996,  unless the application for recognition was rejected. The university as well as affiliated Colleges were fully aware of the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the University had made an application for recognition on 15.5.997 i.e. within six months of the date of establishment of the Regional Committees. The affiliated Colleges could, therefore, have pursued their courses only after application and thereafter  until disposal of their applications.

18. There is no such provision  in the Act or any Regulations  permitting a single application to be made by the University for recognition of the teachers training course of the Faculty of the university and all the  affiliated Colleges. The application  by the University did not give details of  the infrastructure and number of seats  and teachers in  each of its affiliated Colleges. This application, therefore, was not valid for the affiliated Colleges. At best it could be treated as valid for the Faculty of Education in the university.

19. I  find that  these affiliated Colleges did not make any application within the period prescribed in the proviso to section 14 (1)  of the NCTE Act 1993, and further these affiliated Colleges, which have their own managements have not approached this court for seeking  relief either for  themselves or for its students. These institutions were clearly informed by the NRC, NCTE Jaipur not to admit any students in the year 1997-98, 1998-99. The institutions did not care to respond and thus the degrees  offered by them for academic sessions  1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 cannot be treated to be recognised. The students having these degrees are not entitled to any public employment in consequence of sub Section (4) of Section 17 of the act. So far  the Faculty of Education of the University is concerned, I find that it had applied for recognition for  the academic session 1996-97, on 15.5.1997. The Council admits the receipt of the application on 24.5.1997. The NRC, NCTE Jaipur in its several communications to the university on 14.10.1997 informed not to admit  the students for the session of 1997-98 without recognition/permission of NRC, NCTE Jaipur,  and thereafter similar instructions were sent on 25.8.1998 for academic session 1998-99. The University which had applied for recognition of the course for its Faculty of Education,  however,  was not restrained or informed not to admit students for 1996-97. The students, who had applied  for 'Shiksha Shashtri' course from Faculty of Education Varanasi for the academic year 1996-97,  therefore were entitled to continue with the course and their degrees were not de-recognised as the Regional Committee had not rejected and  notified the rejection of its  application for the year 1996-97. I find that the students of  the academic session 1996-97,  so far of the Faculty of Education of Sampurnanand Sanskrit  University who have successfully completed the course  and are were awarded with Shiksha Shastri Degrees are entitled to the benefit of proviso to section 14 (1) and that their degrees are valid for the purpose of public employment.

20. The plea of equity in favour of students is wholly misconceived. The National Council of Teachers Education Act 1993 was notified in the Gazette of India on 30.12.1993. It was enforced w.e.f. 1.7.1995 and the  Council was constituted on 17.8.1995. The universities, institutions and students were fully aware and informed of the provisions of the Act.

21. This Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act contrary to the provisions of the Act. The violation of law as it stands must be objected by all concerned. The Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall  not encourage violation of the Statutes on account of equities and in any case these equities have not been properly pleaded and applied. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the courts shall not on account of such pleadings dilute the provisions of the Act and the standards of education. In State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahid Rao Ram Dal 1992 4 SCC 435 followed in State of Punjab vs. Renuka Singhal 1994 1 SCC 175 the Supreme court held as follows;

"10. In Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalaya v. Stte of Maharashtra this Court held thus:

"We are coming across cases of this type very often where allegations are made that innocent students are admitted into unrecognised schools and are made to suffer. Some courts out of compassion occasionally interfere to relieve the hardships. We find  that the result of this situation is total indiscipline in the field of regulation."

12. ....................... The teacher is adorned as Gurudevabhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the  society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc."

22. The Courts cannot  issue directions to the authorities to violate their own statutory Rules or Regulations in respect of admissions of students. The compassions should not be a ground to disobey the law. In Maharishi Dayanand University vs. M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education (supra) the Supreme Court professed that it is time that the courts evolve a mechanism in awarding  damages to the students whose careers are seriously jeopardised by unscrupulous management of colleges/schools which indulge in violations of all Rules. I find that in these petitions the petitioners have not claimed any such reliefs and thus there is no occasion to go into it.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the course of 'Shiksha Shastri' as equivalent to B.Ed. officered  by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, from the Faculty of Education of the University and its affiliated Colleges is valid qualification up to year 1995-96, before the provisions of NCTE Act of 1993 became applicable and thereafter for  academic session 1999-2000 when permission was granted by Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur for running the course in the  Faculty as well as affiliated Colleges. The course of study offered by the Faculty of Education of the University is also valid  for 1996-97, as it had applied under proviso to Section 14 (1) and NCTE Act 1993 and no restrain order or refusal was communicated to the University. The degrees, however, for the academic year 1996-97, pursued in the affiliated Colleges of the University and for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 both for the Faculty of Education by the University and the affiliated Colleges is not valid as the University and Colleges were not recognised for these academic sessions. These qualifications shall not be treated to be valid for the purposes of pursuing Special B.T.C. Course 2004 and public employment.

24. The students, who have obtained 'Shiksha Shastri' degree from the University and its Colleges upto 1995-96;  from the Faculty of Education of the University for the year 1996-97, and from the University and affiliated Colleges for 1999-2000  and thereafter are  valid. These students shall be at liberty to make appropriate representations to the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow along with copy of this judgement and their particulars which shall be decided in accordance with directions issued in these judgements within four weeks of such communication.  

25. All the writ petitions are  accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt. 10.5.2005

RKP/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.