Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MUKESH KUMARI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Mukesh Kumari v. State of U.P. - WRIT - A No. 16630 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 717 (11 March 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

Court No. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16630 of 2005

Smt. Mukesh Kumari

Versus

State of U.P.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner in the present writ petition, applied for consideration of her candidature for Special B.T.C. Training Course 2004. Said applications were invited from the candidates who had got their degree/ certificate of B.E.d/ L.T/ B.P.Ed/ C.P.Ed/ D.P.Ed. from the institution recognised  and approved by National Council for Teacher Education and institutions of training, established and run by State Government. Petitioner alleges that she has obtained her Shiksha Visharad certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 1999 and same is equivalent to B.Ed. Petitioner applied and her candidature has been non-suited on the ground that petitioner has obtained Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, which is not at all recognised educational qualification, as such her claim cannot be considered. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

At the point of time when the present writ petition has been taken up much reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this Court of Lucknow Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 4987(MS) of 2004(Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) wherein following order has been passed:

" Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow them to undergo training of Special B.T.C Course, they having succeeded in the selection list.

Pursuant to an advertisement a copy of which has been filed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure No. 1, the petitioners applied for being sent to the Special B.T.C. Training Course. They are said to have been selected in the selection process and thus, according to then are entitled to be sent for the said training course. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the candidature of the petitioners is not being considered on account of the fact that they have obtained degree of Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad.

The petitioners may approach opposite party no. 3 and make a representation within one week from today detailing therein their grievances with regard to being sent for the training to the Special B.T.C Course. In case such a representation is made as aforesaid the same shall be decided by opposite party no. 3 by a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon him.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is finally disposed of."

Learned Standing Counsel Sri K.K. Chand at the point of time when the present writ petition has been taken up contended that Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, is not at all a recognised degree and holders of the same are totally ineligible for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in Basic School run by Parisad, as such candidature of the petitioner has rightly been non-suited. Futile direction may not be issued to the authority to take decision. In this connection reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004(2) UPLBEC 1716.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging is to the effect that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25340 of 2003 (Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) this Court after taking into account the provision of the U.G.C Act and the N.C.T.E. Act concluded that neither examination held by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be recognised nor training course of Shiksha Visharad held by unregistered institution can be recognised. Said judgment has also taken note of the fact that before appellate authority representatives of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, categorically stated that it does not conduct any teachers training course. Relevant extract of the aforementioned judgment in paragraphs 21 to 24, 29 and 30 are being quoted below:

"20. In the case of Uma Kant Tiwari and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1613, a Division Bench of this Court has held that if a degree of  Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna given by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad after 1967 has not been recognised by the Central Counsel if Indian Medicine under the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 then they cannot claim the right of practice.

21. It is not in dispute that all the institutions from which these petitioners have done their Shiksha Visharad course, have not been recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education under the provisions of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which came into force on 1st July, 1995.  Under Section 16 of the Act, it has been provided that no examining body shall, on or after the appointed date (1st July, 1995), hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution unless the institution had obtained recognition from the Regional Committee under section 14 or permission for a course or training under section 15.  Under Section 17(4) of the Act, it has been provided that where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed date, fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, or any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.  Thus, after the coming into force of the Act, the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad could not have held examination for a course or training conducted by any recongised institution unless the institution has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee for the course or training offered by it and if the institution has given training, such training cannot be treated  a valid qualification for the purposes of employment in the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.

22. It may be mentioned here that before the National Council of Teacher Education in the appeal filed by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, the appellate authority, vide order dated 27th February 2001, has held that the provisions of the Act do not envisage the grant of recognition to any examining body for conducting the examination and award of degree/diploma. It only requires recognition by the National Council of Teacher Education of the institution running teachers' training courses. Before the appellate authority, the representative of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan stated that it does not conduct any teachers' training courses. It only conducts examination at various centre in the country.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that various State Governments have been treating the degree of Shiksha Visharad conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as a valid degree for appointment in Basic Schools.  Be that as it may, after the coming into force of the Act from 1st July, 1995, in view of the specific prohibition contained in Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, neither the examination held by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be recognized nor the training course of Shiksha Visharad offered by an unregistered institution can be recognized.  Thus, till such time the institutions running Shiksha Visharad course are recognized by the Regional Committee, the qualification acquired by each of the petitioners cannot be said to be a valid qualification for the purpose of giving appointment in the Basic Schools run by the State Government or the Basic Shiksha Parishad.

24. Thus, a degree of Shiksha Visharad which each of the petitioners has obtained from the institution not recognised by a the National Council for Teachers Education, cannot confer any right to be considered for appointment on the post of a teacher.

29.Before parting with the case, the Court feels it proper to issue directions to the State Government to ensure that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad which is a body constituted under the provisions of the 1962 Act, does not hold any examinations of a course or teacher training and grant affiliation to any institution which has not been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education and to safeguard the careers of the students so that they may not be misled by the misrepresentation, if any, regarding the degree courses offered by it.

30. The Court further finds that the provisions of the NCTE Act are not sufficient to deal with unscrupulous persons who run institutions/colleges offering unrecognized course or training in teacher education by playing with the career of innocent youths and ruining their life. Except under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, which deals with the contravention of the provisions of the NCTE Act and consequences thereof by only providing that the unrecognized course or training in teacher education shall not treated as a valid qualification for the purposes of employment under the Central/State Government or in any educational institution aided by the Central/ State Government there is no provision in the NCTE Act which may provide any deterrent for such an unscrupulous persons. In fact, they go scot free leaving the innocent persons high and dry. Time has come for the Government of India to provide for more stringent provisions in the NCTE Act for dealing with such unscrupulous persons. The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi for taking appropriate steps."

The judgment quoted above still holds the field. The view taken in the aforementioned judgment is based on statutory provisions and no valid reasons have come forward before this Court to take different view. Till date National Council of Teachers Education had recognised Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. It appears that this particular judgment was not brought to the knowledge and notice of the Bench which passed order dated 22.11.2004, while asking the authorities to take decision. Judgment in the case of Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004(2) UPLBEC 1716 clearly holds that persons who had obtained the degree of Shiksha Visharad cannot be conferred with any right to be considered is entitled as Assistant Teachers in the Basic School run by Board or not. Once issue stands answered by judicial pronouncement, then asking the authorities to decide the same issue, is nothing but exercise in futility, as such judgment and order of Lucknow Bench, which in fact, does not decide any issue, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner.

Much stress has been laid on the fact, that pursuant to directives given by Lucknow Bench of this Court, claim of Shiksha Visharads have been accepted. Claim of Shiksha Visharads cannot be accepted by any means. The Director, State Council Education Research and Training, U.P. at Lucknow shall see that no one with Shiksha Visharad degree has sneaked in and is getting training, and if any one has succeeded then immediate steps be undertaken for throwing the aforementioned incumbent out.  

Petitioner from her own showing has got her Shiksha Visharad degree from totally unrecognized institution. Thus, no credibility could be attached to the same and no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondents to accept candidature of the petitioner who has obtained her degree from totally unrecognized institution.

Consequently present writ petition lacks merit and same is dismissed.

11.03.2005

Dhruv  


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.