Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

EKTA SHUKLA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' ITS PRINCIPAL SECY. BASIC EDU. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ekta Shukla v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Principal Secy. Basic Edu. & Ors. - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7231 (9 December 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

CJ's Court

Special Appeal No.630 of 2005

Ekta Shukla and others

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

Connected with:

Special Appeal No.797 of 2005

Maneesha Mishra

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.690 of 2005

Awadhesh Mani Tripathi & Others

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.753 of 2005

Santosh Kumar Tiwari & Others

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.772 of 2005

Km. Farzana Parveen

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.798 of 2005

Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.799 of 2005

Ram Murat

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.800 of 2005

Meenu Tripathi

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.801 of 2005

Madhubala Rai

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.803 of 2005

Bijendra Kumar

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.811 of 2005

Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.812 of 2005

Seema Singh

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.813 of 2005

Vijay Kumar Yadav

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.814 of 2005

Pratima Srivastava

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.815 of 2005

Ajay Singh

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.816 of 2005

Arvind Kumar

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.396 of 2005

Badan Singh

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.410 of 2005

Smt. Seema and others

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.411 of 2005

Chandra Kant Singh & another

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.762 of 2005

Nisha Kumari Singh & another

Vs.

State of U.P. & others

and

Special Appeal No.913 of 2005

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.958 of 2005

Paritosh Singh and another

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.878 of 2005

Satyambad Kakshi

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.952 of 2005

Smt. Pushpa Devi & others

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.1037 of 2005

Ramesh Gond

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.1041 of 2005

Suresh

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.1043 of 2005

Archana Rai

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

and

Special Appeal No.682 of 2005

Smt. Shivkali Dwivedi & Others

Vs.

State of U.P. & Others

*****

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of.

It is from an order of an Hon'ble Single Judge dated 10.5.2005. In a 25 paragraphs judgment running to about 18 pages, his Lordship has dealt with the facts of the case with his Lordship's usual care and punctiliousness. The reasoning of the judgment is also painstaking and careful, again another usual characteristic of his Lordship.

We however, with the greatest of respect, are constrained to opine that we are unable to agree with his Lordship on this occasion.

The matter relates to recognition of certain Colleges affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and also the Department of Education of the said same Vishwavidyalaya in regard to their eligibility to impart courses of education to Teachers, i.e. the courses for conferment of B.Ed. degrees.

For the purpose of regulation of teachers' education, an act was passed in 1993 setting up at Jaipur a body called the National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE). Under Section 14 of the said Act, provision was made regarding recognition by the newly set up bodies of Institutions, which were then continuing to impart the B.Ed. degrees. Section 14 is set out 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."

It will be seen therefrom that the application for recognition had to be made to the Regional Committee mentioned therein. On the basis of the appointed day, the period of six months would run out and the application would have to be made by the month of February, 1996. However, the Council had not even nominated the members of the Regional Committee by that day and the Regional Committee came to be formed two months later than the last date, i.e. in April, 1996.

If the strict period of six months for the outer limit for making of the application for recognition were to be given effect now, none of the continuing Institutions would be eligible to grant B.Ed. degrees; that would be an absurd state of affairs.

What happened was that the last date of making of the applications for recognition was extended by way of an executive notification made by the Council and at first, such date was extended till August, 1997.

Again there was an another extension, this time as late as in the year 1999. By the second extension, the last date was fixed as 31.3.1999.

It so happen that the Department of Education of the University made an application for recognition on the 24th of May, 1997, i.e. within the first extended date which had been fixed for August, 1997.

This application was made by the University in the prescribed form; it mentioned the seats of the University itself in regard to the B.Ed. courses, as well as the 360 additional seats of the six affiliated Colleges, which were named and which seats were also for imparting B.Ed. degrees. This application of the University made on its behalf and purportedly on behalf of the affiliated Colleges produced the result of grant of recognition to the University's B.Ed. courses on the 31st of July, 2000.

The affiliated Colleges themselves under their own authority and seal did not make the applications for recognition within the first extended date, i.e. not than August, 1997, but the applications for such recognition were made by all the Colleges within the year 1997, the earliest of those College applications on the record before us being in the month of August, 1997, and the latest of those being in the month of December, 1997.  The August application was delayed beyond the first extended period by a few days only. All these applications were ultimately allowed sometime in or about the month of July, 2000.

Apart from this, the only other material point in this case relates to certain orders passed by the National Regional Committee and the National Council of Teachers Education, Jaipur, in the years 1997 and 1998 whereby jurisdiction was purportedly exercised for commanding the applying Colleges not to admit the students for the academic years 1997-98 and 1998-99 for the B.Ed. courses.

On these basic facts, Hon'ble the Single Judge has opined that the Colleges did not apply within the first extended date, which was 18.8.1997; they not having done that, and orders for stopping admission having been received by them for the same academic years up to 1998-99, the degrees granted to the students nonetheless for these academic years, who were admitted, are invalid.  His Lordship has also opined that for the University also the degrees granted to the students, who were studying in the University under the Faculty of Education would be invalid for the academic years 1997-98 and 1998-99, because of stop admission orders.

The basic finding of his Lordship, which has gone against the appellants, is as follows:-

"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."

Some submission was attempted to be made before us that the extension of the last date by the National Council first upto August, 1997 and then again upto March, 1999 is invalid. This submission has got to be rejected as otherwise all recognition for B.Ed. courses in all the Colleges would fall to the ground.

The second support lends to the impugned judgment made on behalf of the respondents before us was derived from the fact of delay, which was made by the Colleges in applying themselves for their own recognition. This delay is not delay at all, if the facts are properly gripped. The delayed applications were ultimately allowed; the authority allowing the applications did not ever look upon the applications as delayed beyond time. Those were submitted within the year 1997; time was again granted in 1999 to submit the applications by March, 1999. The argument of the respondents was that this second extension was granted only for those Colleges, which were continuing and which had not made applications for recognition even by that time. If the Colleges, which are involved in our case are to be held as disqualified from making of applications for recognition in 1999 because they had already applied, then their earlier applications cannot also in the same breath be held as invalid.

If this were to be done, they would be put in a worse position than the Colleges applying for recognition two years later than them and this simply cannot be.

Regarding the stop students orders passed by the Council for the academic years in question, we are of the clear view that these orders were passed without jurisdiction. Section 14 quoted above is a Section inserted for the continuance of the running Institutions. This continuance is a matter of course provided applications for recognition have been made to the body in question and those are not fatally defective. Once those applications have been made, they can be either finally accepted or finally rejected. The Section itself contains the clause, so to speak by way of an interim order and that is, the deemed recognition will continue until, until if at all, the application is rejected.

In the face of this language of the Section, the Council had no authority or jurisdiction to pass a contrary order stopping the students and withholding recognition, as it were from year to year. The only jurisdiction that they possess is to withhold recognition from this College or that College, but not from this College for this year or from that College for that year. The stop students orders being invalid, placement of any weight on those by Hon'ble the Single Judge was, with respect, erroneous.

We are also of the opinion that the applications made even before August, 1997, i.e. in May, 1997 by the University on behalf of the affiliated Colleges was also substantially valid and should have been held to be so. The point however, need not be pressed at this time of the litigation because thereafter separate applications were made and also granted.

The appeal is therefore allowed. The order under appeal is set aside.  

It is declared that the degrees for the academic years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and indeed for all academic years pursued either in the Faculty of Education of the University or in any of the affiliated Colleges in question, is valid, and that the qualifications granted by these bodies shall be treated to be valid for the purpose of pursuing Special B.T.C. Course, either of the year 2004 or any other year and for public employment. We take note that the Colleges themselves are not parties before us, but the University is a party and nine (9) students have come in appeal. It is not necessary that the Colleges have to be made parties as the case has been argued by the contestants including the State, which is a very material respondent, who will be particularly bound by our orders.

The students admitted to Special B.T.C. Course, holding degrees which have been declared by us to be valid will be treated to have been normally admitted; they will be permitted to conclude their courses in the usual course and will be given facility of training and admission to such training again in the normal and usual course.  

There will be no order as to costs.  

Dt/-9.12.2005

RKK/-


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.