Gauhati High Court
Shelley Das Chowdhury vs Sirazul Ambia And 8 Ors on 29 April, 2019
Author: A.S. Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Arup Kumar Goswami
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010267552018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA 354/2018
1:SHELLEY DAS CHOWDHURY
PRINCIPAL, KALAIN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VILL- TARAPUR, P.O-
KALAIN, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788815
VERSUS
1:SIRAZUL AMBIA AND 8 ORS
S/O- LATE ABDUL KHALIQUE, VILL- BRAHMANGRAM, DIGBOR ROAD,
P.O- KALAIN, P.S- KATIGORAH, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788815
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
ASSAM
EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPTT
GUWAHATI- 06
3:THE STATE SELECTION BOARD
THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN (I.E THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM)
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT
GUWAHATI- 781006
4:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 19
5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE
SILCHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
PIN- 788001
6:THE SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE
KALAIN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
CACHAR
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY SRI ABINASH SUKLABAIDYA SUBJECT
TEACHER OF KALAIN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
VILL- TARAPUR
P.O- KALAIN
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788815
7:SILCHAR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SUBHASH NAGAR
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM- 788004
8:THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY
THROUGH ITS CONTROLLER
DARGAKONA
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788011
9:THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON
HANS BHAWAN (WING-II)
1 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELH
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S N NATH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU
Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI 29-04-2019 (A.S. BOPANNA, C.J.) Heard B.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta and Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for Respondent No.1; Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 to 5; Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Assam University for Respondent No.8; and Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned Standing Counsel, NCTE for Respondent No.9.
The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 1.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4674 of 2017.
The appellant herein and the private respondent had participated in the selection process and, in that regard, the private respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2017 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, whereby the appellant herein was appointed as a Regular Principal of Kalain H.S. School in Cachar district, had assailed the same.
The private respondent herein had contended that the appellant herein who was appointed to the post of Principal, was not possessing eligibility qualification as the B.Ed Decree obtained by the appellant herein from the Silchar College of Education was not recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education (in short "NCTE"). The learned Single Judge while taking note of the said contention and the justification sought to be put forth by the appellant herein was of the opinion that the B.Ed Decree obtained by the appellant herein was not recognized and, in that light, having taken into consideration that the advertisement Page No.# 4/5 dated 16.06.2016 was clear that only recognized B.Ed Decree would be acceptable, has arrived at the conclusion that the appointment of the appellant is contrary to the requirement and has accordingly, by the impugned judgment set aside the appointment and directed reconsideration of the matter as indicated therein by the authorities. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.
Insofar as the factual aspect, the date as taken note by the learned Single Judge would be relevant. In that regard, it is noticed that the advertisement is dated 16.6.2016. The advertisement indicated that B.Ed Decree obtained from Off Campus like C.M.J., Bharatia Shiksha Parishad, Nava Bharat Shiksha Parishad or any other institute not having NCTE recognition cannot be accepted.
In that background, the admitted fact are that the B.Ed Decree obtained by the appellant herein was in the year 1998 and the Silchar College of Education from which the appellant had obtained B.Ed Decree was recognized by the NCTE only on 11.08.2003. It is also the undisputed position that the NCTE Act, 1993 came into effect on 01.07.1995. In that circumstance, since the degree obtained by the appellant was subsequent thereto on 1998 without recognition of NCTE, such degree was held to be invalid. To that extent, the appellant in any event is not in a position to lay any other material before this Court to controvert the said position. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has, however, sought to rely on the National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2006 to contend that as per Section 18G thereto, the defaulting institutions had been provided an opportunity to file applications seeking recognition of the course and, in that circumstance, the institutions which have applied, had been granted recognition with effect from the inception of the institutions.
Though such contention is sought to be put forth, the same would not be of any Page No.# 5/5 assistance to the appellant herein since, admittedly, the recognition to the institution from which the appellant has secured the B.Ed Decree course was granted only on 11.08.2003 for the academic year 2003-2004. In such circumstance, when the institution itself has not made any application under the Ordinance to which reference is made, and no benefit thereunder has been sought, it would not be proper for this Court to provide any other benefit which had not been provided under the Ordinance. Even otherwise, the benefit at this juncture cannot be extended in a circumstance when as on the date of the advertisement, the B.Ed Decree obtained by the appellant was not recognized in accordance with law.
Hence, to that extent, the learned Single Judge having taken note of appropriate requirement under the advertisement and the recognition which was desired in that regard has arrived at the conclusion. Though the learned senior counsel for the appellant seeks to contend that the consideration by the learned Single Judge was not justified inasmuch as the B.Ed Decree obtained by the private respondent who was writ petitioner was also not recognized, the material available on record would indicate that the B.Ed Decree obtained by the private respondent was in the year 1995, which is prior to the Act coming into force. The material brought on record is also to the effect that pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to determine the validity of the B.Ed Decree obtained by the private respondent herein, the official respondents have made a consideration on the said issue and an order dated 10.01.2019 had already been passed. In that view, the said contention urged on behalf of the appellant also does not arise for consideration herein. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal, therefore, being devoid of merit stands disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant