Punjab-Haryana High Court
Federation Of Self Financed Colleges Of ... vs National Council Of Teacher Education ... on 16 May, 2022
Author: Rajbir Sehrawat
Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 16th MAY, 2022
Federation of Self Financed Colleges of Education, Punjab
.... Petitioner
Versus
National Council of Teacher Education and others
.... Respondents
CWP No.12231 of 2020 (O&M)
Rajbir Singh and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
Panjab University and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present : Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-15773-2015.
Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP-12231-2020.
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate and
Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate,
for the respondent-NCTE.
Mr. Ashe Kumar Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2-UGC in CWP-15773-2015.
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate,
for respondent No.3 in CWP-15773-2015 and
for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in CWP-12231-2020.
Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4 in CWP-15773-2015.
Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate,
for respondent No.5-GNDU in CWP-15773-2015.
1 of 35
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:05 :::
CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case
-2-
Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Advocate, for
respondents No.5 and 8 in CWP-12231-2020.
None for respondent Nos.6 and 7 in CWP-12231-2020.
****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No.15773 of 2015 and CWP No.12231 of 2020 because the points of law canvassed in these petitions are identical. However, for reference, the facts are being taken from CWP No.15773 of 2015.
2. The essential prayers made by the petitioner in CWP No.15773 of 2015 are as under:-
(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus summoning the records of the case;
(ii) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the orders at Annexures P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-12;
(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, holding that the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE alone have to be taken into consideration for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors in B.Ed. Colleges.
3. The facts in brief, as involved in the present petition, are that the petitioner asserts itself to be the federation of three associations of Colleges of Education under the affiliating jurisdiction of Panjab University, Chandigarh, Punjabi University, Patiala and Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. The petitioner-Federation has approached this Court with the grievance that National Council for Teacher Education has framed the regulations prescribing the qualifications required for appointing teachers 2 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -3- for the colleges conducting B.Ed. course. The regulations called National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE Regulations, 2014') do not prescribed the qualification of N.E.T. (National Eligibility Test) or any equivalent test, such as the S.L.E.T. (State Level Eligibility Test)/S.E.T. (State Eligibility Test), or the Ph.D as the essential qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor. Although the regulations framed by the UGC, namely, UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC Regulations, 2010'), have made the qualifying of NET or Ph.D degree as the essential qualification, however, since the NCTE Regulations, 2014 do not provide for any qualification of NET or Ph.D as the necessary qualification, therefore, the said qualification cannot be insisted upon by the universities; for compliance by the colleges imparting instructions for the B.Ed. degrees course. Therefore, the respondent-Universities have wrongly written the impugned letters intimating that the universities shall be insisting upon the qualification of NET and/or Ph.D, and further that they will be participating in the process of selection. The said action of the respondents is in violation of the NCTE Regulations, 2014.
4. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the NCTE Regulations of 2009, prior to coming into force of the NCTE regulations, 2014 required the compliance of the conditions as prescribed by the UGC regulations, as well, however, in NCTE regulations, 2014 no such condition was retained. Therefore, the UGC or the university cannot insist upon compliance of UGC regulations.
3 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -4- Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the NCTE regulations, 2014, although the qualification of NET/Ph.D is mandatory for the post of Principal/HOD, however, for the post of Assistant Professor, Ph.D degree has been kept only as a desirable qualification. Since, it is only desirable qualification as prescribed by the NCTE regulations, 2014, therefore, it cannot be converted into a mandatory qualification on the strength of UGC Regulations, 2010. Section 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, uses a non-obstante clause against any other law, therefore, any provision inconsistent with the regulations issued by the NCTE stands superseded. Hence, even if the UGC Regulations, 2010, prescribe the NET or Ph.D as the essential qualification, the same stands superseded and excluded to the extent of its applicability qua the Education Colleges providing instructions for B.Ed. degree course. NCTE has the exclusive authority in the matter of recognition of the Education Colleges. As per mandate of Section 14(6) of NCTE Act, once the recognition to a college is granted by the NCTE, then the university has no authority to deny the affiliation to the said college. This section uses the word 'shall', therefore, it is mandatory for the university to grant affiliation to a recognized college within its affiliating jurisdiction. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others, JT 2006 (4) SC 201 and judgment rendered in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Versus State of U.P. and others, JT 2012 (12) SC 575. Still further, learned counsel has submitted that the Universities do not even have any role in the process of selection of the teachers in the B.Ed. colleges. The colleges of the petitioner are totally un-aided private colleges, therefore, they have absolute autonomy 4 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -5- to select and appoint the teachers, subject to compliance of the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE. This right of the colleges of the petitioner cannot be eclipsed, in any manner. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.15443 of 2011 titled as Self Financed B.Ed. Colleges Association Versus Panjab University and another, decided on 24.01.2020. Hence, it is submitted that neither the UGC regulations can be applied to the colleges of the petitioner, nor can the autonomy of the colleges of the petitioner in the matter of appointment be infringed on the strength of any law other than the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Learned counsel has further submitted that before the year 2014, the UGC regulations were being followed in the matter of qualifications, as prescribed in NCTE Regulations, 2009 itself. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the selections made by the colleges of the petitioner before 2014. The NCTE has issued subsequent regulations in the year 2017, wherein the qualification of NET/Ph.D has been made mandatory; by bringing it at par with the UGC Regulations, 2010. Hence, there is no dispute even regarding the selections made after the year 2017. However, since the qualification of NET/Ph.D was not mandatory as per the NCTE regulations, 2014 and the respondent-universities are wrongly insisting upon such qualification and not approving the teachers selected during the period from the year 2014 till 2017, therefore, the dispute relates to only those teachers which were selected and appointed by the colleges of the petitioner during this period of 2014 till 2017. Since, there was no specific provision during this period, requiring the qualification of NET/Ph.D for B.Ed. colleges, therefore, the approval to the teachers recruited during this period cannot be denied by the respondent-universities; for lack of their qualifications.
5 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -6-
5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondent- universities have submitted that the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the NCTE Regulations, 2009 provided for compliance of the UGC regulations qua the teachers recruited even in B.Ed. colleges. Although, the NCTE framed new regulations in the year 2014, however, the said regulations have prescribed only the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in the B.Ed. colleges. The UGC Regulations, 2010 still continued the provision which requires the qualification of NET/Ph.D even for the teachers for the B.Ed. colleges. These regulations are not in derogation to the NCTE Regulations, 2014; by any means. Rather, the UGC regulations, 2010 are in addition to the regulations of NCTE. Therefore, the respondent-universities have rightly insisted upon the qualification as prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2010; while adopting and fully applying the NCTE Regulations, 2014 qua the recruitment of the Assistant Professors in B.Ed. colleges. It is further submitted by learned counsels that even in the NCTE regulations 2014, saving provisions for the UGC regulations, 2010 have been included and hence, both the regulations i.e. NCTE regulations, 2014 and UGC regulations, 2010 have to be read in tandem and has to be constructed harmoniously.
6. The National Council of Teacher Education has filed separate written statement and has supported the assertions of the respondent- universities. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the NCTE that the requirement of NET or Ph.D degree under UGC Regulations 2010 is not inconsistent or contrary to the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. Referring to the written statement, it is submitted by learned counsel for the NCTE that although the State Government or the university cannot dilute the qualifications prescribed by 6 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -7- the NCTE, however, they are well within their legal authority to prescribe any higher or additional qualification which is not inconsistent with the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE. Clause 7 (13) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 specifically recognize the role of the affiliating body in appointment of qualified staff as per the policy of the State Government or the University Grant Commission or of the university concerned. Only after approval of the appointment by these bodies, as per their standards, the recognition can be granted for running a B.Ed. college. It is further submitted that qua the selection procedure, Clause 5.4 of the appendix to the NCTE Regulations 2014 specifically prescribes that selection procedure and other conditions of service for the teaching and non-teaching staff in B.Ed. colleges shall be as per the policy of the State Government/affiliating body. Hence, the insistence upon participation in the process of selection by the affiliating university is perfectly legal, in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the NCTE has also produced several Gazette Notification issued during the period 2014 to 2017 qua recognition of various colleges of Education which contain a specific condition that the said colleges shall have to comply with UGC Regulations. Accordingly, it is submitted that the qualification of NET/Ph.D is mandatory, if insisted upon by the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the participation of the university in process of selection is valid and legal. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Since, the matter involves the aspect of inter-play between the UGC regulations, 2010 and the NCTE regulations, 2014, therefore, it would be appropriate to have a reference to the bare provisions as contained in these regulations and as are involved in the present petition, which are reproduced as under:-
7 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -8- "NCTE Regulation, 2009 APPENDIX-4 (II) Qualifications
(i) Principal/Head (in multi-faculty institution):
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(ii) Lecturer
(a) Foundation Courses One
(i) Master's Degree in science/humanities/arts
with fifty percent marks
(ii) M.Ed. with at least fifty five percent marks or
its equivalent grade and
(iii) Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/affiliating body/State Govt. from time to time for the positions of principal and lecturers shall be mandatory OR
(i) M.A. in Education with fifty five percent marks or its equivalent grade
(ii) B.Ed. with at least fifty five percent marks and
(iii) Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC / affiliating body / State Govt. from time to time for the positions of principal and lecturers shall be mandatory
(b) Methodology Courses Six
(i) Master's degree in a school subject with fifty percent marks
(ii) M.Ed. degree with at least fifty five percent marks or its equivalent grade and
(iii) Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC / affiliating body / State Govt. from time to time for the positions of principal and lecturers shall be mandatory"
8 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -9- NCTE Regulations, 2014 "1. Short title and commencement -
(1) These regulations may be called the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014.
2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
3. Applicability: - These regulations shall be applicable to all matters relating to teacher education programmes for preparing norms and standards and procedures for recognition of institutions, commencement of new programmes and addition to sanctioned intake in the existing programmes including the following, namely: -
(a) recognition for commencement of new teacher education programmes which shall be offered in composite institutions;
(b) permission for introduction of new programmes in existing teacher education institutions duly recognized by the Council;
(c) permission for additional intake in the existing teacher education programmes duly recognised by the Council;
(d) permission for shifting or relocating of
premises of existing teacher education
institutions;
(e) permission for closure or discontinuation of
recognised teacher education programmes, or institutions as the case may be:
Provided that for teacher education programmes offered through open and distance 9 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -10- learning, the respective norms and standards for each such learning programme shall be applicable".
xxx xxx xxx xxx
7. Processing of applications:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
"(13) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a letter of intent, regarding the decision for grant of recognition or permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty members before the commencement of the academic session. The letter of intent issued under this clause shall not be notified in the Gazette but would be sent to the institution and the affiliating body with the request that the process of appointment of qualified staff as per policy of State Government or University Grants Commission or University may be initiated and the institution be provided all assistance to ensure that the staff or faculty is appointed as per the norms of the Council within two months. The institution shall submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating body, to the Regional Committee."
Appendix-4 "5.2 Qualifications. - The faculty shall possess the following qualifications:
A. Principal/HoD
(i) Postgraduate degree in Arts/Sciences/Social
Sciences/Humanities/ Commerce with
minimum 55% marks; and
(ii) M.Ed. with minimum 55% marks; and
(iv) Ph.D. in Education or in any pedagogic
subject offered in the institution; and
(v) Eight years of teaching experience in a
secondary Teacher Education Institution.
10 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -11- Desirable: Diploma/Degree in Educational Administration or Educational Leadership.
B. Perspectives in Education or Foundation Courses:
(i) Postgraduate degree in Social Sciences with minimum 55% marks; and
(ii) M.Ed. degree from a recognised university with minimum 55% marks.
OR
(i) Postgraduate (MA) degree in Education with minimum 55% marks; and
(ii) B.Ed./B.El.Ed. degree with minimum 55% marks.
C. Curriculum and Pedagogic Courses
(i) Postgraduate degree in Sciences/ Mathematics/ Social Sciences/ Languages with minimum 55% marks, and
(ii) M.Ed. degree with minimum 55% marks. Desirable: Ph.D degree in Education with subject specialisations.
[Note: In case of B and C put together, for two faculty positions, a post gradutate degree in Sociology/Psychology/ Philosophy with 55% marks, and B.Ed./BElEd with 55% marks and three years of teaching experience in a secondary school shall be considered].
D Specialised Courses Physical Education
(i) Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) with
minimum 55% marks. (Training/qualification in yoga education shall be desirable) Visual Arts
(i) Post graduate degree in Fine Arts (MFA) with minimum 55% marks.
Performing Arts 11 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -12-
(i) Post graduate degree in Music/Dance/ Theatre Arts with minimum 55% marks.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
5.4 Terms and Conditions of Service. - The terms
and conditions of service of teaching and non-
teaching staff including selection procedure, pay scales, age of superannuation and other benefits shall be as per the policy of the State Government/Affiliating body".
"UGC Regulations, 2010:
1. Short title, application and commencement:
1.1 These regulations may be called the
University Grants Commission (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards of Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. 1.2 They shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act, every Institute including a constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the University concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act.
1.3 They shall come into force with immediate effect.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
2. The Minimum Qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of University and College teachers, Librarians and Directors of Physical Education and Sports as a measure for the
12 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -13- maintenance of standards in higher education, shall be as provided in the Annexure to those Regulations.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Annexure
1.0.0 Coverage
1.1.1. For teachers, in the Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, the norms/Regulations of Indian Council of Agricultural Research; for Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and AYUSH, the norms/Regulations of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; for Faculty of Education, the norms/Regulations formulated in consultations with National Council of Teacher Education; for Engineering and Technology, Pharmacy and Management/Business Administration, the norms/Regulations formulated in consultations with All India Council for Technical Education; and the qualifications in the field of rehabilitation and special education at Degree, PG Diploma and Masters level, the norms/Regulations formulated in consultations with Rehabilitation Council of India, shall apply.
3.0.0 Recruitment and Qualifications:
3.1.0 The direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the Universities and Colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees as per the provisions made under these Regulations to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned university.
The composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations.
13 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -14- 3.2.0 The minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principals, Assistant Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Librarians will be those as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations.
xxx xxx xxx xxx 3.3.1 NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/ Colleges/ Institutions.
Provided however that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
4.00 Direct Recruitment
4.4.0 Assistant Professor
4.4.1 Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject 14 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -15- from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.
iii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1, candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
4.4.7 Qualifications prescribed for Faculty
Positions in the Regulations of NCTE.
A. Qualifications for B.Ed. Course:
(i) Principal/Head (in multi-faculty institution):
a) Academic and professional qualification will
be as prescribed for the post of lecturer;
b) Ph.D in Education; and
c) Ten years teaching experience out of which at
least five years teaching experience in a
Secondary Teacher Educational Institution.
15 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -16- Provided that, in the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable candidates for appointment as Principal/Heads as per above eligible criteria, it would be permissible to appoint retired Professor/Head in Education on contract basis for a period not exceeding one year at a time, till such time the candidates complete sixty five year of age.
(ii) Assistant Professor:
(a) Foundation Courses:
1. A Master's Degree in Science/Humanities/ Arts with 50% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed);
2. M.Ed. with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed); and
3. Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/any such affiliating body/State Government, from time to time for the positions of principal and lecturers, shall be mandatory;
OR
1. M.A. in Education with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed);
2. B.Ed. with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed); and
3. Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/any such affiliating body/State Government, from time to time for the positions of principal and lecturers, shall be mandatory.
b) Methodology Courses
16 of 35
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 :::
CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -17-
1. A Master's Degree in subject with 50% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed);
2. M.Ed. Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed); and
3. Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/any such affiliating body/State Government, from time to time for the positions of principal and lecturers, shall be mandatory.
Provided that at least one lecturer should have specializations in ICT and another in the special education."
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court does not find any substance in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the above said provisions as contained in the NCTE regulations and the UGC regulations shows that in the NCTE regulations, 2009, the NCTE had specifically made a provision stating that beside the qualification prescribed by the NCTE regulations, any other qualification prescribed by the UGC shall also be applicable. Therefore, the UGC Regulations, 2009, as they existed in the year 2009 were duly applicable even to the teachers appointed in B.Ed. colleges. The UGC regulations, 2009 were replaced by UGC regulations, 2010. These UGC Regulations 2010 also contain a similar stipulation that the qualification of NET/Ph.D shall be applicable to all universities and the affiliated colleges. This applicability is made clear by the applicability clause of the UGC Regulations, 2010 itself. As per UGC Regulations, 2010, the qualification of NET/Ph.D is a mandatory qualification for all colleges 17 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -18- which seek affiliation for the purpose of awarding any degree as recognized/prescribed by the UGC in exercise of its powers under Section 22 of the UGC Act. It is not even in dispute that the degree of B.Ed. is one of the degrees notified by the UGC for the purposes of University Grants Commission Act. Therefore, the UGC Regulations, 2010; regarding prescription of qualifications for appointment of teachers and the procedure thereof; would be applicable to all the colleges, including the B.Ed. colleges; by default. For claiming exemption from these regulations, a college has to show a specific exclusion of applicability of the regulations issued by the UGC in exercise of its powers under the provisions of UGC Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any exemption ever granted by the UGC qua the appointment of the teaching staff of the B.Ed. colleges. Rather a separate and specific provision exists in UGC Regulations, 2010 which mandates the applicability of UGC Regulations to Education Colleges covered by NCTE Regulations. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the said provision of UGC Regulations, 2010 was deleted after enforcement of NCTE Regulations, 2014. Rather, even while amending UGC Regulations, 2010 after enforcement of NCTE Regulations, 2014, the UGC Regulations have retained the said provision. The only argument pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a specific body created as the National Council of Teacher Education to regulate the education in the field of Teacher Education and that special body has issued specific regulations as mentioned above; prescribing the qualifications for appointment of teachers in B.Ed. colleges, therefore, the said regulations 'alone' shall have the applicability to the appointment of the teachers in the Education Colleges. However, this argument is not supported either by the provisions contained in the NCTE 18 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -19- regulations, 2014, the provisions of NCTE Act or even by the written statement filed by the NCTE or the submissions made by counsel for the NCTE before this Court during the arguments. On the contrary, the nomenclature of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 itself specifies that these regulations are meant only for 'recognition' of the colleges for providing instructions for the B.Ed. degree course. In their effort in that direction only, the minimum educational qualifications have been prescribed by these Regulations for the teachers to be appointed in B.Ed. colleges. These regulations nowhere use the word 'alone' to prescribe that these regulations 'alone' shall govern the qualifications for the teachers; to be appointed in B.Ed. colleges. Moreover, the 'affiliation' of the colleges for the purpose of providing degree as approved by the UGC is not even concern of the said regulations. So far the exclusivity the NCTE regulations, 2014 is concerned, that relates only to the aspect of 'recognition'. On the issue of recognition, of course, the NCTE is the final authority and, therefore, neither the State Government nor any affiliating body can claim any authority to recognize or not to recognize the college as such. To that extent only, the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Mata Vaishno Devi (supra) is well placed. This judgment dealt with the issue of recognition, and therefore, is relevant only to that extent and not to the issue of conditions of applicability of UGC or the affiliating university. However so far as the affiliation is concerned; the authority of the affiliating body to prescribe conditions for affiliation and the authority of the University Grants Commission to prescribe standards of higher education, including in the subject of education, cannot be taken to be excluded on the strength of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Rather such 19 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -20- authority has specifically been reiterated in the NCTE Regulations as mentioned above.
9. One more aspect which deserves to be noted here is that the UGC has been created under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, whereas, the NCTE has been created under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The UGC Act grants power to UGC to lay down and coordinate the standards of higher education in all subjects, whereas, the NCTE has been created under the NCTE Act, 1993 to coordinate, develop and maintain the norms and standards in teacher education system. The UGC Act has been enacted under the authority of Entry No.66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, whereas, the NCTE Act has been enacted under Entry No. 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. The provisions contained in these entries are as under:
Seventh Schedule List-I "Entry 66 - Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions." Seventh Schedule List-III "Entry 25 - "Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."
10. The Entry No.25 in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution itself states that any law enacted or made under the authority of this Entry shall be subject to the law made under the authority of Entry No.66 of the Constitution. Both the governing bodies have been created by the 20 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -21- Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under the above said Entries. Although the body created in exercise of powers under Entry No.66 of the Constitution of India, would stand on a higher footing, however, even if both the bodies, i.e. UGC and the NCTE are taken at par, still the effect has to be given to the regulations framed by both of them, unless the regulations framed by one specifically exclude the applicability of the regulations framed by another. The regulations framed by both of these bodies have to be interpreted harmoniously; so as to give full effect to both of them; without either of them operating in derogation of the other. However, prescribing something 'in addition' by one regulation is not necessarily in 'derogation' to the other regulations.
11. As observed above, the UGC has laid down the standards for recruitment of teachers in all colleges, including the colleges conducting instructions for award of B.Ed. degree, the regulations issued by the NCTE relate exclusively to the standards; to be followed for establishment and recognition of an Education College conducting 'Education' degree course. The regulations framed by UGC, obviously, cover a larger field encompassing the standards of higher education as compared to the field covered by the NCTE regulations. The larger scope of the UGC regulations, obviously, includes the smaller field occupied by the regulations issued by the NCTE as well. Being a specific field covered by the NCTE Act and the regulations framed there-under, the UGC regulations are required only to respect the provisions contained in the NCTE regulations to the extent the NCTE regulations makes specific provisions. If there is any omission or silence on an aspect in the NCTE regulations, the said aspect shall continue to be governed by the UGC regulations. A perusal of the NCTE regulations, 2014 shows that it has not prohibited the requirement of NET/Ph.D for 21 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -22- recruitment of teachers in B.Ed. colleges. Rather, for Principals and HODs, the qualification of Ph.D has been made mandatory even by the NCTE regulations. Even for the Assistant Professors, the NCTE regulations have not prescribed that NET or Ph.D shall not be one of the requirements for recruitment of the Assistant Professors. The only thing which the NCTE regulations have prescribed is that the Ph.D shall be a 'desirable' qualification. Therefore, it is clear that the NCTE regulations are silent qua the requirement of NET and have favoured the qualification of Ph.D, though as a preferential and desirable qualification. Hence, even as per the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE regulations, the requirement of NET is not excluded; and so far as the qualification of Ph.D is concerned, the NCTE regulations have left the field to be covered by any other regulations of UGC or affiliating university after emphasizing the 'desirability' of the qualification of Ph.D. Needless to say that the NCTE regulations, 2014 as contained in regulation 7 (13); and as contained in Clause 5.4 of Appendix attached to these regulations; have duly recognized and permitted the role of UGC and the affiliating universities. Even otherwise, the UGC and the affiliating universities have the exclusive authority qua the affiliation of institutes of higher education, by prescribing the conditions required by them. That authority of the UGC and the affiliating universities cannot be taken as non-existent in the field of Education unless the NCTE regulations have specifically provided in their regulations to the contrary; as compared to the UGC regulations. Even in case of conflict between the UGC Regulations and the NCTE Regulations, the former has to prevail over the later as per the mandate of Entry No.25 of the List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
22 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -23-
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also emphasized upon the 'non-obstante' clause as used in Section 16 of the NCTE Act, to argue that this provision creates a law which supersedes the provisions as contained in the UGC regulations and that this provision being subsequent in time; shall be deemed to have over-riding effect over the UGC Act and the regulations framed there-under. However, this Court does not find any force in this argument, as well. To appreciate this argument, it is appropriate to have a reference to Section 16 of the NCTE, which is as reproduced under:-
"Section 16 in The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993
16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,--
(a) grant 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 institution, 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."
13. A perusal of the above said provision shows that the said provision has not created any absolute 'non-obstante' clause against the examining or affiliating body. It only prohibits them from holding examination unless the college has received recognition from the authorized committee of the NCTE. This provision, by no means, can be taken to be 23 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -24- the Omni-superseding provision qua the UGC Act or the regulations framed there-under. Non-obstante clause used in an Act has to be interpreted restrictively and in the context specific to which the provision has been enacted. This has been so held even by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Madhav Rao Scindia Bahadur etc. Versus Union of India and another, (1971) I SCC 85. The legal position to the same effect was clarified by another three Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Versus State of Kerala and others, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 94, wherein it so held as under:-
"When the section containing the said clause does not refer to any particular provisions which it intends to override but refers to the provisions of the statute generally, it is not permissible to hold that it excludes the whole Act and stands all alone by itself. 'A search has, therefore, to be made with a view to determining which provision answers the description and which does not'."
14. The above said proposition of law was further reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Jik Industries Ltd. and others Vs. Amarlal V. Jumani and another, reported as 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 822, wherein it was held that:
"51. The impact of a 'non-obstante clause' on the concerned act was considered by this Court in many cases and it was held that the same must be kept measured by the legislative policy and it has to be limited to the extent it is intended by the Parliament and not beyond that."
24 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -25-
15. Read in light of the above said judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the non-obstante clause used in Section 16 of the NCTE Act cannot be interpreted to have any effect over the positive provisions made by the UGC or the UGC regulations requiring conditions and qualifications for affiliation by the UGC or the affiliating universities. Rather, this clause regulates the authority of the affiliating and examining body to a very limited extent of prohibiting them from affiliating or conducting examination in absence of the recognition by the NCTE. Hence, this provision is nothing more than a provision created to ensure that any educational institution in the field of Education does not bye-pass the recognition by and compliance of the regulations issued by the NCTE. This provision, by no means, over-rides any other provision of either the UGC or the regulations framed there-under.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also laid much stress upon the autonomy of the colleges of the petitioner-Federation on the aspect of recruitment of the teachers, subject 'only' to compliance of the minimum requirements mentioned in the NCTE regulations. However, this Court does not find any force even in this argument. No doubt the right to establish educational institution and to administer the same has been held to be an 'occupation' as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Versus State of Karnataka and others, 2002 (8) SCC 481. However, it is also the established law that right to administer the institution does not include right to maladministration of the institution. Nor the right to administer can be extended to right to ignore the merit just on the strength of compliance of minimum standards. Article 19 (6) authorizes the state to impose any reasonable restriction on freedom to practise any occupation in the interest of general public. This 25 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -26- clause even authorizes the state to prescribe qualifications for any occupation or monopoly in favour of the state in relation to any trade, business, industry or service. The relevant provisions of Article 19 are as given below:
"Article 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. - (1) All citizens shall have the right -
(a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.
(2) to (5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall
affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, [nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, -
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise]."
17. Hence if it is in the interest of general public the state can impose any reasonable restriction. Running an educational institution is, by no means, just another occupation involving production of any goods or materials or ordinary services. This matter relates to shaping of the minds of 26 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -27- the future generation of the country. Therefore, it is absolutely reasonable and in the interest of General Public to ensure prevalence of merit and higher standards in the field of selection and appointment of teachers. Hence, the educational institutions are under obligation to comply with the norms to ensure the merit in selection of the teachers; and the regulating bodies are very much entitled to insist upon selection in a manner that ensures the prevalence of merit in the matter of selection. Bare minimum merit cannot be the norms in the selection of teachers shaping the future generations of Country. Therefore, the Clause 5.4 of the Appendix of the NCTE regulations itself provides that the procedure of selection shall be as prescribed under the law of the affiliating body or of the State Government. Therefore, merely on the strength of the NCTE regulations, the institutions of the petitioner cannot claim autonomy to the extent of denying the participation of the affiliating university in the process of selection. Rather, the NCTE regulations mandate the participation of the affiliating university, if their own regulations or the UGC regulations so provide. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Self Financed B.Ed. Colleges Association (supra), which in turn is based upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), however, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) itself has been further interpreted and clarified by Hon'ble the Supreme Court itself in several judgments, including in case of Sk. Md. Rafique Versus Managing Committee, contai Rahamania High Madrasah and others, Civil Appeal No.5808 of 2017, decided on 06.01.2020. In the said judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the issue of ensuring merit in the selection of the teachers in the institutions of 27 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -28- the entities which have an independent right to establish and administered the educational institutions of their choice; and has held as under:
"40. The decision in TMA Pai Foundation, rendered by Eleven Judges of this Court, thus put the matter beyond any doubt and clarified that the right under Article 30(1) is not absolute or above the law and that conditions concerning the welfare of the students and teachers must apply in order to provide proper academic atmosphere, so long as the conditions did not interfere with the right of the administration or management. What was accepted as correct approach was the test laid down by Khanna, J. in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College case that a balance be kept between two objectives - one to ensure the standard of excellence of the institution and the other preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions. The essence of Article 30(1) was also stated to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions and that rules and regulations would apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions.
45. Thus, going by the decision of eleven Judges of this Court in TMA Pai Foundation, so long as the principles laid down therein (as culled out in para 40 hereinabove) are satisfied, it is permissible if any regulations seek to ensure the standard of excellence of the institutions while preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.
Out of five incidents which constitute the right to establish and administer an educational institution as noted in para 50 of the leading judgment in TMA Pai Foundation, the right to admit students has not been
28 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -29- considered to be an absolute and an unqualified right. The decision in P.A. Inamdar shows that in professional educational institutions or those imparting higher education, merit based selection has been taken to be in the interest of the nation and subserving and strengthening the national welfare. Selection of meritorious students has been accepted to be in the national interest. A minority institution cannot in the name of right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, disregard merit or merit-based selection of students as regards professional and higher education. The right to take disciplinary action against the staff has also not been accepted to be an unqualified right. TMA Pai Foundation itself lays down that even in an unaided minority educational institution, a mechanism must be evolved and appropriate Tribunal must be constituted to consider the grievances and till then the Tribunals could be presided over by a judicial officer of the rank of a District Judge. To that extent, there was a definite departure from the law laid down in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College case which had struck down Sections 51-A and 52-A of the Gujrat University Act, 1949.
46. When it comes to the right to appoint teachers, in terms of law laid down in TMA Pai Foundation a regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all institutions regardless whether they are run by majority or minority as the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and minority institutions. An objection can certainly be raised if an unfavourable treatment is meted out to an educational institution established and administered by minority. But if ensuring of excellence in educational institutions is the 29 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -30- underlying principle behind a regulatory regime and the mechanism of selection of teachers is so designed to achieve excellence in institutions, the matter may stand on a completely different footing.
47. The test accepted in TMA Pai Foundation, and the balance between two objectives can well be considered in the context of two categories of institutions; one imparting education which is directly aimed at or dealing with preservation and protection of the heritage, culture, script and special characteristics of a religious or a linguistic minority; while the second category of institutions could be those which are imparting what is commonly known as secular education. When it comes to the institutions in the former category, the teachers who believe in the religious ideology or in the special characteristics of the concerned minority would alone be able to imbibe in the students admitted in such educational institutions, what the minorities would like to preserve, profess and propagate. But, if the subjects in the curriculum are purely secular in character, that, is to say, subjects like Arithmetic, Algebra, Physics, Chemistry or Geography, the intent must be to impart education availing the best possible teachers. In the first category, maximum latitude may be given to the managements of the concerned minority institutions as they would normally be considered to be the best judges of what would help them in protecting and preserving the heritage, culture, script or such special features or characteristics of the concerned minorities. However, when it comes to the second category of institutions, the governing criteria must be to see to it that the most conducive atmosphere is put in place 30 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -31- where the institution achieves excellence and imparts best possible education.
48. As laid down in the leading judgment in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College case, regulations which will serve the interest of the students so also regulations which will serve the interest of the teachers are of paramount importance in good administration; that regulations in the interest of efficiency of teachers are necessary for preserving harmony amongst the institutions; and that the appointment of teachers is an important part in educational institutions. It is quite natural that qualitatively better teachers will ensure imparting of education of the highest standard and will help in achieving excellence. As accepted in Frank Anthony Public School case, the excellence of the instruction provided by an institution would depend directly on the excellence of the teaching staff and would in turn depend inter alia on the quality of teachers.
49. Thus, if the intent is to achieve excellence in education, would it be enough if the concerned educational institutions were to employ teachers with minimum requisite qualifications in the name of exercise of Right under Article 30 of the Constitution, while better qualified teachers are available to impart education in the second category of institutions as stated hereinabove. For example, if the qualifying percentile index for a teacher to be appointed in an educational institution, considering his educational qualifications, experience and research, is required to be 50, and if teachers possessing qualifications far greater and higher than this basic index are available, will it be proper exercise for a minority educational institution to select teachers with lower index 31 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -32- disregarding those who are better qualified? Will that subserve pursuit of excellence in education? One can understand if under the regulatory regime candidates who are otherwise less qualified are being nominated in the minority educational institution and the minority educational institution is forced to accept such less meritorious candidates in preference to better qualified candidates. In such cases, the minority educational institution can certainly be within its rights to agitate the issue and claim a right to choose better teachers. But if the candidates who are selected and nominated under the regulatory regime to impart education which is purely secular in character, are better qualified, would the minority institution be within its rights to reject such nomination only in the name of exercise of a right of choice? The choice so exercised would not be in pursuit of excellence. Can such choice then be accepted?
If the right is taken to be absolute and unqualified, then certainly such choice must be recognised and accepted. But, if the right has not been accepted to be absolute and unqualified and the national interest must always permeate and apply, the excellence and merit must be the governing criteria. Any departure from the concept of merit and excellence would not make a minority educational institution an effective vehicle to achieve what has been contemplated in various decisions of this Court. Further, if merit is not the sole and governing criteria, the minority institutions may lag behind the non-minority institutions rather than keep in step with them.
Going back to the example given above, as against index of 50 i.e. the minimum qualifying index, if a candidate nominated under the regulatory regime is at 32 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -33- an index of 85, selection by a minority educational institution of a candidate at an index 55 may certainly be above the minimum qualifying mark, but in preference to the one at the index of 85 who is otherwise available, the appointment of a person at the index level of 55, will never give the requisite impetus to achieve excellence. A meritorious candidate at the index level of 85 in the above example, if given the requisite posting will not only help in upholding the principle of merit but will in turn generate an atmosphere of qualitative progress and sense of achievement commensurate with societal objectives and ideology and such posting will, therefore, be in true national interest."
18. The above expounding of law, though relates to the minority institution; yet would be applicable with more vigour in case of unaided private Educational Institutions; whose right of freedom of occupation can very well be regulated by State in the interest of General Public. The right under Article 19 (1) (g) is much narrower than the right under Article 30 of the Constitution. Moreover, the judgment of Supreme Court has clarified the position regarding right to establish and administer Education Institutions and the role of merit in administration of educational institution. Hence, it is clear that the law, as clarified by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above said judgment is quite clear that even the private un-aided educational institution has to comply with the principle of merit over and above the minimum qualifications prescribed by the regulating body. To ensure those standards of merit, the procedure as prescribed by the UGC regulations; have specifically been protected and mandated by the NCTE regulations; as well. Hence, any autonomy of the educational institutions of the petitioner 33 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -34- have to be subject to the prevalence of merit ensured through participation of the affiliating university as per the uniformly applicable criteria; as specified in UGC regulations, 2010. No college/institute can claim exemption from and avoid merit in selection of teachers, particularly, in the field of education; in the name of autonomy of occupation. Needless to say that right as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, is not an absolute right and the same can be subject to the reasonable restrictions; which has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to be the national interest and the interest of education itself. Accordingly, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is also liable to be noted only to be rejected.
19. No other argument was raised.
20. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the petition filed by the petitioner-Federation.
21. Although CWP No.12231 of 2020 has been filed by the individual teachers, however, even their selection was conducted during pendency of CWP No.15773 of 2015 and under the interim order passed by this Court. Moreover, the advertisement pursuant to which they were selected specifically mentioned that their appointments were provisional, and subject to the decision of CWP No.15773 of 2015. Therefore, the fate of the petitioners in CWP No.12231 of 2020 shall also be the same as the fate of the petition bearing CWP No.15773 of 2015 filed by the petitioner- Federation. Accordingly, this petition is also liable to be dismissed.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP No.12231 of 2020 has submitted that the petitioners have become over-age in the meantime, therefore, they should be granted some concession in age limit for future recruitment, however, this Court finds itself unable to pass any such 34 of 35 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 ::: CWP No.15773 of 2015 (O&M) and another connected case -35- direction. This limitation for the Court is for two reasons, firstly, the appointment of the petitioners were specifically subject to the decision of the petition CWP No.15773 of 2015 and, therefore, all the consequences of decision of that writ petition are liable to visit the petitioners in this petition; as well, secondly, the petitioners in this petition alone cannot be granted the said benefit because that would be discriminatory qua the teachers who might be working in the colleges run by the petitioner-Federation in CWP No.15773 of 2015. So far as the teachers working in the colleges of the members of federation are concerned, this Court is totally deprived of any details of any teacher or number of any teachers who might be affected by the decision on the writ petition. The writ petition is totally lacking in detail on that aspect. Hence, it is not even appropriate to pass any such order qua the teachers working in the colleges run by the members of the federation. De hors the specific details, no such direction could be issued except at the risk of empowering the petitioner for granting benefit arbitrarily and on the basis of manipulated records. Even, the respondent-universities have shown the helplessness qua any details of teachers employed in the institutes being run by the members of the federation.
23. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petitions, the same are dismissed.
24. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such.
16th MAY, 2022 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'sandeep' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
35 of 35
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 04:07:06 :::