Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Patel vs School Education Department on 16 February, 2017
--- 1 ---
W P No. 4798 / 2016 & 7263 / 2016
16/02/2017
Mr. Ranjeet Sen and Mr. Shashank Patwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - State.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Heard.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 4798/2016 are narrated hereunder.
The petitioners before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 25/6/2016 and 18/12/2016 by which the services of the petitioners have been put to an end because they have obtained D.Ed., from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow (UP).
The contention of the petitioners is that it is a recognised Institution by U.G.C. and, therefore, they have been given appointment and they were later on absorbed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade 3. However, no document has been filed to establish that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad
--- 2 ---
is recognised Institution / University nor any document has been filed to establish that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad is recognised by National Council for Teachers Education.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Sadhu Singh Gurjar and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 1460/2015, decided on 10/11/2016) has allowed a petition preferred by an identically placed person and, therefore, the present Writ Petition should also be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Virendra Jarewal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 918 / 2015, decided on 30/1/2017) and this Court relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of Sadhu Singh (supra) has allowed an identical Writ Petition filed by Virendra Jarewal. A prayer has been made for allowing the present Writ Petition also in terms of the order passed by the Gwalior Bench.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhikangaon has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. Her contention is that the learned Single Judge while deciding the case of Sadhu Singh (supra) has
--- 3 ---
not taken care of the earlier judgment delivered in the case of Vishal Singh Dangi and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 4574/2014, decided on 4/8/2014) and this Court has dismissed the identical Writ Petition and the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench also in W.A.No. 260/2014, decided on 01/10/2014.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
It is true that this Court has allowed an identical petition ie., Virendra Jarewal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 918 / 2015, decided on 30/1/2017). In the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the respondent - State has never brought to the notice of this Court the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Vishal Singh Dangi and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 4574/2014, decided on 4/8/2014) and also the fate of the Writ Appeal which was filed against the judgment delivered in the case of Vishal Singh Dangi and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 4574/2014, decided on 4/8/2014) and therefore, keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Sadhu Singh Gurjar and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 1460/2015, decided on 10/11/2016), this Court has
--- 4 ---
allowed the petition preferred by Virendra Jarewal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 918 / 2015, decided on 30/1/2017). The fact remains that the learned Single Judge in the case of Vishal Singh Dangi (supra) has dismissed an identical Writ Petition. The judgment delivered in the case of Vishal Singh Dangi and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 4574/2014, decided on 4/8/2014), reads as under :
This petition is directed against the order dated 25.07.2014 whereby petitioners' services are terminated on the ground that their qualification ( D.Ed.) is from an institution [Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad (U.P.)] which is not recognized by NCTE.
Criticizing this order, it is submitted by Shri Raghuvanshi that the recruitment rules are amended on 27th June, 2011 (Annexure P/4). As per the eligibility condition for the post in question, one must have two years' diploma in education. Shri Raghuvanshi submits that there is no requirement in the rules that diploma must be from recognized institute. He further submits that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad is an autonomous body and is competent to issue the certificate. However, during the course of argument, he fairly admitted that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad is not a recognized institute from National Council for Teacher Education ( NCTE). He submits that order is passed under dictate of higher authorities and principles of natural justice are violated. 2 WP.4574/2014 Mrs. Pachauri, on the other hand, supported the order. She submits that once it is admitted that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad is not recognized by NCTE, petitioners' appointment in bad in law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
No doubt, this Court in WP No. 4194/2014 directed that respondents shall provide opportunity to the petitioner as
--- 5 ---
per principles of natural justice. However, it is noticed that the sole ground for terminating the petitioners is that petitioners' D.Ed certificate is from an institution which is not recognized by NCTE. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) shows that certificate of D.Ed. submitted by petitioner was minutely examined by the authorities. This order shows that decision is taken independently / dispassionately without getting influenced by the ultimate direction passed on 08.07.2014 (Annexure P/2). The pivotal question is whether the D.Ed. mark sheet issued by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad fulfills the eligibility condition. The bone of contention in this regard is that under the recruitment rules there is no such requirement that the certificate should be issued by an institution which is recognized by NCTE. I do not see any merit in this contention. The National Council for Teacher 3 WP.4574/2014 Education Act ( the Act) rules and regulations came into being since 1993. The object of Act is as under :-
"An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matter connected therewith."
The Sections 14 (1) (3) and (4) read as under:- "14. (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.
(2) .........
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional
--- 6 ---
Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall.-
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher 4 WP.4574/2014 education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for the reasons to be recovered in writing: Provided that before passing an order under sub- clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government."
Section 16 of the Act reads as under :-
"16. 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 or provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognized 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."
If the aim, object and scheme of the Act is examined, it will be crystal clear that every institute offering a course or 5
--- 7 ---
WP.4574/2014 training in teacher education must be recognized by statutory body i.e. NCTE. Thus, it goes without saying that degree or diploma must be a degree or diploma from the recognized institution.
At the cost of repetition, in my opinion, whether or not it is mentioned in the recruitment rules, it is necessary that educational qualification of teacher must be from an institution duly recognized by NCTE. In absence thereof, the employee / candidate lacks minimum essential eligibility condition. This deficiency makes them ineligible and makes his appointment illegal.
In view of provisions of NCTE Act, I am unable to hold that the D.Ed. Qualification of petitioners makes them eligible. The question of eligibility goes to the root of the matter. Since petitioners are held to be ineligible for the reasons stated above, I do not find any justification in dealing further with the matter on the anvil of principles of natural justice. Resultantly, I find no illegality in the order passed by the respondents.
Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Against which the Writ Appeal was also preferred and the Division Bench in W.A.No. 260/2014, decided on 01/10/2014 has dismissed the Writ appeal and the following order has been passed :
Heard.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.08.2014 passed in W.P. No. 4574/2014. The appellants acquired qualification of D.Ed from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow (U.P.). The aforesaid institution was not recognised by National Council for Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.) to grant degree of D.Ed. On the basis of the aforesaid qualification, the appellants submitted an application for appointment to the post of Teacher, that was rejected because one of the minimum qualification to the post of Teacher is having D.Ed degree.
Admittedly, the appellants do not have a valid degree of D.Ed. because the institute, from which the appellants received the degree of D.Ed, was not recognised under the
--- 8 ---
provisions of N.C.T.E. Act.
In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the writ Court has rightly dismissed the appeal. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
This Court is of the considered opinion that as the controversy involved in the present case has already been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in Vishal Singh Dangi and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.No. 4574/2014, decided on 4/8/2014), the earlier judgment has to be followed which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench.
The judgment which has been brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Sadhu Singh Gurjar (supra) also deals with a similar issue. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow was earlier included in the list of fake Universities, however, later on a Press Note was issued by the U.G.C. Dated 24/10/2005 deleting the name of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow from the list of fake Universities and under a bona-fide belief they have obtained the qualification of D.Ed., from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow. It is also true that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow does not hold any affiliation / recognition from N.C.T.E. The learned Single Judge in the case of Sadhu Singh
--- 9 ---
Gurjar (supra) has taken into account the factum of non- recognition of D.Ed., by the NCTE in respect of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad. Paragraph 6 to 9 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
6. As per the rules, namely Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2005), the educational qualification for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II is "Graduation" and for Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III is "Higher Secondary". Petitioners appear to have been appointed in the year 2006 having fulfilled the requisite educational qualification by different Zila/Janpad Panchayats. It further appears that the petitioners at the time of their appointment had qualified D.Ed./B.Ed. from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow. Petitioners continued in service. It appears, in the year 2008 State Government has framed another set of rules namely the Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008, whereunder provision was made for absorption of Samvida Shala Shikak Grade II/III, who have successfully completed three years' tenure provided they had obtained B.Ed./D.Ed. qualification from the institution recognized by the NCTE. It further appears that cases of petitioners were placed before the screening committee for the purpose of absorption in Adhyapak Samvarg either as Sahayak Adhyapak, Adhyapak or Varishth Adhyapak.
Screening Committee having found the B.Ed./D.Ed. certificates obtained by the petitioners as recognized by NCTE absorbed some of the teachers in Adhyapak Samvarg and others in pursuance of certificates. Further, at a latter stage, it was found that as the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow since is not recognized by NCTE, therefore, the absorption orders after notice to the affected teachers were cancelled. As a result, the petitioners have approached this court taking exception to the impugned order on several grounds.
7. Shri R.D.Jain, learned senior counsel contends that the decision of the respondents that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow, from where the B.Ed./D.Ed.
--- 10 ---
certificates were obtained by the petitioners is not recognized by the NCTE, is not legally correct as the said institute is recognized by the University Grants Commission and hundreds of teachers, who have obtained D.Ed.,/B.Ed., certificates from this institution are now working as full fledged teachers in different States including the State of U.P. That apart, the syllabus, standard of institution are not less than the institutions recognized by NCTE. Besides, its recognition by different States suggests that non-recognition of such institution by NCTE in fact and in effect is an arbitrary action and does not conform to concept of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For no fault on the part of the petitioners, qualified degree/diploma courses obtained by them have been illegally put to grave prejudice for no justifiable reason. Petitioners have continued as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II/III for last more than ten years with unblemished service record. As such, their efficiency, ability and performance have been well adjudged as a member of teaching faculty and, therefore, their right of absorption in Adhyapak Samvarg upon completion of three years successful tenure as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II/III ought not to have been obstructed only for the reason that the B.Ed./D.Ed., certificates obtained eleven years ago from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow are not recognized by the NCTE, albeit recognized by the UGC.
However, Shri Jain has shown his grace and submitted that though petitioners are well qualified with sound knowledge and experience in teaching but are still required to obtain B.Ed./D.Ed. qualification from any of the Institute recognized by the NCTE. The order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the Zila Panchayat, Ujjain renewing the term of the contract of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II/III for further three years for enabling them to acquire D.Ed.,/B.Ed., qualification as per NCTE norms is well in conformity with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It is submitted that after having rendered much more than the required length of service to be absorbed in the Adhypak Samvarg, only for the reason that at the time of their appointment, D.ED.,/B.Ed., qualification has been acquired by them from an institution not recognized by the NCTE, they have been deprived of livelihood. Petitioners are,
--- 11 ---
therefore, entitled to seek parity on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and equitable consideration. Hence, Shri Jain, learned senior counsel submits that such teachers who are already absorbed in Aadhyapak samvarg may not be discontinued and force them to work as Assistant Grade-II/III and their term may be renewed affording opportunity to qualify D.Ed.,/B.Ed., from such institution recognized by the NCTE. The said teachers who are still working as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade- II/III and still to be absorbed in Aadhyapak samvarg may be continued as such and their term may be renewed with a condition to acquire D.Ed.,/B.Ed., qualification from an institution recognized by the NCTE for absorption in the Adhyapak Samvarg.
8. Prayer appears to be reasonable. There is no dispute that petitioners have so far performed duties as teachers either as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II/III or in Adhyapak Samvarg with utmost satisfaction of the superiors with unblemished service record. They have completed more than ten years of service as on date. Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow though is not in the list of recognized institute of the NCTE but undisputedly is recognized by UGC, a higher body and/or above NCTE. Teachers having obtained D.Ed./B.Ed. from such institute are serving as teachers in different States. Therefore, it is equitable that the petitioners are permitted to continue in their respective cadre either in the Adhyapak Samvarg, if they are already absorbed or in Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg II and III, further for a period of three years and an opportunity is extended to them to obtain D.Ed./B.Ed.
qualification, as the case may be, from the institute recognized by the NCTE.
9. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, the Teachers working in Adhyapak Samvarg have been granted 3 years time to obtain D.Ed., / B.Ed., Degree. The petitioners are
--- 12 ---
working as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade 3. They have proved their worth by qualifying the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board in the year 2011 and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that after taking into account all the judgments delivered on the subject, this Court is in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Sadhu Singh Gurjar (supra) and, therefore, it is equitable that the petitioners are permitted to continue in their respective cadre in the Adhyapak Samvarg, if they have already been absorbed, or Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade 2 / 3, for a further period of three years and an opportunity is extended to them to obtain D.Ed., / B.Ed., Qualification as the case may be from the Institute recognised by the NCTE.
With the aforesaid, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected Writ Petition also.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR