Delhi High Court
Mithilesh Kumari & Others vs Govt. Of National Capital Territory Of ... on 18 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999VAD(DELHI)282, 81(1999)DLT264, 1999(50)DRJ832
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri
ORDER A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Petitioners who are 13 in numbers were admitted to the course of Nursery Teachers Training with Respondent No. 4, namely, G.R. Memorial Institute of Nursery Teachers' Training have filed this petition as their admissions are cancelled. Admittedly, all these petitioners have secured 41% to 44% of marks in Senior Secondary (10+2) Examination. It is also admitted position that National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE)/Respondent No.3, which is a statutory body has fixed norms and standards for Nursery Teachers Training Education as per which for admission to this course a student should secure minimum 45% marks in Senior Secondary (10+2) Examination. Notwithstanding the fact that they had less than 45% marks, they were admitted to the Nursery Teachers Training Course by Respondent No. 4 after getting admissions to the said course in July, 1998. The petitioners took their semester examinations in December, 1998.
2. When Respondent No. 2 namely, State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) came to know of the aforesaid irregularity committed by Respondent No. 4, it issued notice dated 23rd October, 1998 to Respondent No. 4 stating therein that 18 candidates out of 80 did not have minimum percentage of 45% in the Senior Secondary Examination and Respondent No. 4 was asked to clarify the same. Respondent No. 4 replied on 27th October, 1998 that no objection was raised by Respondents 1 and 2 during the last 8 years and admissions were done like that. On 13th January, 1999 NCTE wrote to SCERT directing it that all these admissions of the students who had got less than 45% marks in Senior Secondary Examination be cancelled. Pursuant thereto Respondent No. 2 asked Respondent No. 4 to comply with these directions by letter dated 8th February, 1999. Accordingly, in March, 1999, Respondent No. 4 cancelled the admissions of these petitioners. Aggrieved against the said cancellation of their admissions, petitioners have filed this writ petition.
3. Councel for the petitioners argued that Respondent No. 4 had issued advertisement in the Newspaper for admission to this course of Nursery Teachers Training and in the said admission, it was nowhere stated that minimum requirement is 45% in Senior Secondary Examination. Petitioners applied for admissions and were granted admissions in August, 1998. It is further contended that notwithstanding the requirement of 45% minimum marks in Senior Secondary Examination. Respondent No. 4 has been admitting the students but no objection was ever raised by NCTE and SCERT and, therefore, exceptions should not be made in the case of the petitioners and they should not be made to suffer now. The names of those who were having less than 45% marks and were admitted are mentioned at Pages 8 and 9 of the petition and it is contended that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. The admitted position is that in order to secure admission to Teachers Training Course, which is recognised by NCTE, a student has to secure minimum 45% marks in his/her Senior Secondary Examination. It is also an admitted fact that these petitioners did not fulfill this eligibility condition as they secured marks less than 45% in Senior Secondary Examination. In view of this admitted position, petitioners cannot take advantage of wrong admission given by Respondent No. 4 School and it was within the right of Respondents 2 and 3 to direct Respondent No. 4 to cancel such admissions. The matter in this respect is no more res integra as in number of judgments Supreme Court and High Courts have emphasised that such admissions are bad in law. Reference can be made to the following Judgements :
1. St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for Women). Madurai etc. etc. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. etc. etc. .
2. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Admn. and others Vs. Managing Society, Goswami, GDSDC .
3. R.N. Kumar Vs. R.K. Soral .
4. Iqbal Kaur (Miss) and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others 1989 (5) SLR 59.
5. In view of the aforesaid judgments petitioners cannot be granted any relief as they were not eligible to be admitted.
6. It may be pointed out that petitioners did not disclose one important fact in the writ petition. They were given admissions in July/August, 1998 and it was within the knowledge of the Respondent No. 4 that such an admission given was wrongly given. In October, 1998, an undertaking was taken from all these petitioners, which reads as under :
UNDERTAKING I Mithilesh Kumari son/daughter of Sh. Ramjeet Singh is fully aware that I have been provisionally allowed to appear in NTT Ist Semester Examination 1998 conducted by SCERT Delhi and it is subject to the decision of National Council of Teacher Education, (NCTE) Govt. of India, regarding my eligibility for the admission in NTT Course run by G.R. Memorial Institute of Nursery Teachers Training. I am aware that my percentage of marks in 10+2 examination is less than the minimum percentage of marks prescribed by NCTE for admission in NTT course. I undertake to abide by the decision of NCTE regarding my eligibility for admission in NIT course. In case my admission in NTT course is cancelled by NCTE then I shall have no claim for admission in NTT course on the basis of provisionally appearing in NTT Ist Semester Examination 1998.
(Signature of Student) Name : Mithilesh Kumari Res: Address : C-180, Gali No. 19.
Khajuri Khas, Delhi-94.
7. In view of the aforesaid undertaking itself the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and cannot plead now that after they have been admitted to the course, they should be allowed to continue the course on the ground that it was the fault of Respondent No. 4 in admitting them for which they should not be penalised. This argument has no force in view of the aforesaid undertaking, which was taken at the threshold i.e. immediately after the start of the course itself. It may be stated that NCTE, which has been created and established under National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short "NCTE Act") has laid down the norms for admission to Nursery Teachers Training Course and fixed 45% marks in aggregate in senior Secondary Examination. It has right to fix such minimum percentage to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education system, regulate and ensure maintenance of uniform standard in teacher educa-
tion through out the country. When such norms are applied uniformly, the NCTE had right to enforce these norms. In fact Section 16 of the NCTE Act contain a mandate to the examining body prohibiting it from holding examination in teacher education for any course or training unless the institu-
tion conducting the said course or training has been recognised under Section 14 or permitted to conduct such a course under Section 15 of the NCTE Act. These norms are laid down in the year 1996 and it is pointed out in the counter-affidavit that such norms are being enforced rigourously and uniformly. Most of the cases were pointed out by the petitioners, wherein persons having less percentage of marks were admitted, relate to the period before 1996. It is pointed out in the counter-affidavit that even if some persons are wrongly admitted that does not give any right to the petitioners to continue, inasmuch as one wrong cannot justify the other and the respondents have stated that they may cancel even those admissions. There is a force in the submission of the respondents. Therefore, I hold that action of the respondents is not arbitrary or discriminatory rather than the norms and rules are being enforced and any relief given to the petitioners would amount to violating of these norms.
8. For the aforesaid reason, writ petition, which is devoid of any reasons is dismissed. No orders as to costs.