Allahabad High Court
Yashwant Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 September, 2010
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD `Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57516 of 2010 Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- V.K.S. Kushwaha Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
The petition relates to the Joint Entrance Examination 2010 for admission in B.Ed. Course.
The issue raised in this petition is that the petitioners are being denied admission in the B.Ed. course on the ground that they have not achieved the minimum of 50% marks at their graduation level which is essential for being admitted in the said course.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the interim orders that were passed in this matter by the Lucknow Bench by a learned Single Judge. He further submits that in Writ Petition No. 51699 of 2010, taking notice of the stay order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 608 of 2010, the matter has been directed to be listed after the decision in the said special appeal.
In my considered opinion, interim orders are not binding precedents and therefore the matter has to be finally examined in terms of the regulations and statutory rules that are applicable for the purpose of admission in the B.Ed. course.
The brochure which was issued on 13th April 2010 mentions that the percentage of marks in the graduation examinations should be 45%. This mention in the brochure is contrary to the statutory rule as prescribed by the National Council of Teachers Education which has been pointed out by Sri R.A. Akhtar quoted below:
(2) Eligibility
(a) Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor's Degree and/or in the Master's Decree or any other qualification equivalent thereto are eligible for admission to the programme.
(b) The reservation in seats and relaxation in the qualifying marks in favour of the reserved categories shall be as per the rules of the concerned Government."
The said notification dated 31.8.2009 categorically recites that the minimum of 50% marks is required either in the Bachelors Degree and/or in the Masters Degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto for being eligible to be admitted in the B.Ed. Programme.
The brochure which has been issued and which is being relied upon by the respondents contains an information to the effect that the minimum of 45 marks would be necessary as against the percentage of 50% quoted hereinabove.
The brochure and the information so published in March 2010 was contrary to the provisions of the regulations contained in the notification dated 31.8.2009 which have framed in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993. The said regulations have neither been modified nor has the said percentage been relaxed till date.
The petitioners allege that they have accordingly filled up their Forms and appeared in the examinations and the respondents are therefore estopped from now taking a different stand. It is also contended that the petitioners have a legitimate expectation of getting admitted in the B.Ed. Course.
It appears that taking notice of the aforesaid error in the brochure as published in a Hindi Daily Newspaper "Hindustan" dated 28.4.2010, the State Government for reasons best known to it through the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh wrote a letter of request to the National Council for Teachers Education to relax the aforesaid percentage as prescribed under the regulations to bring it in conformity with the information published in the brochure. It was a request by the Government keeping in view the future of a large number of candidates who were applicants against the said brochure. The said letter dated 28th April, 2010 is quoted below:
la[;k&847@lRrj&1&2010&3(58)/ 79 izs"kd] vfuy lUr] lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] ps;jijlu] jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn] g"kZ Hkou] foax&11] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyhA mPp f'k{kk vuqHkkx&2 y[kum%fnukad 28 vizSy] 2010 fo"k; %& 1 jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk la0 fnukad& 20 tqykbZ] 2006 2 jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk la0 231 fnukad& 27 uoEcj] 2007 3 jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk la0 165 fnukad& 31 vxLr] 2009 egksn;] d`i;k mi;qZDr vf/klwpukvksa dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 20 tqykbZ] 2006 ds vUrxZr ch0,M0 esa izos'k gsrq U;qure vgZrk 50 izfr'kr fu/kkZfjr dh x;h Fkh] ftlds vk/kkj ij ch0,M0 esa fofHkUu fo'ofo?kky;ksa }kjk izos'k fy;k tk jgk FkkA izns'k ljdkj }kjk la;qDr izos'k ijh{kk djk;s tkus ds fu.kZ; ls l= 2007&08 dh la;qDr izos'k ijh{kk fnukad 22 tqykbZ] 2007 dks N=ifr 'kkgwth egkjkt fo'ofo/kky;] dkuiqj }kjk lEiUu dkjbZ x;h] ftldh vfUre dkmfUlfyax ekpZ] 2009 esa lekIr gqbZA 2& jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27&11&2007 ds vUrxZr bl U;wure vgZrk dks 50 izfr'kr ls ?kVkdj 45 izfr'kr dj fn;k x;kA blds mijkUr Mk0 Hkhejko vEcsndj fo'ofo/kky;] vkxjk }kjk ch0,M0 l=& 2008&09 gsrq izos'k ijh{kk fnukad& 19&10&2008 dks lEiUu dh x;h Fkh ,oa bldh vfUre dkmfUlfyax fnlEcj] 2009 rd pyrh jghA 3& 'kSf{kd Lrj dks O;ofLFkr djus dh n`f"V ls o"kZ 2009&10 ch0,M0 gsrq 'kwU; l=* ?kksf"kr djrs gq, 2010&11 esa izos'k ds fy, ijh{kk 05 ebZ]2010 dks fu;r dh x;h gS] ftl gsrq 7-00 yk[k vkosnu i= izkIr gq, gSa] ftlds izos'k i= Hkh fuxZr fd;s tk pqds gSaA nSfud i= fgUnqLrku ds vad fnukWd& 28&04&2010 (izfr layXu) esa Nih [kcj ,d yk[k cPpksa dk Hkfo"; nkWao ij ,oa ,u0lh0Vh0bZ0 ds ekud esa mYya?ku fo"k;d lekpkj ls ;g Kkr gqvk gS fd ,u0lh0Vh0bZ0 dh vf/klwpuk fnukWd& 31 vxLr] 2009 (izfr layXu) gS ds vUrxZr 45 izfr'kr U;wure vgZrk dks c 4& pwafd jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dk ekud ekg vxLr] 2009 esa gh ifjofrZr gqvk gS vkSj iwoZ ekud ds vk/kkj ij gh ch0,M0 l= 2010&11 gsrq la;qDr izos'k ijh{kk djk;s tkus gsrq vf/kd`r y[kum fo'ofo/kky;] y[kum ls izdkf'kr foKfIr ds dze esa 7-00 yk[k vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vkosnu i= izkIr gks pqds gSa] ftuds izos'k i= Hkh fuxZr gks pqds gSaSA vr% muds Hkfo"; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vuqjks/k gS fd U;wure 'kSf{kd vgZrk dh 'krZ dks bl o"kZ l= (2010&11) ds fy, f'kfFky djrs gq, 45 izfr'kr gh jgus fn;k tk;A layXud&;FkksifrA Hkonh;] (vfuy lUr) lfpoA la[;k& (1)@lRrj&2&2010] rn~fnukWad& izfrfyfi fuEufyf[r dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr%& 1& lnL; lfpo] g"kZ Hkou] foax&11] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyhA 2& {ks=h; funs'kd] jk"V~zh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj {ks=h; lfefr] ,&46 'kkfUr iFk fryd uxj] t;iqj jktLFkkuA vkKk ls] (Mk0 jkekuUn izlkn) la;qDr lfpoA It may be noted that inspite of this request made by the State Government through Sri R.A. Akhtar states that no such relaxation has been permitted so far for the Session 2010-11.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is settled principal of law that estoppel does not operate against a statute. The statutory provisions in the shape of regulations therefore clearly lay down a minimum of 50% marks at the qualifying level. Any wrong mention in the brochure will not confer any right, or any legitimate expectation which can be founded on some right, on the petitioners to claim admission without having obtained a minimum of 50% marks as provided in the regulations.
The arguments advanced therefore are of no avail. These aspects have already been indicated in the interim order of the Division Bench dated 25.8.2010 which has been continued and even otherwise in view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove there is no merit in the petition. The petitioners have not received the minimum of 50% marks in their graduation examinations. The claim therefore raised is devoid of merit and accordingly the petition is hereby dismissed with no costs.
Order Date :- 20.9.2010 Sahu