Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 23 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR2008CHH4, 2008(1)MPHT82(CG)
Author: S.K. Agnihotri
Bench: S.K. Agnihotri
ORDER S.K. Agnihotri, J.
1. The petitioners in this batch of petitions are seeking admission to the B. Ed. course in various colleges situated within the State of Chhattisgarh on the basis of the written examination held on 13-6-2007 and the result thereof declared on 3-7-2007. Thus, the question of law and facts involved in all these petitions are the same and arise from the same cause of action. Hence, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners, pursuant to the notification dated 20th April, 2006 issued by the School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, submitted their application forms for appearing in the Pre B. Ed. examination for admission to the B. Ed. course. Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh B. Ed. Pravesh Rules, 2006, (for short 'the Rules, 2006') provides for eligibility qualification for admission to the B. Ed. course, wherein it was provided that the candidate should have three years graduate degree. The petitioners, after having made applications, appeared in the examination on 13-6-2007, the result thereof was declared on 3-7-2007.
3. On 17th July, 2007 the Director, State Education Research and Training Council, Raipur issued a notice in the newspaper for counseling programme stating as special note to the effect that the general candidates having less than 50% marks in graduate/ post graduate degree and in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (for short 'S.C./S. T./O. B.C) having less than 45% marks in the said degrees shall not be eligible for counseling. Being aggrieved the petitioners who had admittedly obtained less than 50% marks in their graduate/post graduate degree examination (in case of general candidates) and in case of reserved categories S. C./S.T./O.B.C, who have obtained less than 45% marks, have filed these petitions seeking a relief that the notice dated 17th July, 2007 be quashed and all the candidates be permitted to participate in the counseling for admission to the B. Ed. course on the basis of the eligibility criteria as notified in the notification dated 20th April, 2007.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the subsequent notice dated 17th July, 2007 is not a gazette notification and as such the same cannot modify or alter the requisite qualification, as prescribed in the notification dated 20th April, 2007; secondly, the petitioners have applied on the basis of the requisite qualification published in the notification dated 20th April, 2007, the same cannot be altered or modified even by gazette notification to prejudice the rights of the petitioners as the subsequent amendment or alteration in the qualification would disentitle the petitioners to participate in the counseling after having passed in the written examination and found place in the merit list; thirdly, it is well settled principles of law that once a process of selection starts, the selection criteria, including the eligibility, cannot be changed as the petitioners believing the qualification notified in the notification dated 20th April, 2007 as the requisite qualification, have spent their valuable time in preparation for the examination and money.
5. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer, per contra, would submit that the State notification dated 20th April, 2006 was not in conformity with the notification dated 20th July, 2006, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'N.C.T.E.'), established under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993'). The central notification issued by N.C.T.E. would have overriding effect on the State notification. The notification dated 20-7-2006 (Annexure R/1) issued by the N.C.T.E. provides for requisite qualification for admission to the B. Ed. course. The Clause 3.2.1 clearly prescribes that the general candidates having minimum 50% marks in graduation/post graduation degree would be entitled to the admission to the B. Ed. course and the Clause 3.2.2 provides for relaxation in case of S.C. /S.T./O.B.C. candidates. Subsequent notification issued by the School Education Department Government of Chhattisgarh (Annexure R./7), which was gazetted on 6-6-2007, before holding of the Pre B. Ed. written examination for admission to the B. Ed. course, amended the Rule 4(b) of the State notification to the extent of modifying the qualification to bring at par with the qualification prescribed by the N.C.T.E. by the notification dated 20th July, 2006.
Learned Counsel would further submit that the field of 'teachers training education, is covered under entry 25 of the concurrent list, read with entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule. The State has no competence to make Rules in contravention of the regulations/notifications issued by the Union of India. There is no entry in the State list dealing with the 'teachers training.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is indisputable that the petitioners submitted their application forms pursuant to the State notification dated 20th April, 2006 for appearing in Pre B. Ed. Examination for admission to the B. Ed. courses. Rule 4 of the Rules, 2006 provides for requisite qualification. Rule 4(b) reads as under:
(b) Must have passed a three years degree course from a recognized University. Candidates who have appeared in the final year examination of a three year degree course will be given provisional admission in the Pre-B. Ed. examination, but they will have to submit the proof of having passed the three years degree course at the time of counseling. In the event of not submitting such a proof they will not be given admission in the B. Ed course in spite of their being in the merit list of Pre-B. Ed. Examination.
7. The petitioners appeared in the examination held on 13-6-2007 and the result of the same was declared on 3-7-2007. Before the date of the written examination, the State Government vide gazette notification dated 6th June, 2007 amended the Rule 4(b) of the said Rules, 2006, as under:
In place of first line of Rule 4(b) "Must have passed a three years degree course from a recognized university" following sentence shall be established.-
Must have passed with at least 50% marks in the Bachelor's degree and/or in the master's degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto, there shall be relaxation of 5 percent marks for candidate belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities and categories as per rules of the State Government.
8. All the candidates, including the petitioners, despite amendment in the requisite qualification by the gazette notification dated 6th June, 2007, were permitted to appear in the examination held on 13-6-2007. The petitioners, who were successful in the written examination were issued admit cards for counseling on payment of counseling fee.
9. The Section 33 of the Act, 1993 pro-vides for making Rules and Regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act, 1993. The N.C.T.E. in exercise of its powers under Section 32(2) of the Act, 1993 framed regulations, styled as "National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (for short 'the Regulations, 2006')" published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) vide notification dated 20th July, 2006. Clause 3.2 of the Regulations provides as under:
(Varnacular matter omitted)
10. The subsequent gazette notification dated 6th June, 2007 of the State Government provides for amendment in the qualification as prescribed in the earlier notification dated 20th April, 2006 to make the same in conformity with the qualification prescribed in Clause 3.2 of the Regulations. 2006.
11. The question for consideration in this batch of petitions is as to whether the State Government can alter/amend the qualification for admission to the B. Ed. Courses in order to being it in conformity with the qualification prescribed by the Regulations, 2006. It is well settled that once a process of selection starts the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed (Ref. Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors. .
12. In the facts of the case in hand, when admittedly, the N.C.T.E. is competent body to have control over the standard of education in teachers training institute, any other rules/regulations framed by the State Government would be subject to the provisions of the Act, 1993 and Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the power of the N. C.T.E. with regard to the coordination and determination of standards in teachers training institutions in the matter of Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College observed, as under:
11. ...NCTE is an expert body created under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and Parliament has imposed upon such expert body the duty to maintain the standards of education, particularly, in relation to teachers' education. Education is the backbone of every democracy and any deterioration in the standard of teaching in the B. Ed. Course would ultimately produce sub-standard prospective teachers who would be teaching in schools and colleges throughout the country and on whose efficiency the future of the country depends. Inasmuch as the teacher himself has received a sub-standard education it is difficult to expect from him a higher standard of teaching to the students of the schools or other institutions....
13. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. , by majority, observed as under:
35. The legislative competence of parliament and the legislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. In the Vllth Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of List II gave to the State an exclusive power to legislate on education including universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III was amended with effect from 3-1-1976 as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present Entry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows:
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.
Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List I is as follows:
66. Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.
Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to control education including medical education, so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation. The State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977, education, including inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so; the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254.
14. Entry 25 of the concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule provides for education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I of the Union List. There is no entry in the State List dealing with the teachers training. Entry 66 of the Union List provides for co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of T.N. and Anr. v. S.V. Bratheep (minor) and Ors. , while considering the Entry 25 and Entry 66 of the Union List observed as under:
9. Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the matter of admission but if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India or any other authority functioning under it. Therefore, what is to be seen in the present case is whether the prescription of the standards made by the State Government is in any way adverse to, or lower than, the standards fixed by AICTE....
15. Applying the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, quoted above, to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the State Government is fully justified in amending the requisite qualification for admission to the B. Ed. courses, as the qualification prescribed in the State Rules, 2006, notified in Gazette dated 20th April, 2006 was not in accordance with the Regulations, 2006, framed by the N.C.T.E. which has full authority to regulate and monitor standard of education in teachers training institute. The State Government cannot make any prescription of the standard which is adverse to or lower than the standards fixed by the N.C.T.E. Even otherwise the candidates who had appeared in the examination and passed written examination had only the legitimate expectation for consideration of their claims according to the Rules, then in vogue. (Ref : State of M.P. and Ors. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Ors. ).
16. The Rules, 2006 framed by the State Government was notified on 20th April, 2006. At that point of time, there was no prescription by the N.C.T.E. for qualification. Regulations, 2006 made by the N.C. T.E. prescribing the qualification i.e. graduate/post graduate degree not having less than 50% marks, for admission to the B. Ed. course was notified on 20th July, 2006, which will have overriding effect on the State Rules 2006, prospectively. The prospectus for Pre B. Ed. examination, 2007 was issued in April, 2007. The State Government did not take any step to amend the Rules, 2006 to prescribe requisite qualification for admission to B. Ed. course in accordance with the prescriptions made by the N.C.T.E. in the Regulations, 2006. The subsequent amendment in Rule 4(b), by gazette notification dated 6th June 2007, cannot be faulted with, as the same was made to prescribe qualification for admission to B. Ed. course in conformity with the prescriptions made by the N.C.T.E. in Regulations, 2006.
17. The candidates (petitioners, herein) have not acquired any right on the basis of the qualification prescribed in the Rules, 2006 which was in contravention with the qualification prescribed by the N.C.T.E. in Regulations.
18. The petitioners have appeared in the examination on the basis of the misrepresentation made by the State Government in the prospectus wherein despite change in the prescribed qualification by Regulations 2006, the State Government continued with the prospectus. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to refund of all the payments made by them in making application forms and counseling fee thereafter.
In view of the foregoing, all the petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.