Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3899/2023 on 15 September, 2025
GAHC010142672023
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Principal Seat at Guwahati
WP(C)/3899/2023
1. Sanatan Talukdar,
S/o- Late Ramani Talukdar,
Headmaster I/c of Sarthebari Girls School,
P.O. Sarthebari, Ward No. 2, Dist. Barpeta,
PIN- 781307.
2. Binay Kumar Das,
S/o- Late Ratna Kanta Das,
Headmaster I/c Keotkuchi High School,
P.O. Keotkuchi, Dist. Barpeta,
PIN- 781309.
3. Dipankar Roy,
S/o- Phileswar Roy,
I/c Headmaster Of Jnanchaki High School,
R/o- Vill.- Manikpur, P.O. Dompara,
Dist. Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN- 783392.
4. Dilip Kumar Sarkar,
S/o- Late Budoram Sarkar,
I/c Headmaster Srijangram Girls High School,
R/o- Vill.- Deohati Part-1, P.O. Deohati,
Dist. Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN- 783384.
5. Brithaspati Biswas,
S/o- Late Khitish Biswas,
Page 1 of 19
Asstt. Headmaster Aurobindo Bidya Niketan High School,
R/o- Vill.- Mitham Bengali (Lokd College Road),
P.O. and P.S. Dhekiajuli, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam,
PIN- 784110.
6. Chand Mohammad Ali,
S/o- Md. Raham Ali,
Headmaster I/c at Barsali Hatkhola High School,
Vill. and P.O. Barni, P.S. Hajo, Dist. Kamrup(R),
Assam, PIN- 781102.
7. Mehbubur Rahman Chowdhury,
S/O- Sofiqur Rahman Chowdhury,
Asstt. Headmaster of Dabaka Girls High School,
R/o- Charing Pather, P.O. Charing, P.S. Murazar,
Dist. Hojai, Assam, PIN- 782439.
........Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education
Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara,
Guwahati-19.
3. University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
4. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE),
Hans Bhawan Wing-II, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Page 2 of 19
5. The CMJ University, Jorabat, Ri-bhoi, Meghalaya-793101.
[Represented by the Deputy Registrar]
.......Respondents
- B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. A.R. Bhuyan.
Advocates for the respondents : Mr. B. Kaushik, SC, Sec Edu;
Mr. S. Deka, UGC;
Mr. I. Alam, SC, NCTE.
Date of hearing : 21.08.2025
Date of judgment : 15.09.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3; and Mr. I. Alam, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 4. None appears for the respondent No. 5.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities for setting aside and quashing the letter Page 3 of 19 dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure-13) as regards preparation of the gradation list of eligible teachers in respect of the petitioners‟ districts as well as schools; for setting aside and quashing the order dated 27.05.2019, and/or all such communications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) exercising its jurisdiction over CMJ University, Meghalaya; and further to direct the respondents authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to extend all benefits and promotion to the petitioners by promoting them as Headmaster in accordance with the process of the rule, and also not to finalize the recruitment process of Headmaster initiated for the purpose of recruitment of Headmasters, vide letter dated 01.06.2023.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:
"The petitioners herein (seven in numbers) are working as Graduate Teachers in different schools of Barpeta, Bongaigaon, Nagaon and Sonitpur districts. They have passed B.Ed. degree from the CMJ University, Meghalaya, a State Private University, which is recognized by UGC, New Delhi. They acquired their degrees in the year 2011 and 2012 in in- campus mode, but thereafter, on 31.03.2014, the State of Meghalaya declared for dissolution of the CMJ University and accordingly, their B.Ed. degrees became invalid, for which they could not avail the benefit of the said degrees.Page 4 of 19
The CMJ University challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2014, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court of Meghalaya and due to interference of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the High Court of Meghalaya, the aforesaid University came into existence and the B.Ed. degree conferred by the said University also stood recognized in other parts of the country. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for granting the effect/benefits like promotion/increment etc. available to them, but the same failed to evoke any response.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed three writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 1055/2019, WP(C) No. 7871/2018 and WP(C) No. 5743/2018, before this Court seeking recognition of B.Ed. degree with retrospective effect and this Court, vide common order dated 13.09.2019, directed the respondents with observation regarding the acceptance of their B.Ed. degree obtained from the CMJ University within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order.
Thereafter, the Under Secretary, NCTE issued the impugned letter dated 27.05.2019, whereby and whereunder the NCTE declared that the CMJ University, Meghalaya is not recognized by the Eastern Regional Committee, NCTE Bhubaneswar for B.Ed. course and on the strength of the Page 5 of 19 impugned letter dated 27.05.2019, the respondent No. 1, vide order dated 28.04.2020, had decided that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioners from the CMJ University, cannot be recognized as valid for the purpose of employment and promotion, and thereby the right of the petitioners stood violated.
Thereafter, being aggrieved, the petitioners had filed two writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 3575/2021 and WP(C) No. 5279/2020, before this Court for seeking recognition of B.Ed. degree with retrospective effect, and this Court concluded the hearing on 17.11.2022 and reserved the judgment on the same day, but the said judgment has not yet been delivered till date.
Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 had issued a letter dated 01.06.2023, to the concerned Inspector of Schools of the State, whereby and whereunder requested the Inspector of Schools to submit the gradation list of eligible teachers for promotion to the vacant posts of Headmasters of provincialized High Schools under their respective jurisdiction within a period of fifteen days from the date of issuance of the said letter.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition, seeking the reliefs as mentioned herein above."Page 6 of 19
4. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that in response to the letter dated 16.05.2019, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, regarding the recognition of status and validity of B.Ed. degree obtained from CMJ University, the under Secretary of the National Council for Teacher Education, vide letter No. NCTE:-Reg1011/52/2019-US(Regulation)-HQ, dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure-10 of the writ petition) stated that CMJ University Meghalaya is not recognized by the Eastern Regional Committee, NCTE Bhubaneswar for B.Ed. programme, and in the said letter, it is also stated that the institutions under reference are privately managed and that private institutions or private universities running unrecognized teacher education programmes are not covered under the NCTE Amendment Act, 2019, with respect to retrospective recognition of teacher education programme. It is also stated that subsequently, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, vide order No. ASE799/2017/WP(C)782/2016/319, dated 28.04.2020, affirmed that the B.Ed. Degree obtained from the CMJ University cannot be recognized as valid for the purpose of employment and promotion.
4.1. It is also stated that this Court in the case of Mukta Ram Deka and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2013 (4) GLT 528, held that the B.Ed. Degree obtained from Bharatiya Siksha Parishad UP, CMJ University, Meghalaya, Naba Bharat Shiksha Parisad, Orissa etc., which are unapproved by NCTE to be invalid in the eye of law, and moreover, the Government of Page 7 of 19 Assam vide notification memo No. ASE 278/2020/148, dated 30.09.2021, amended the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018 („Rules of 2018‟, for short) by way of making the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) (Amendment) Service Rules, 2021 and Rule 4 provides that- "In the principal Rules, in the Schedule III, for the words, "but degrees obtained from off- campus and distance education institution shall not be considered as valid" wherever they occur, the following shall be substituted namely :-
"but the degrees/ diplomas obtained from off- campus and distance education institutions having recognized study centre in the State of Assam which are duly recognized by Distance Education Council under University Grants commissions shall be considered valid for the purpose of employment under Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam. However, in respect of those institutions located outside the State of Assam but having a study centre in the State which is not recognized by Distance Education Council (DEC) under University Grants Commission (UGC) the degrees/certificates issued by such institutions shall not be considered valid for the purpose of employment under Education Department, Government of Assam.
Further, the Degrees/Diplomas and Certificate under distance education mode conferred by Krishna Page 8 of 19 Kanta Handique State Open University (KKHSOU), Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Institute of Distance and Open Learning (IDOL) under Gauhati University and Distance Education under Dibrugrah University shall be considered at par with the Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates awarded by State Central Universities and Private Universities duly established as per law. Such degrees/diplomas and certificates shall be considered valid for the purpose of employment under Education Department, Government of Assam.""
4.2. It is further stated that the Office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam had issued a letter, vide letter No. DSE/SSB/ROSTER/HM/2/2021/40, dated 01.06.2023, to the Inspector of Schools to submit the gradation list of eligible teachers for verification in connection with promotion against the vacant post of Headmaster of provincialized High Schools.
5. The respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the B.Ed. degrees of petitioners, which are under question, are professional degrees and are regulated by the National Council for Teacher Education, and that CMJ University, Modrina Mansion, Laitumkhrah, Shillong (Meghalaya) was established vide Act No. 04 of 2009 [Notification No. LL(B)42/09/80 dated 20.07.2009] of the State Legislature of Meghalaya as a Private University and was empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956, at its main campus in regular mode with the approval of Page 9 of 19 statutory bodies/councils, wherever required, and that CMJ University was not authorized to open off-campus centre(s)/study centre(s) beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Meghalaya as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and this University was not even allowed to open any centre(s) even within the State of Meghalaya as per the provisions contained in UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, without the approval of UGC. It is also stated that the University was allowed to conduct M.Phil/Ph.D programmes in regular mode at its main campus at Shillong (Meghalaya), but only as per the provisions contained in the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulations, 2009, and that the Governor of Meghalaya in his capacity as visitor initiated certain actions against CMJ University for irregularities committed by it and also recommended to the State Government of Meghalaya for dissolution of this University in terms of Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009.
5.1. It is further stated that UGC has been receiving complaints about the courses run by CMJ University outside its territorial jurisdiction and also in the off-campuses/study centres established by the University without the approval of UGC and the State Government, and that the UGC constituted an Expert Committee for the following purposes:-
Page 10 of 19(i) To assess fulfilment of criteria in terms of programmes, faculty, infrastructural facilities, financial viability, etc. as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies, and,
(ii) To look into the violations as reported by the Governor Secretariat, Meghalaya and various complaints received by the UGC.
5.2. It is further stated that the UGC Expert Committee visited CMJ University on 01.08.2013, along with the nominees from AICTE and NCTE and the report of the UGC Expert Committee was placed before the Commission at its 495th meeting held on 01.10.2013, and the Commission considered the report and approved the same, and forwarded a copy of the report to the Governor Secretariat, Meghalaya and Chief Secretary, Meghalaya Government with the request to take appropriate action against CMJ University as per the provisions of the University Act or any other law as the Governor Secretariat/State Government deems fit and thereafter, the University was dissolved by the State Government, Meghalaya. But, pursuant to order of Meghalaya High Court in WP(C) No. 177/2014, the University had started functioning at its permanent campus at Jorabat, Ri Bhoi District, Meghalaya, and that the State of Meghalaya against the said order, preferred one special leave petition before Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the same is still pending. It is also stated that the UGC is not in a position to clarify as to whether the degrees conferred by CMJ University is valid or not.
Page 11 of 196. The respondent No. 4 has also filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that vide communication dated 27.05.2019, the respondent No. 4 clarified that CMJ University, Meghalaya, is not recognized by the Eastern Regional Committee of the NCTE for conducting the B.Ed. programme (Annexure-10), and that the petitioner herein obtain their B.Ed. degrees from CMJ University, Meghalaya, which was established under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956, as evident by the certificates issued by the University and annexed in the writ petition as Annexure-3 (series). However, CMJ University is not recognized by the Eastern Regional Committee of the NCTE under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993, and that under the said Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993, it is clear that an institution offering or intending to offer courses in teacher education is mandatorily required to obtain recognition from the NCTE. In the absence of such recognition, the examining body is not permitted to conduct any examination for students of such institutions, as provided under Section 16 of the NCTE Act, and consequently, the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioners from CMJ University is not recognized by the NCTE and is not valid for any purpose.
7. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that to confer a B.Ed. degree, recognition from the NCTE is not required and the University is self-sufficient, which is established under the UGC Act by the State of Meghalaya, and that there is a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this regard, i.e. Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 432, and based on which the High Court of Page 12 of 19 Rajasthan also in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9198/2017 (Shanti Lal vs. State of Rajasthan through the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and Ors.) had held that recognition from the NCTE is not required, and that the impugned letter issued by the NCTE and also by the State respondents, are unsustainable in law and therefore, Mr. Bhuyan has contended to allow this petition by directing the State respondents to recognize the University and to extend the benefits which the petitioners are entitled to under the law.
8. Per contra, Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, by referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 122/2024 (Sri Gobin Sarmah vs. State of Assam and 3 Ors.), submits that in the said case, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. (supra) is not applicable, in as much as the decision in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. (supra) was prior to insertion of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2018, and as such, the said decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the present case. Mr. Kaushik also submits that admittedly the CMJ University is not recognized by the NCTE and no permission was obtained to confer such a degree, and as such, there is no merit in this petition, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same.
9. Mr. Alam, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 4 has also adopted the submission, so advanced by Mr. Kaushik, Page 13 of 19 learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Alam submits that the CMJ University is not recognized under Section 14 of the NCTE Act and as such, the degree conferred to the present petitioners are invalid degrees and they cannot avail any benefit on the basis of a degree by a university, which is not recognized by NCTE, and under such circumstances, Mr. Alam has contended to dismiss this petition.
10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties.
11. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, it becomes apparent that the CMJ University falls under the jurisdiction of Eastern Regional Committee (ECR) of the NCTE and indisputably, the said University is not recognized by the ECR of the NCTE for conducting B.Ed. programme. It is the categorical stand of the respondent No. 4 that on account of absence of recognition by the ERC of the NCTE, the University lacks the authority to offer and conduct B.Ed. programme under the provision of the NCTE Act, 1993, without obtaining due recognition from ERC. Section 2(e) of the NCTE Act provides that "institution" means an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education and Section 2(i) provides that "recognised institution" means an institution recognised by the Council under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993, reads as under:
Page 14 of 19"14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education.--(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.
[Provided further that such institutions, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, which--
(i) are funded by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration;
(ii) have offered a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day till the academic year 2017-2018; and
(iii) fulfil the conditions specified under clause (a) of sub-section (3), shall be deemed to have been recognised by the Regional Committee.] (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section Page 15 of 19 (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 fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher 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 fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded 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.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of Page 16 of 19 receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),--
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused."
12. Thus, a perusal of the aforementioned provision indicates that an institution offering or intending to offer a courses in teacher education is mandatorily required to obtain recognition from the NCTE and in the absence of such recognition, the examining body is not permitted to conduct any examination for students of such institutions, as provided under Section 16 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Section 16 of the said Act reads as under:
"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."Page 17 of 19
13. It is to be noted here that no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the petitioners in response to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4. Though, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. (supra), yet the said decision was rendered on 12.02.2008 and subsequently, Rule 12A was inserted in the Rules of 2018, and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Gobin Sarmah (supra), has held that the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. (supra) is not applicable in the present case as the said decision was rendered prior to insertion of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2018. Also, in the said case, a Division Bench of this Court by relying upon a decision in Mukta Ram Deka (supra), has held that unless NCTE approves the B.Ed. degree awarded by CMJ University, the said degree is not valid, and that NCTE has not approved the CMJ University to impart teacher‟s education and hence, B.Ed. degree obtained from CMJ University cannot be said to be from a recognized university, and resultantly, B.Ed. degree obtained from CMJ University is not valid.
14. It is also to be noted here that no appeal or review petition has been preferred by the appellants of the said appeal and as such, the legal proposition, so pronounced by this Court, remains the same and sitting singly, in this petition, this Court in WA No.122/2024 is left with no other option, but to accept the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.122/2024.
Page 18 of 1915. In view of the above, I find no merit in the submission so advanced by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the decisions referred by him i.e. Basic Education Board, U.P. (supra) and Shanti Lal (supra), would not come into his assistance.
16. In the result, I find no merit in this petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
17. The parties have to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page 19 of 19