Delhi High Court
Shri Ram Kumar, Shri Pawan Kumar, Mrs. ... vs Nct Of Delhi And Ors. And Municipal ... on 30 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 97(2002)DLT184B
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri
JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.
1. All these Writ Petitions raise common question of law. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions have applied for the post of Primary Teacher. In certain cases advertisement for the aforesaid post were issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD, for short) while in the other cases the advertisements were issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB, for short) for the aforesaid posts in MCD as well as New Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NDMC, for short).
2. All these petitioners have acquired their B.Ed degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as SSV, for short) or from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as HSS, for short).
3. The respondents refused to entertain the applications of the petitioners and did not consider their case for appointment to the post on the ground that the aforesaid degree issued by SSV/HSS is not recognised for the purpose of employment. This action of the respondents is challenged by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. As the question involved is as to whether such an action of the respondent in not recognising the degree from SSV/HSS is valid or not, is a common question in all these Writ Petitions, these petitions were taken up together for arguments and are being disposed of by this single judgment.
4. Advertisement issued by the MCD inter alia prescribes the following qualification " One year teachers training certificate from a recognised Institute. Note : B.Ed, B.T., L.T., trained teachers are also eligible." On similar lines is the advertisement of DSSSB. The aforesaid eligibility condition emphasises that the qualification has to be from a recognised Institute. The same prescription is in other advertisements also. There is no dispute to this extent.
5. The background leading to this controversy may be stated at this stage. National Council for Teacher Education Act was enacted by the Parliament which came into effect w.e.f. 1st July, 1995. A Statutory body namely, National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as NCTE, for short) was constituted under this Act. The rules and regulations framed under this Act became effective from the academic session 1996-97. As per the provision of this Act in the matter of teacher's education, while giving employment to the teachers, respondents are bound to follow the instructions and guide-lines formulated by NCTE. Under the NCTE Act every educational institution imparting teacher education is to be recognised by the NCTE. An Institution which is not recognised cannot impart any such education after the promulgation of the Act and the degrees of such an institution are not recognised for any purpose. NCTE filed letter F.No.11-1/2000 NCTE dated 18th April, 2000, informing the respondent that the HSS is not recognised by NCTE. NCTE wrote letter-F.No. 12-15/98 NCTE dated 11th December, 1998 to the respondent informing that SSV is not recognised by NCTE.
6. Similarly Government of India in its letter dated 21st November, 1990 has clarified that degrees issued by the SSV/HSS are recognised up to Graduation (Bachelor of Arts) level only for the purpose of employment under the Central Government and that B.Ed. degree issued by SSV/HSS is not recognised by Staff Selection Commission.
7. By another letter dated 18th April, 2000, NCTE clarified that under Section 17(4) of the NCTE Act, a qualification from teacher education obtained from an institution not recognised by the NCTE is not valid for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, in any State Government by University or in any School, College or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.
8. On the basis of the provisions of NCTE Act and aforeswaid material the respondents have refused to entertain the applications submitted by the petitioners. It is, thus an, admitted fact that the degree qualification possessed by the petitioners in these writ petitions obtained from SSV is not recognised by NCTE. It is also an admitted fact that as per the provision of Section 17(4) of the NCTE Act, that a person having qualification from an institute not recognised by the NCTE is not eligible for appointment in government service. There is no dispute to this extent. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in these Writ Petitions was that NCTE Act was enforced w.e.f. 1st July, 1995 and most of these petitioners had either obtained their degrees before the aforesaid date or in any case joined the said course before 1st July, 1995. Therefore, according to them, the embargo contained under Section 17(4) would not be applicable in their cases. It was submitted that at the time when these petitioners took admission in the SSV/HSS, these degrees were duly recognised by the Government of India for the purpose of employment.
9. Therefore, the question which needs to be determined in these petitions is as to whether such a qualification would be valid for appointment to the post in question or not. This question is no more res integra. Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the same situation in the case of Suresh Pal versus State of Haryana and others and the question was answered in favor of the petitioners. It would be appropriate to reproduce the entire judgment, which is a very short one, reading thus:-
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE certificate course in Physical Education in Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra was recognized by the government of Haryana in 1973 for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor in government schools in Haryana. On the basis of this recognition granted by the State of Haryana to the certificate course of physical education in this Institute in Amravati, the petitioners joined the certificate course and were receiving instruction in this institution until 9/01/1985 when the State of Haryana derecognized the certificate course with the result that the certificates obtained by the petitioners at the end of the certificate course became useless for obtaining service as Physical Training Instructors in Haryana. The petitioners, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High court of Punjab and Haryana for a writ directing the State of Haryana to recognise the certificates obtained by them, because they had joined the course on the basis of the recognition given by the State of Haryana and the recognition was in force at the time when they joined the course. "The writ petition was however rejected summarily by the High Court and hence the present appeal by special leave.
(3) WE are of the view that since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the government of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognized, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was derecognized by the State government on 9/01/1985. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the State Government to recognize the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others similarly situate as a result of completing the certificate course in Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasark Mandal, Amravati for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in government schools in Haryana. Of course, if any person has joined the certificate course after 9/01/1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.
10. It may be mentioned that in the advertisement issued for the post in question, the candidates were required to have the necessary qualification from a recognised Board/University. The period during which the petitioners obtained the necessary qualification from the educational institutions from where the same were obtained was recognised by the Board/University. In fact the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1571/99 has placed on record letter dated 29th December, 2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training which states that those Universities which are recognised by the Government, the degrees granted by them are automatically considered to be recognised and therefore there was no need for special notification. It also mentions that as SSV is a recognised University the degree granted by it are valid. Another letter dated 31st January, 2001 is filed which is issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India which states that SSV is recognised by the Government of India and therefore certificate of 'Shiksha Shastri' granted by this University should be considered to be equivalent to B.Ed. Yet another letter dated 2nd November, 1999 of Association of Indian Universities confirms that 'Shiksha Shastri' degree from SSV/HSS is a recognised B.Ed. degree, therefore, as far as University and Government of India are concerned, the degree still stands recognised.
11. However, as mentioned above, after the promulgation of NCTE Act, such an institution has to be recognised by the NCTE also. Since this Act was enforced w.e.f. 1st July, 1995 this Act will have prospective effect and would not effect the degrees .
already obtained by the students from various universities prior to the promulgation of this Act when those colleges/educational institutions were recognised by the concerned Universities. Therefore, the degrees obtained by the petitioners in respect of courses in which they have taken admission prior to coming into force of the NCTE Act cannot be rendered nugatory or worthless and there validity cannot be adjudged on the touchstone of the provision of this Act. The judgment in the case of Suresh Pal (supra) is therefore clearly applicable in the instant cases. These Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.
12. If the posts are available with the appointing authority i.e. MCD and NDMC and appointment to the persons with lesser marks is given then appointments to the petitioner should be given immediately subject to fulfillling all necessary requirements/formalities by the petitioner for such appointment and their notional seniority be also fixed from the date from which the person with lesser marks are already given appointment. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any salary or allowances for the past period and would be entitled to salary only from the date of their appointment.
13. These writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.