Gujarat High Court
Zaranben Rasikbhai Patel And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 13 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)3GLR2054
Author: K.A. Puj
Bench: K.A. Puj
JUDGMENT K.A. Puj, J.
1. The following petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision of the respondent-authorities to make sudden changes in the admission criteria of P.T.C. Courses for the Academic Year 2003-2004.
Sr. No. Case No. Name of Petitioner/s Subject-matter of the petition (1) (2) (3) (4)
1. 9817/03 Zaranben Rasikbhai Patel & Others.
Deduction of 15 marks.
2. 9763/03 Patel Vijaykumar Jayamilal & Ors.
Deduction of 15 marks.
3. 9809/03 N. D. Patel & Others.
Deduction of 15 marks.
4. 9837/03 Hardikaben Govindsinh Rathod & Ors.
Deduction of 15 marks.
5. 9980/03 Panchal Devendrabhai Ishwarlal & Anr.
Deduction of 15 marks.
6. 10000/03 Patel Kajal A. Deduction of 15 marks.
7. 10355/03 Gaurangkumar Natvarlal Patel Deduction of 15 marks.
8. 10374/03 Smitaben Jivanlal Vania & Ors.
Deduction of 15 marks.
9. 10380/03 Himanshukumar Babubhai Patel & Ors.
Deduction of 15 marks.
10. 10388/03 Kundanben Amridal Vagliela Deduction of 15 marks.
11. 10467/03 Patel Vijaykumar Amrutlal Deduction of 15 marks.
12. 10529/03 Patel Pradipkumar Kacharabhai & Anr.
Deduction of 15 marks.
13. 10530/03 Damor Shaileshbhai & Ors.
Deduction of 15 marks.
14. 10542/03 Patel Jagdishbhai Dhinubhai & Ors.
Deduction of 15 marks.
15. 11183/03 Yogeshkutnar' Jayendrabhai Patel Deduction of 15 marks.
16. 9750/03 Kum.
Divya Dadubhai Chauhan Vocational Stream.
17. 9757/03 Patel Jayshreeben Virshangbhai Vocational Stream.
18. 9780/03 Patel Nilesh Bipinchandra & Others.
Vocational Stream.
19. 9781/03 Patel Nivaben Jagdishbhai Vocational Stream.
20. 9813/03 Patel Bindalben Vasantbhai & Others.
Vocational Stream.
21. 9815/03 Bhariya Dhanshyambhai Khalnbhai & Others.
Vocational Stream.
22. 9822/03 Kum.Bhavanaben Gopalji Makwana Vocational Stream.
23. 9879/03 Vinas P. Jani (Minor).
Vocational Stream.
24. 9914/03 Minor Heenaben Babubhai Chauhan Vocational Stream.
25. 9915/03 Minor Varshaben Amarabhai Sisodia.
Vocational Stream.
26. 9916/03 Minor Sajanaben Rameshbhai Jarsania.
Vocational Stream.
27. 9917/03 Minor Monikaben Popatlal Desai Vocational Stream.
28. 9918/03 Minor Bhavikaben Karsanbhai Chadsania.
Vocational Stream.
29. 9982/03 Zala Mitalkumari Pratapsinh & Others.
Vocational Stream.
30. 9999/03 Rabari Gitaben Kliodabhai.
Vocational Stream.
31. 10062/03 Shrimali Sunilkumar Ajaybhai Vocational Stream.
32. 10063/03 Thakor Sureshji Shakaraji Vocational Stream.
33. 10390/03 Damor Saileshbhai Pujabhai & Ors.
Vocational Stream.
34. 11108/03 Patel Dakshaben Babulal & Anr.
Vocational Stream.
35. 9978/03 Patel Vipulkumar Kalidas.
Vocational Stream.
36. 10237/03 Bariya Rajeshkumar Salambhai Reservation for children of Ex-Serviceman.
37. 10342/03 Patel Sonalben Pravinkumar & Anr.
do-
38. 10012/03 All India Sat'ai Majdoor Congress.
Reservation of two seats for Valmiki Community.
39:
10360/03 Gangeshbhai Jagdishbhai Solanki & Anr.
-do-
40.
9836/03 Nehaben Chhotubhai Patel Reservation of seats for Widows and deserted women.
41. 10290/03 Patel Shitalben Jagdishbhai Declaration of result of 12th standard on 14-7-2003.
42. CA No. 5327/03 Banaskantha Dalit Sangathan For joining party in S.C.A. No. 10012 of 2003.
2. The First Group of Special Civil Applications is filed by those petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, who are aggrieved by the legality, validity and propriety of the Govt. Resolution dated 7-3-2003 and/or 3-7-2003 passed by the respondent No. l i.e. Secretary, Education Department, Gujarat Government, Gandhinagar, whereby 15 marks are to be deducted from the total marks of the candidates who have passed with or without any attempt, requisite secondary school examination in earlier years, while considering and preparing the merit list for admission in Primary Teachers Certificate (P.T.C.) Course in the present year.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Resolutions are passed without any authority and against the statutory provisions and without following any procedure, the respondent No. l has tried to amend and rescind the statutory rules, and thereby, taken such an arbitrary and discriminatory decision which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioners that they have passed their Higher Secondary School Certificate Examinations conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board in certain years, either with or without any attempt. Most of the petitioners have cleared their examination in the last academic year, and some of them have passed the same a year before the last academic year. All the petitioners have cleared the said examination with First Class Marks and some of them have cleared the said examination with distinction.
4. It is further stated that in view of the said educational qualification, the petitioners became eligible for admission in Primary Teachers Certificate Course which is requisite course for being considered for appointment on the post of the Teachers in Primary Schools.
5. In the second group of petitions, like Spl.C.A. No. 9813 of 2003 the case of the petitioners is that they are the students of Vocational Stream and all of them have undergone study of Vocational Stream in both llth and 12th Standard. All of them have passed Standard 12th examination in the Vocational Stream at the first trial and have acquired very high percentage of marks, and therefore, as per the earlier norms, they are eligible for the admission to P.T.C. Course. It is submitted that till now, the petitioners were considered to be eligible for admission to the P.T.C. -Course and as per the earlier system of allocating the seats to the students of Vocational Stream, out of total number of seats available, for P.T.C. Course, 2% of seats were being kept reserved for the students who passed Standard 12th examination in the Vocational Stream. However, the advertisement published by the respondent in respect to the admission for this year, the students from Vocational Stream were not considered to be eligible for admission to the P.T.C. Course.
6. In third group of petitions, the petitioners like the petitioners in Spl.C.A. No. 10012 of 2003 are concerned, the main prayer made by them is that by publishing the advertisement dated 30-6-2003 for P.T.C. Course admission, the respondents have ignored the petitioners' right for reservation of two seats for Valmiki community which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. In fourth group of petitions, the petitioners like the petitioners in Spl.C.A. No. 9636 of 2003, it is their say that the respondent-authorities have ignored the right of the petitioners for reservation of seats in the admission for P.T.C. Course for Widows and deserted women. The advertisement dated 30-6-2003 published by the respondent-authorities was totally silent so far as this right of the petitioners is concerned.
8. In the fifth group of petitions, the petitioners like the petitioners in Spl.C.A. No. 10237 of 2003, it is their case that respondent-authorities have not reserved ten seats (5 seats for Boys and 5 seats for Girls) for children of Ex-Servicemen who have passed Standard 12th Examination in March : April, 2003, for this year, without following due procedure under the law.
9. In all these matters, this Court has issued NOTICES and directed the respondent-authorities to consider and process the applications of the petitioners as per the merit list without deducting 15 marks or without being influenced by the fact that the petitioners are from Vocational Stream or without excluding those petitioners falling in the category of either Valmiki community, Ex-servicemen or Widows or Deserted women and further directed them to consider their applications as per the prevailing practice in the last year. Mr. A.D. Oza, learned G.P. along with Ms. Mita Panchal, learned A.G.P. appeared on behalf of the respondent-authorities in all these matters and also filed affidavit-in-reply in at least one from each group of these petitions. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. K.B. Trivedi has also appeared on behalf of the respondent-authorities in all these matters. At the joint request of the parties, all these matters were taken up for final hearing after waiving RULE by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
10. On behalf of the petitioners of first group, Mr. N. D. Nanavati, learned senior Advocate has taken the lead and addressed the Court mainly on the aspect of deduction of 15 marks. He has submitted that the State of Gujarat has inducted Gujarat Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1984 so as to provide for recognition of Educational Institutions established and maintained for conducting such courses and for other ancillary matters connected therewith. The said Act was brought into force with effect from 7-3-1984. He has further submitted that Section 3 of the Act prohibits any person from maintaining any Educational Institutions unless the same is recognised under the said Act. Section 6 provides for admission of the students in such recognised Educational Institution. It reads as under ;-
"No recognised Educational Institution shall admit any student in the Educational Institution except in accordance with the Rules made in this behalf."
11. Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that Section 13 of the said Act empowers the State Government to make Rule in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 further provides that such rules may be made for several purposes and clause (h) thereof provides for making rules for admission of the students in recognised Educational Institution under Section 6. He has further submitted that Sub-section (1) of Section 13 itself puts an embargo on the State Government while making such rules as the same prescribes for a condition of the previous publication of the said rules before the same are notified in the Official Gazette. He has further submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 13 of the said Act, the State Government has framed the rules for admission of the students in the recognised Educational Institutions and the same are known as Gujarat Educational Institutions (Pre-Primary and Primary Teachers Training Colleges) Rules, 1984. He has further submitted that as per the provisions contained under Section 13(1) of the Act, the State Government had invited objections by publishing the same on 15-5-1984 and the objections were invited upto 31-5-1984. After considering the objections and suggestions received from the public, the same has been brought into force with effect from 1-9-1984.
12. Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that Rule 6 of the Rules provides that Educational Institutions shall admit the students in accordance with the provisions contained in Appendix V of the said Rules. Provisions relating to admission in Educational Institution as contained in Appendix V are as under :-
"1. The minimum qualification for admission for training in the Educational Institution shall be the possession of Secondary School Certificate issued by Gujarat Secondary Education Board.
2. Admission shall be given on the basis of the marks obtained in the Secondary School Certificate Examination.
3. Minimum age of candidate for admission shall be 15 years at the commencement of the academic year and no candidate shall be admitted in an Educational Institution if his age exceeds 22 years at such commencement.
Provided that the maximum age-limit specified in this clause shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste or as the case may be Scheduled Tribe.
4. There shall be reserved 7% of the seats for candidate belonging to Schedule Castes, 14% of the seats for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and 10% of the seats for candidates belonging to other Socially and Educationally Backward Class out of the total seats available in the first year class in the Institution.
5. The procedure to be followed for admitting candidates in an Educational Institution shall be such as may be specified by the Director or as the case may be, authorised Officer."
13. Mr. N.D. Nanavati has further submitted that after the enactment of the above Act as well as framing of the rules, the State Government continued to follow the said Rules for the purpose of admission in the P.T.C. Course. He has further submitted that on 9-6-1998, the State Government vide its Notification amended the said Rules and before its amendment, the Rules sought to be amended were previously published on 27-6-1997 and objections and suggestions were invited from the persons likely to be affected as prescribed under Section 13(1) of the Act. After considering these suggestions and objections, the said amendment has been brought into force.
14. Mr. N.D. Nanavati has further submitted that on 7-3-2003, without following any procedure the resolution came to be passed by the State Government providing that if a candidate has failed in the earlier examination of the Standard 12, then 15 marks shall be deducted while considering the said candidate in the merit list. He has further submitted that the State Government had issued an advertisement on 30-6-2003 inviting applications from the candidates desiring an admission in P.T.C. Course in various Government non-Government and Self-Financed Institutions for the academic year 2003-2004. The respondent No. 2 has introduced the Centralised Admission System and for effective functioning of the said system, a Committee known as Centralised Admission Committee is incorporated by the respondent No. 2 The desiring students have to apply to the said Committee, and thereafter, the merit list is published by the said Committee and the students are given option to opt for a particular Institutions according to their seniority number in the merit list. He has further submitted that all the petitioners have filled up the form pursuant to the said advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 as all the petitioners are desirous of obtaining admission in the P.T.C. Course in any of the Institutions in the State of Gujarat. He has further submitted that recently the petitioners came to know about one more advertisement published on 6-7-2003 by the respondent No. 2 whereby clauses (7) and (8) of the earlier advertisement dated 30-6-2003 were re-casted whereby not only the students who had failed on earlier examinations but the students like some of the present petitioners who had appeared and successfully passed in the earlier examinations were also to be considered equally and 15 marks were to be deducted while considering in the merit list.
15. Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that immediately upon making inquiries about this subsequent advertisement, the petitioners came to know about passing of the Resolution dated 3-7-2003. He has submitted that the said Resolution is ex-fade, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that the Rules of 1984 provide that the admissions shall be given in the P.T.C. Course on the basis of the marks obtained in the Secondary or Higher Secondary Certificate Examination. Rules which have a statutory force nowhere puts any embargo as envisaged in the said Resolutions, and hence, the resolutions dated 7-3-2003 and 3-7-2003 could not have been passed and effected by the respondents. He has further submitted that the impugned Resolutions were passed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 13(1) of the Act, and hence, the respondents, thereby, acted against the intent of Legislature which specifically provides for inviting objections and suggestions from all the persons likely to be affected. He has further submitted that as per the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act, the Rules cannot be published in the Official Gazette unless the same are put before the table in the Legislature, atleast prior to the expiry of 30 days. While issuing the impugned resolutions, the respondent No. l did not take any step to comply with this provision, and hence, on that ground, the said resolution became invalid and ineffective and nonest in the eye of law.
16. As far as the issue regarding exclusion of Vocational Stream is concerned, Mr. Yatin Oza, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that though he is adopting the arguments of Mr. N.D. Nanavaty so far as the non-compliance of the provisions contained in the Act and Rules are concerned, over and above this, it is also his case that the exclusion of the Vocational Stream for the purpose of securing admission in the P.T.C. Course is not at all justified nor it is tenable at law. He has submitted that the State of Gujarat from the academic year 1982-1983 has introduced in Higher Secondary level after Standard 10 S.S.C. Examination, a Vocational Stream programme with a variety of trades, one of the trade is Home Science for introduction of Vocational Stream and the underlined object was that the Student can aptitude vocations for self-employment and for studying tor trade and employment. Pursuant to this, the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board were conducting the examinations for Standard 12 and the students from this Vocational Stream were entitled and eligible to get admission in P.T.C. Course. He has further submitted that the State of Gujarat through its Education Department has taken a policy level decision in June, 1999 that those who have completed 2 years in Home Science trade in Higher Secondary Vocational Stream were treated as equivalent to Pre-P.T.C., so that they can get necessary jobs.
17. Mr. Oza has further submitted that the impugned action of the respondent No. 2 for making an admission rules, more particularly, Rule No. 4.1.1 whereby the Vocational Stream has been deleted without following due procedure of law and absolutely in arbitrary manner is illegal. He has further submitted that for making such rules, no Notification in the Official Gazette inviting objections and suggestions from the public at large for information, was issued nor any opportunity or notice has been given to the likely to be affected parties. He has further submitted that the public advertisement appeared in "Sandesh" daily newspaper on 30-6-2003 issued by the respondent No. 2, indicating by implication the framing of the rules for admission in P.T.C. Course debarring the students of Vocational Stream on or after 30-6-2003. The impugned action of the respondent-authorities, is therefore, absolutely violative of Section 13 of the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder.
18. So far as reservation of seats for the children of Ex-Servicemen is concerned, Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since years, the respondents were keeping 10 seats reserved for the children of Ex-Servicemen out of total seats available to the P.T.C. Course. Out of those 10 seats, five seats each were being kept reserved for Boys and Girls, children of Ex-Servicemen. He has further submitted that initially, when there were only 2500 seats available for the admission to the P.T.C. Course, at that point of time only 10 seats were being kept reserved. Thereafter, when last year the total number of seats increased to around 5000, still the seats kept reserved for children of Ex-Servicemen were only 10 and this year though the total number of seats has increased to 6500, instead of increasing the quota of children of Ex-Servicemen, the respondents have cancelled the said reservation without giving any reason or without following any due procedure of law. He has, therefore, submitted that the decision and action of the respondent-authorities deserves to be quashed and set aside.
19. With regard to the reservation of seats for Widows/deserted women is concerned, Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as a normal practice all throughout uptill now, the respondents were keeping some percentage of seats reserved for the widows/ deserted women for their upliftment and welfare. However, from this year, without giving any reason, or without following the due procedure of law, the respondent-authorities have changed their policy and have not kept any seat vacant or reserved for widows and deserted women. The petitioners, have therefore, approached this Court seeking direction against the respondents to keep certain seats reserved for widow and deserted women so as to enable them to live a respectable life in the Society.
20. So far as reservation of seats for Valmiki community is concerned, Mr. V.B. Gharaniya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the students belonging to the Valmiki community have been given the benefits of reservation of two seats out of 1% Schedule Caste Reservation seats. He has submitted that the students belonging to the Valmiki community is the most backward and down-trodden community and to deny the benefit to this community is nothing but the violation of the fundamental rights conferred under the Constitution of India, and since the procedure prescribed under the Act has not been followed by the respondent-authorities, the said action is also in violation of the principles of natural justice, and hence, the action of the respondent-authorities excluding the Valmiki community from the reserved category atleast for the purpose of allotting two seats within the quota of 1% reservation for Schedule Caste, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
21. Mr. K.B. Trivedi, learned Addl. Advocate General has appeared in all these matters along with Mr. A.D. Oza, learned G.P. and Ms. Mita Panchal, learned A.G.P. affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent-authorities was filed by Mr. R. K. Chaudhry, Director of Primary Education in all these matters. Certain common preliminary objections were raised in respect of the maintainability of the petitions. The first preliminary objection was that in some of the cases, the petitioners have filed only one petition, wherein the number of students have raised their contentions, and hence, it was contended that each student should file separate petition to raise his grievance against the respondent-authorities. Another preliminary objection which is common in all these matters is that the P.T.C. Course is governed under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.C.T.E. Act') and yet the petitioners have not joined the N.C.T.E. as party, and hence, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, ai! these petitions are required to de dismissed. It is further contended that after commencement of the N.C.T.E. Act. the state Government is not empowered to frame/amend the Rules and Regulations pertaining to the institutions imparting education for P.T.C. Course, except under Section 32 read with Sections 12, 14 and 15 of the N.C.T.E, Act. It is further contended that the contentions raised by the petitioners that the procedure under the State Act of 1984 would apply to the case of petitioners is not tenable in view of the fact that the State Act has given a way to the. N.C.T.E. Act. It is further contended that the N.C.T.E. Act came into force in the year 1993, but effective implementation of the said Act started in the State of Gujarat from the academic year 1999-2000, and hence, from 1999-2000, all the Educational Institutions providing P.T.C. Course have started getting recognition from N.C.T.E. only.
22. Mr. Trivedi has further submitted that by virtue of the Central Act, namely, National Council of Teachers Education Act, the State Act, namely, Gujarat Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1984 is impliedly repealed. He has further submitted that the Medical education is governed by Medical Council of India Act and technical education is governed by All India Council of Technical Education Act. Likewise, P.T.C. Courses are governed by National Council of Teachers Education Act. He has invited the attention of the Court to the preamble of the said Act which says that the Act provides for the establishment of a National Council for Teachers Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matter connected therewith. Section 2(c) defines the word "Council" which means the National Council for Teacher Education established under Sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(e) defines the word "institution" which means an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education. Section 2(i) defines the word "recognised institution" which means an institution recognised by the Council under Section 14. Section 12 of the Act discusses the functions of the Council which says that it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act. Sub-section (c) of Section 12 says that the Council may co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the Country. Sub-section (e) of Section 12 says that the Council may lay down norms for any specified category of courses or training in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria tor admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum. Sub-section (f) of Section 12 says that the Council may lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses of training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications. Sub-section (j) of Section 12 says that the Council may examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions.
23. Mr. Trivedi has further invited the Court's attention to Section 14 of the Act which deals with recognition of institutions offering the course or training in teacher education. Section 31 of the Act deals with power to make Rules. Section 32 of the Act deals with power to make regulations. It is stated that the Council may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 32 says that the regulations so framed may include the matters relating to norms, guidelines and standards in respect of standards of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, conditions required for the proper functioning of the institution and conditions for granting recognition and other matters.
24. Mr. Trivedi has further submitted that Entry 25 of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India deals with 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. He has further submitted that the State law is the law relating to the Entry 25 in the concurrent list. Likewise, N.C.T.E. Act is also the law relating to Entry 25 of the concurrent list, and since, both the legislations occupy the same list or identical list, there is an implied repeal of the State law by the Central law. He has, therefore, submitted that the recourse to Section 13 of the State law is not permissible, and hence, the very foundation of the arguments canvassed by the petitioner is erroneous and cannot be tenable at law. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752 wherein it is held as under :-
"On a question under Article 254(1) whether an Act of Parliament prevails against a law of the State, no question of repeal arises; but the principles on which the rule of implied repeal rests, namely, that if the subject-matter of the later legislation is identical with that of the earlier, so that they cannot both stand together, then the earlier is repealed by the later enactment, will be equally applicable to a question under Article 254(2) when the further legislation by Parliament is in respect of the same matter as that of the State law. Hence, Section 2 of Bombay Act No. XXXVI of 1947 cannot prevail as against Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (XXIV of 1946) as amended by Act No. LII of 1950."
25. Mr. Trivedi has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deep Chand and ( Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 648, wherein it is held as under :-
"29. Nicholas in his Australian Constitution. 2nd Edition, page 303, refers to three tests of inconsistency or repugnancy :-
(1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing statutes;
(2) Though, there may be no direct conflict, a State law may be inoperative because the Commonwealth law or the award of the Commonwealth Court, is intended to be a complete exhaustive code; and (3) Even in the absence of intention, a conflict may arise when both State and Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the same subject-matter.
"This Court in Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1956 SCR 393 : AIR 1956 SC 676, accepted the said three rules, among others, as useful guides to test the question of repugnancy. In Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay, 1955 (1) SCR 799 : AIR 1954 SC 752, this Court laid down a similar test". At page 807 (of SCR) : at page 757 (of AIR), it is stated :
"The principle embodied in Section 107(2) and Article 254(2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by the Centre and by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State."
Repugnancy between two Statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles :
(1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field."
26. Mr. Trivedi has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. v. M/s. M. A. Tulloch and ( Co., AIR 1964 SC 1284, wherein it is held as under :-
"Repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other, then to the extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed comparison of provisions of the two Statutes, but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation. Having regard to the terms of Section 18(1) of the Central Act LXVII of 1957, it appears clear that the intention of Parliament was to cover the entire field and thus to leave no scope for the argument that until rules were framed, there was no inconsistency and no supersession of the State Act XXVII of 1952, Therefore, it would not be correct to say that until rules were framed under Section 18 of the Central Act LXVII of 1957 the Central Act would not cover the field and the Orissa Act XXVII of 1952 would continue to operate in rull force. (S) AIR 1956 SC 676, Distinguished."
27. Mr. Trivedi has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by LRs. and Ors., 2001 (4) SCC 262, wherein also the above principles were reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by stating that the test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance.
28. Mr. Trivedi, has therefore, submitted that the authority while issuing the Government Resolution dated 7-3-2003 derived its power from Clause 3(b) of Appendix I to N.C.T.E. (Norms and Standards for Teacher Education Programmes) Regulations, 2001 which says that the admission should be made either on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examinations or in the entrance examination conducted by the State Government as per the policy of the State Government. He has further submitted that even if the powers are not expressly conferred on the respondent-authorities under the said Appendix, the same are to be inferred as the object sought to be achieved are not in any way in conflict with the constitutional provisions nor they are in conflict with the provisions contained in the N.C.T.E. Act. The action of the respondent authority is not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as is contended by the petitioners in the present group of petitions.
29. Mr. Trivedi has farther submitted that Article 162 of the Constitution of India empowers the State Executive to make any regulation or order which shall have the effect of "law" so long as it does not extend to a subject with . respect to which the State Legislature has no competence under the 7th Schedule and to contravene, any legislation by the State Legislature already covering the field. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat III, Ahmedabad v Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association, Ahmedabad, AIR 1982 SC 32, wherein it is held as under :-
e Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted by Parliament in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction under Entry 33, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954. The exercise of such concurrent jurisdiction would not deprive the State legislature of its jurisdiction thereunder. The State legislature, therefore, could still make a law on the subject regulating trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of 'foodstuffs' and the only question that would arise is one of repugnancy dealt with in Article 254 of the Constitution. The extensive with its legislative power under Entry 33, List III, it relates to all matters covered by the subject 'foodstuffs', trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution thereof. This is, of course, subject to the limitation contained in Proviso to Article 162 which directs that in any matter with respect to which the legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof."
30. He has farther submitted that the classification made by the State Government while issuing the present G.R. and making necessary amendments cannot be termed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is quite just, proper, as well as reasonable. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Kari Thimmarayaswamy Education Society (Regd.) v. Stale of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1990 NOC 150 (Karnataka) wherein it is held as under :-
licy is understood to mean goals or purposes of governmental programme. It is also interpreted as state craft, political sagacity, course of action adopted by government for public group, and to subserve public interest. In the process in recent years, major efforts to enlarge or alter policies have left their mark on education, transportation etc. In our country, commonly known goals and purposes of governmental programme are, elimination of poverty, elimination of illiteracy etc. The power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution to regulate the standards of education as well as the quality of education by fixing qualifications for admission by altering the existing standards, cannot be viewed as violation of Article 14. Unless the policy laying down P.U.C. as minimum qualification for admission to C.P.Ed. Course is repugnant either to any constitutional provision or to any law, judicial wisdom commands non-interference with such policy decisions, however far-reaching the consequences of the decisions taken by the Government."
31. Mr. Trivedi has further submitted that the deduction of 15 marks, exclusion of Vocational Stream, reservations for students from Valmiki community, Ex-Servicemen, widows and deserted women etc., are quite reasonable and it is a policy decision taken by the State Government which is in consonance with the Constitutional provisions as well as in accordance with the N.C.T.E. Act, and hence, this Court should not interfere with such policy decision taken by the respondent-authorities. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rhitu Aggarwal (Minor) v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1993 (2) GCD 420 (Guj.),'wherein this Court has held that :
is Court would have no jurisdiction to hold that even though Biology is a relevant science subject, yet the subject of Electronics should also be included in that group of subjects. Further, it cannot be held that laying down the requirement of passing the H.S.C. Examination with Biology subject would be in any way arbitrary or discriminatory. If the University has laid down its policy, it is not the function of this Court to declare it ultra vires on certain alleged drawbacks in the policy by holding that it is not a wise or prudent policy. The Court cannot declare that the provision made in the Ordinance is unreasonable because other subjects are also Science group subjects which could have been included in the Ordinance. Nor is it the function of this Court to direct the University to provide for other alternative subjects in the Science group of subjects so that candidates from the other States can be admitted to the Engineering courses."
32. Mr. Trivedi has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and ( Ors., 1994 (1) SCC 550, wherein it is held that "where the State by means of the impugned G.O. desires to bring about academic discipline as a regulatory measure, it is a matter of policy. The State knows how best to implement the language policy. In the matter of policy, the Court should decline to interfere.
33. Mr. Trivedi has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Thapar Institute of Engineering and ( Technology and Anr. v. Gagandeep Sharma, 2001 (9) SCC 157, wherein it is held as under :
"Prescribing the academic standards falls exclusively in the domain of special bodies like the Senate, Board of Governors and Syndicate etc. The Court would normally not interfere with such prescribed standards and especially when they are intended to improve the academic standards in their respective institutes. The scope of judicial review in such matters would be very limited,"
34. Mr. Trivedi, on the basis of these decisions, as well as the above submissions, urged before this Court that all these petitions challenging, the action of the respondent-authorities either one or another ground depending upon the facts involved in their respective petitions, do not have any substance or merits, and hence, they deserve to be dismissed with costs.
35. Mr. Nirupam Nanavati and Mr. Y.N. Oza, the learned senior Counsel, as well as Mr. Bipin Jasani, Mr. M.R. Shah, Mr. Kharadi, Mr. V.B. Gharaniya, Mr. J.V. Japee, Mr. M.C. Gandhi, and Mr. P.S. Patel, the learned Advocates appearing for their respective parties, on the other hand, in rejoinder, have submitted that the respondent-authorities have made out altogether a new case for which there was no foundation at all. There was no substance in the argument that because of the enactment of N.C.T.E. Act, the State law has been given a go-by and the respondent-authorities have derived powers from Clause 3(b) Appendix I of N.C.T.E. (Norms and Standards for Teacher Education Programmes) Regulation, 2001. As a matter of fect, Clause 3 prescribes the eligibility criteria and Clause 3(b) prescribes that admission should be made either on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination or in the entrance examination conducted by the State Government as per the policy of the State Government. Thus, limited option is given to the State Government only with regard to the basis of admission, i.e., their qualifying examination or the entrance examination. No wider meaning can be given to the said Clause 3(b) of Appendix I to the said Regulation. It has been further stated, that in none of the resolutions or advertisements or communications, the respondent-authorities have come out with the facts that they have derived their powers from the N.C.T.E. Act or the Regulations framed therein. Only for the first time in affidavit-in-reply, they have come out with this defence with a view to justify their actions and it is a settled proposition in law that the Statute cannot be explained by affidavit.
36. It has been further submitted that reliance placed by Mr. Trivedi on Article 162 of the Constitution of India is of no avail as the said Article empowers the State Government to exercise executive powers in respect of the matters in connection of which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws and the Proviso to this Article makes it clear that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have to make laws, the Executive power of the State shall be subject to and limited by, the Executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof. It is further stated that under Article 249 of the Constitution of India, power is conferred on the Parliament to legislate with respect to the matters in the State list in the national interest and as per the provisions contained in Article 251 of the Constitution, in case of any inconsistency between laws made by Parliament under Articles 249 and 250, and laws made by the Legislatures of States, the law made by Parliament, shall prevail and the law made by Legislature of the State, shall to the extent of repugnancy, but so long as only as the law made by the Parliament continues to have effect, be operative. Here, in the present case, it cannot be said that the law made by the State Legislature is contrary to or repugnant with the law made by the Parliament, and hence, the theory of implied repealing should not be accepted by the Court.
37. With regard to sudden change in the policy by excluding the students of Vocational Stream and other categories of students for getting admission in P.T.C. Course, it is contended that it results into gross injustice to them and it is also contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1801, wherein it is held that "The doctrine of legitimate expectation in the substantive sense has been accepted as part of our law and that the decision-maker can normally be compelled to give effect to his representation in regard to the expectation based on previous practice or past conduct unless some over-riding public interest comes in the way." In the present cases, there is no overriding public interest which would compel the respondent-authorities to make such sudden changes in the policy. Since, the powers are not delegated by the N.C.T.E. to the State Government and the State Government has not followed the prescribed procedure laid down under the State laws and since there was no justifiable reasons for making such changes, it cannot be said that such policy decision taken by the State Government has conformed the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2877, wherein it is held as under :
"Even the policy decision taken by the State Government has to pass the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If the policy decision has the effect of deviating from the normal and salutary rule of selection based on merit is subversive of the doctrine of equality, it cannot sustain, it should be free from the vice of arbitrariness and conform to the well settled norms both positive and negative underlying Articles 14 and 16, which together with Article 15 form part of the constitutional code of equality."
38. I have considered the arguments canvassed by the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners in these different groups of petitions. I have further applied my mind and given my anxious thoughts to the viewpoints presented before me by the learned Additional Advocate General along with the learned Government Pleader and Assistant Government Pleader. The pleadings of the parties as contained in the Memo of Petitions as well as affidavit-in-replies were also taken into consideration and authorities relied upon by the parties, were minutely gone into. Though, different issues are raised in all these petitions, they all centre around only one major issue and that is, whether the respondent-authorities are justified in bringing out sudden changes in the admission pattern in P.T.C. Course, and thereby, seeking exclusions of the petitioners from considering their cases on merits, as per the existing standard and policy.
39. As far as preliminary issues raised by the respondents are concerned, the same do not impress the Court much. Since common issue is involved in the petitions and petitioners have affixed requisite Court Fees Stamp on the Memo of Petitions, the same are considered to be maintainable. Moreover, since no relief is prayed for against N.C.T.E. nor any order, decision or action of N.C.T.E. is challenged in any of these petitions, N.C.T.E. is neither a proper nor necessary party and hence it is rightly not joined.
40. It is an undisputed fact, that the Gujarat Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1984, was enacted to provide for recognition of educational institutions established and maintained for conducting courses of instruction leading to grant of certain certificates in the State of Gujarat and for matters connected therewith. The said Act came into force on 18-1-1984. Section 13(1) of the said Act empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to the condition of previous publication. By virtue of Notification dated 1-9-1984, Gujarat Educational Institutions (Pre-Primary and Primary Teachers Training Colleges) Rules, 1984, have come into force. Before implementing or enforcing the said Rules, the Draft Rules were published as required by Section 13(1) of the Act in Gujarat Government Gazette dated 16-5-1984 under Government Notification dated 15-5-1984 inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby till 31-5-1984 and after considering the said objections and suggestions on the Draft Rules, the Government, while exercising powers under Section 13(1) of the Act, had made the said Rules, the said Rules were amended subsequently from time to time, by Notifications dated 12-7-1985, 10-12-1986, 8-12-1988, 28-8-1990, 28-12-1990, 2-9-1991, 12-8-1994, 28-10-1994 and 7-12-1994.
41. It is pertinent to note here that the Parliament had enacted the National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993, to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. The Act has come into force with effect from 1-7-1995. Section 12 of the Act deals with functions of the Council and sub-section (e) thereof, empowers the Council to lay down norms for any specified category of Courses or training in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum. Section 32 empowers the Council to make regulations by Notification in the Official Gazette, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 33 makes it obligatory that every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, before each House of the Parliament, for a total period of 30 days.
42. It is also an admitted fact that even after enactment of N.C.T.E. Act, Certified Draft Rules to amend the Gujarat Rules, 1984, were published as required by Section 13(1) of the State Act, in Gujarat Government Gazette dated 27-6-1997 under Notification of even date, inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby, and after considering the objections and suggestions so received, the Gujarat Rules of 1984 were amended by Gujarat Government Notification dated 6-9-1998. This fact, by itself, makes it abundantly clear that N.C.T.E. Act does not automatically repeal the State Act or the Rules made thereunder.
43. It is also a matter of fact that in the initial years of the establishment of N.C.T.E., a number of regulations and amendments thereto were issued on matters relating to form of application for recognition, time-limit for submission of application "No Objection Certificate" by the Statcs/U.Ts., norms and standards for various teacher education programmes etc. The N.C.T.E. has, thereafter, undertaken an exercise to consolidate all these regulations so as to make them available at a single point of reference, and hence, while exercising the powers conferred under Clauses (f) and (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the N.C.T.E. Act, the N.C.T.E. has made the Regulations, namely N.C.T.E. (Form of application for recognition, the time-limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002. These Regulations have come into effect from 13-11-2002, and they are applicable to all matters relating to grant of recognition/ permission for starting a course or training in teacher education including teacher education courses through open and distance learning system. Regulation-8 states that the norms and standards for various teacher education courses are given in the Appendices 3 to 14. Appendix-5 deals with norms and standards for elementary teacher education programme. In the preamble, it is slated that the elementary teacher education programme is meant for preparing teachers for elementary schools (Primary and Upper Primary/middle). Clause 3(b) states that admission should be made either on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination or in the entrance examination conducted by the State Government, as per the policy of the State Government. Clause 3(c) talks of reservation, which says that there shall be reservation of seats for S.C./S.T./O.B.C. Handicapped Women etc., as per the rules of the concerned State Government. Except this Clause 3(b) of Appendix-5, no other provision contained in any Section of the N.C.T.E. Act, or any rule or regulation framed thereunder, has been pressed into service. Even Clause 3(b) does not connote such wide meaning as contended by the learned Additional Advocate General. The words "as per the policy of the State Government" as contained in Clause 3(b) apply only either of any one eventualities, i.e. admissions are either on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination or in the entrance examination conducted by the State Government. It does not confer any power on the State Government to decide or fix admission criteria, as per the policy of the State Government. The respondent-authorities are, therefore, not justified to make changes in question on the basis of Clause 3(b) of Appendix-5.
44. It is rather strange to observe here that despite the fact that Clause 3(c) empowers the State Government to keep reservation of seats for S.C./S.T./ O.B.C., Handicapped Women etc., the respondent-authorities by their impugned actions and/or decisions, have excluded the reservation of seats for Handicapped Women, students of Valmiki community, students of Ex-Servicemen etc. The State Government is uptill now following this system and for the first time, it is sought to be excluded, having relied upon the N.C.T.E., norms and standards. This action, on the face of it, is contrary to and in violation of the norms and standards prescribed by N.C.T.E..
45. Even otherwise, the reference made by the Director of Primary Education in his Affidavit-in-Reply, about the powers derived from Clause 3(b) of Appendix-I of N.C.T.E. Regulation, 2001 published vide Notification dated 3-9-2001, is uncalled for and unwarranted as in view of the Consolidated Regulations of 2002, referred to earlier, the N.C.T.E. Regulation-2001 stands repealed and new provisions are contained in Appendix-5 of the Regulations-2002.
46. One more important aspect, which requires special mention here, is that Clause 11 of Appendix-5 talks about relaxation in eligibility/duration of the Course. It states that as in some States, the duration of the elementary teacher education course is one year only and the eligibility for admission to such course is a pass in class test. Such States are given time upto the end of Academic Session 2004-2005 to switch over their programmes for bringing them in conformity with the N.C.T.E. norms and standards. Why the same criteria should not be applied to the issues raised in the present petitions and why the decisions cannot be deferred to the end of Academic Session 2004-2005? There is no justification, therefore, to implement the changes made in the admission patterns to P.T.C. Course, from the current academic year.
47. With regard to the submissions made about implied repealing of State Act, in view of the enactment of N.C.T.E. Act, and the authorities relied on in this connection, the Court is of the view that no case is made out for invoking the principle of such implied repealing, the respondent-authorities have never conceived such idea or concept while issuing any of Government Resolutions, Circulars, Letters or Advertisements which are under challenge in these petitions. It is for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply, they have come forward with these propositions that the State Government is not required to follow the procedure as prayed for by the petitioners under the Gujarat Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1984 for the purpose Of issuance of Government Resolution, but the State Government is empowered under Clause 3(b) of Appendix-I of N.C.T.E. Regulation, 2001, published vide Notification dated 3-9-2001. This is nothing but an intellectual dishonesty. A decision is taken first and when challenge is made to that decision, justification is sought for. Any action or decision based on statutory provision or even on inferential Legislative intent, the same should be reflected in the decision-making process itself and not by way of affidavit-in-reply seeking post facto approval or confirmation from the Court. This Court is unable to uphold such actions and/ or decisions taken by the respondent-authorities, and hence, they deserve to be quashed and set aside.
48. The next point, which is under consideration is the stand taken in the affidavit-in-reply and submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General to the effect that the State Government has derived its powers under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, under which the Rules of Business were framed by the State Government, more particularly, under Rule 12 thereof. This is of no avail to the respondent-authorities. Article 166(1) requires that all executive action of a State Government shall be exercised to be taken in the name of the Governor. It does not prescribe how an Execution action of the Government is to be performed, it only prescribes the mode in which such act is to be expressed: While Clause (1) relates to the mode of expression, Clause (2) lays down the ways in which the order is to be authenticated. Any action, decision or order of an executive authority, which is otherwise, not valid or conforms the statutory provisions, cannot be justified by merely making reference of Governor's authentication. This submission, therefore, fails.
49. Having regard to the entire tacts and circumstances of the cases and after carefully examining the various submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and having kept in mind the statutory provisions and the judicial pronouncements on the subject, I am of the view that the respondent-authorities are not justified in bringing out changes in admission pattern for the P.T.C. Course, by reduction of 15 marks or by exclusion of students from Vocational Stream or by removal of reservation for students from Valmiki community or students of Ex-servicemen, Handicapped students, Widows or deserted women etc., and all such Government Resolutions, Circulars, Letters, Advertisements to the above effect, more particularly Resolutions dated 7-3-2003, and 3-7-2003 and Advertisement dated 30-6-2003 and 6-7-2003 making exclusion of the above categories and Rules framed to this effect, without complying with statutory requirements are hereby quashed and set aside, with a direction to follow the system for admissions to P.T.C. Course, which was prevalent till Academic Year 2002-2003. This is, however, subject to one exception, i.e. maintenance of overall intake capacity. With regard to intake capacity of a class, which may likely to be exceeded because of reservation of seats for students belonging to Valmiki community, students of Ex-servicemen, Handicapped students or Widows or deserted women, the respondent-authorities are directed to reserve their quota of seats in such a manner, in that class or category to which they belong, so that intake capacity would not exceed. In other words, it would amount to reservation within reservation. For instance, if a student is belonging to Valmiki community, he will have his seat reserved in Scheduled Caste quota and if a student is a son or daughter of Ex-serviceman and if he or she otherwise falls in General Category, he or she will have his seat reserved from that category. Admissions be given to them accordingly.
50. As far as Special Civil Application No. 10290 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioner's result was declared late and he could not fill-up his form in time. This Court, by way of an interim relief, directed the respondent-authorities to accept his Form and process accordingly. Hence, this petition is allowed by directing the respondent-authorities to give him admission to P.T.C. Course if he is otherwise eligible on merits.
51. Special Civil Application No. 10012 of 2003 is filed by AH India Satai Majdoor Congress, seeking reservation of seats for students belonging to Valmiki community. Civil Application No. 5327 of 2003 is filed by Banaskantha Dalit Sangathan for joining party in Special Civil Application No. 10012 of 2003. The members of these two Associations would get the benefit of aforesaid directions, provided that they have filled in their forms in time or within such time as extended by this Court, during the pendency of these petitions. These two petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
52. It is made clear that this judgment or order, pronounced by this Court today, would not enlarge the scope of any new application being considered or processed by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of granting admission to P.T.C. Course and relief granted here in these petitions would confine only to the present petitioners who are before the Court.
53. The view taken by this Court would not come in the way of State Government from implementing the above changes from Academic year 2004-2005, after following due procedure either under the State law or under the conferment of powers under the N.C.T.E. Act. Since, considerable time is lost due to the present litigation, the respondent-authorities are directed to take-up the admission procedure on hand forthwith and complete it as expeditiously as possible so that Academic year of the students can be saved.
54. Subject to the above directions, all these petitions are allowed. Rule, in each of these petitions, is made absolute.
55. After pronouncement of this order, Mr. A.D. Oza, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has made a request for stay against the implementation, execution and operation of this order passed by this Court. However, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners have strongly objected to grant any stay against the implementation, execution and operation of this order. While passing this order, this Court has made it clear that these being the admission to P.T.C. Course matters and considerable time elapsed, the process of admission work should be started immediately in view of the urgency involved in these matters. Hence, there is no reason for staying the implementation, execution and operation of this order. Once, all the issues raised by the parties are duly considered, the request for stay is not accepted.