Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanti Chander vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 October, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA No.1611 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1611 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.10.2012
Kanti Chander ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate,
for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This is an intra Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 05.10.2012 rejecting the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant (for short "the appellant").
The challenge in the writ petition was to the impugned notice dated 01.08.2012 (P-3) issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani-the 5th respondent addressed to the appellant allotting a Government school for teaching practice of 20 days during the 4th semester and an Internship of 180 working days after commencement of the 4th semester examination for the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) programme.
Aggrieved by the Internship of 180 days added on to the D.Ed. programme, the writ petition was brought complaining that the prospectus LPA No.1611 of 2012 (O&M) -2- issued for the Session 2010-12 did not contain provision for Internship and all that was required to be done was to successfully complete the two year programme leading to the grant of D.Ed. The Internship was introduced without prior notice and, therefore, was not a part of the curriculum and the appellant could not be forced after completion of the 4th semester to be put to an Internship as a condition precedent for qualifying the D.Ed. programme. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned condition.
It is not disputed that for the academic session 2012-14 the requirement of Internship of 180 days stands mentioned in the prospectus. The sanctity of the conditions laid down in a prospectus in their manifold facets have been considered in the following Full Bench decisions of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab; (1993) 4 SLR 673; Raj Singh v. Maharishi Dayanand University; (1994) 4 RSJ 289; Sachin Gaur v. Panjabi University, Patiala; (1996) 1 RSJ 1; Anil Jain v. Controller of Exams, MDU; (1997) 3 RSJ 88 and Indu Gupta v. Director of Sports, Punjab; (1999) 4 RSJ 667.
Learned counsel for the appellant would further rely upon the decisions of this Court in Dr. Ramender Singh vs. State of Haryana; 2000 (4) S.C.T. 1083 and Mehak Trikha vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others; 2010(1) SCT 78 to contend that the condition of 180 days internship could not have been superimposed on him as it was not a part of the terms and conditions of the brochure/prospectus advertised when he was granted admission thereby changing the course content and its duration to his detriment without prior notice. Accordingly his life plans LPA No.1611 of 2012 (O&M) -3- have suffered change and his hope of securing a job and earning salary to support himself stand postponed.
The learned Single Judge has, however, found that the present is not a case of change of any duration of the course which remains the same. It is a case of introduction of Internship of 180 days after the duration of the course. An Internship of 180 days has been introduced after the completion of the duration of the course of two years as an essential component for grant of degree and in adopting such course, there is nothing arbitrary or illegal in the decision of the Board. The D.Ed. programme is a nursery for producing skilled teachers who in turn would impart education to the teeming multitude. If a condition has been introduced to equip such fledgling teachers with modern tools through experience of actual class room work in schools allotted for the purpose; as the impugned order purports to do, such internship in fact deserves to be encouraged, applauded and welcomed across board. A lacunae in the archiac system is apparently sought to be plugged by this new concept. We have no doubt that the petitioner would realise in the near future the value of the internship and the futulity of the writ petition filed.
It is, no doubt the business of experts in the field of education to tailor or alter a technical programme as is best suited to the felt necessities of the time and merely because a decision is taken which may prolong the award of diploma by another six months would not in our view be an unlawful exercise which would demand judicial intervention. The appellant has a right to complete the course which stands completed. If such right has been deferred for a hands on training in developing teaching skills LPA No.1611 of 2012 (O&M) -4- by practical training for another six months for good and sufficient reason, no order deserves to be passed quashing the internship.
In Panjab University vs. Subash Chander and another, AIR 1984 S.C. 1415, the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of grace marks in the background of change of rules held:-
"No promise was made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time of his admission in 1965 that there will be no alteration of the rule or regulation in regard to the percentage of marks required for passing any examination or award of grace marks and that the rules relating thereto which were in force at the time of his admission would continue to be applied to him until he finished his whole course."
In Rahul Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 2000(5) SLR 712, a Division Bench of this Court in a case of change of duration of a diploma course wrongly mentioned as 3 years in the prospectus and corrected subsequently to read 3-½ years held:-
"When a course stretching over a period of 3 years commences and the students join that course the authorities make no promise that there would be no alteration of the duration and that the Rules in regard thereto which were in force at the time of admission would continue to be applied until the whole course is finished."
We do not find any cogent reason warranting interference in appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to exercise LPA No.1611 of 2012 (O&M) -5- jurisdiction in the matter.
The appeal is consequently dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
12.10.2012
manju