Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Yogendra Meel vs M D S University Ajmer And Ors on 12 May, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4063/2017)
Yogendra Meel, Son of Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Plot No. 5,
Krishana Kunj, Pratap Nagar Choraha, Murlipura, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer Through Its Registrar
2. Coordinator, (P.T.E.T. Exam-2017), Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati
University, Ajmer
3. The Regional Director, the National Council for Teacher's Education, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents
Date of Order: May 12, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.A. Katta, for respondents.
BY THE COURT:
The court on 25-4-2017 directed as under:-
I am of the considered view that it would thus be appropriate to require the Vice Chancellor, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University Ajmer to reconstitute the aforesaid Committee or any other, within three days from today, to evaluate the subjects studied by the petitioner in B.Tech (Electronics and Communication) and as also their duration. The petitioner shall be free to file a 2 representation in support of his claim alongwith the requisite documents/ mark-sheet/ syllabus of B.Tech (Electronics and Communication). The Committee should then ascertain as to whether the petitioner indeed does or does not have the requisite eligibility of having studied 2 years in teaching subjects of Physics and Mathematics for the purpose of admission into PTET Examination 2017 and thence B.Ed. Let the report of the committee be filed before this court within ten days from today.
Pursuant to aforesaid order, Mr. R.A. Katta submitted a report dated 6-5-2017 prepared by a High Powered Equivalence Committee (hereinafter `the Committee') comprised of seven members i.e. Dr.Nagendra Singh, Convenor, Dr. A.S. Jethoo, Dr. Laxmi Sharma, Dr.O.P. Sharma, Professor Mathureshwar Pareek, Dr. Anil Mehta and Professor B.P. Saraswat members. He submitted that the case of petitioner of having passed B.Tech (Electronics and Communication) and being eligible as prescribed to write PTET Examination was considered at length and it was concluded by the Committee that he was not so. The conclusion of the Committee reads thus:-
8(i) 'Teaching Subject' Means a subject offered by the candidate at his/her bachelor's or Master's Degree Examination as an optional subject or as subsidiary subject, Provided that the candidate studied it for at last two years and also has taken University Examination each years. This Shall not include such subjects as were studied by him/her only for a part of the Bachelor's Degree Course Shall not be considered as teaching subject. Thus the qualifying subjects like General English, General Hindi, General Education/History of India Civilization and Culture, Elementary Mathematics, etc. Prescribed for the First Year T.D.C. of Second Year Course of the University or a subject 3 dropped by a candidate at the Part-I stage of the Degree Course Shall not be treated as a teaching subject. In the case of honours Graduates, Besides the honours subject, the subsidiary subjects would also be taken into account, Provided the candidate studied the same for last two academic sessions and also passed University Examination. The Marks Sheet of Final year Examination Should clearly indicate the Marks of compilation of Part I, and Part II and Part III in the case of three years degree course of Part II and Part III examination in the case of two years degree course separately.
1-¼l½ ;kfpdkdrkZ Jh ;ksxsUæ ehy us vius ch-Vsd- ikB~;Øe v/;;u esa fQftDl ,oa dsesLVªh fo"k; dk dsoy 01 o"kZ rd ¼02 lsesLVj½ v/;;u fd;k gS rFkk bu fo"k;ksa dh ijh{kk jktLFkku rduhdh fo'ofo|ky; }kjk 02 fujUrj o"kkZsa rd ugha ysdj] dsoy 02 lseLs Vj esa foHkDr dj 01 o"kZ esa gh ys yh xbZA blh izdkj xf.kr fo"k; esa ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk 02 o"kZ ¼04 lsesLVj½ v/;;u fd;k x;k ,oa fo'ofo|ky; }kjk mldh ijh{kk izR;sd lsesLVj ,d ijh{kk feykdj 02 o"kZ esa pkj ckj yh xbZ gSA 1-¼n½ ;kfpdkdrkZ us vius izfrosnu esa Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku lfgr dqN vU; bu laLFkkuksa ds Lukrd ,oa LukrdksRrj ikB~;Øeksa dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ftuesa ch-Vsd- fQftDl dk fof'k"V dkslZ djok;k tkrk gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ us ,slh dksbZ fof'k"V fMxzh ugha yh gSA mijksDr rF;kRed i`"BHkwfe ds vk/kkj ij lfefr dk fo'ys"k.k bl izdkj gS %& 1- iSjk 1 ¼v½ esa mYysf[kr jkti= esa izdkf'kr jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj] ;kfpdkdrkZ] }kjk izLrqr vadrkfydk esa dgha Hkh ;g iznf'kZr ugha gS fd mlus bathfu;fjax dh fMxzh foKku vkSj xf.kr dh fo'ks"kKrk ds lkFk dh gS] tSlk fd Hkkjrh; izkS| ksfxdh laLFkku }kjk fMxzh esa fd;k tkrk gSA vr% jktLFkku rduhdh fo'ofo|ky; }kjk tkjh ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vadrkfydk dks Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku dh ch-Vsd- fQftDl ds lerqY; ugha ekuk tk ldrk ,oa bls xf.kr o fQftDl dh fo'ks"krk ds lkFk izkIr f'k{kk dh Js.kh esa ugha j[kk tk ldrkA 2- egf"kZ n;kuUn ljLorh fo'ofo|ky;] vtesj ds ch-,M- ds vkfMZusUl 322 ds vuqlkj f'k{k.k fo"k; ds laca/k esa ;g Li"V fu;ekoyh cuh gqbZ gS fd vH;FkhZ us fo"k; dk v/;;u Lukrd Lrj ij vFkok LukrdksRrj Lrj fu;ekoyh cuh gqbZ gS fd vH;FkhZ us fo"k; dk v/;;u Lukrd Lrj ij vFkok LukrdksRrj Lrj ij fujUrj 02 o"kksZa rd fd;k gks ,oa fo'ofo|ky; us izfr o"kZ bldh ijh{kk yh gksA blesa og fo"k; lfEefyr ugha ekus x;s gSa tks vH;FkhZ us vius Lukrd ikB~;Øe esa ikB~;Øe ds ,d Hkkx ds :i esa i<+s gksaA pwafd ;kfpdkdrkZ us fQftDl] dsesLVªh] xf.kr dks ch-Vsd- ikB~;Øe ds dsoy ,d ikVZ ¼Hkkx½ ds :i esa i<+k gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ us fQftDl rFkk xf.kr fo"k;ksa dks tujy baxfy'k] tujy fgUnh] ,yhesUVªh esFksesfVDl dh rjg gh i<+k gSA vr% fu;e la[;k 8 ¼i½ ds vuqlkj ;kfpdkdrkZ nks vko';d f'k{k.k fo"k;ksa dh ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds }kjk izLrqr izfrosnu ij iw.kZ laosnu'khyrk ds lkFk fopkj foe'kZ ds i'pkr~ lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaph gS fd pwafd ch-Vsd- ikB~;Øe esa i<+s x;s fo"k; dsoy ml ikB~;Øe ds ,d Hkkx gSa rFkk ch-Vsd- fMxzh xf.kr o fQftDl fo"k; esa fo'ks"kKrk ¼Specialization½ ugha n'kkZrh gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdkdrkZ dks fu;ekuqlkj ihVhbZVh izos'k iwoZ ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus ds fy;s ik= ugha ekus tkus dh vuq'ka"kk djrh gSA Mr. R.A. Katta submitted that in view of the Committee's report the petitioner is not eligible to be admitted to the PTET 2017 examination. The petition be dismissed, he submitted.4
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, counsel for the petitioner was furnished a copy of the report.
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania submitted that the purported Committee of seven members which considered the eligibility of the petitioner to write PTET Examination was not an expert committee, in as much except Dr.A.S. Jethoo, Principal of Government Mahila Engineering College Ajmer no other member was an expert in Physics/ Mathematics/ Engineering as evident from the report itself. Therefore the Committee was not competent to assess the petitioner's eligibility to write the PTET Examination with reference to his academic background of the B.Tech (Electronics and Communication). Compliance with the order of this court dated 25- 4-2017 has thus not been made, he submitted. And even otherwise the said report dated 6-5-2017 is vitiated by contradictions inasmuch as it finds the petitioner having studied two years (4 semesters) in the subject of Mathematics and having written the examination at the end of each four semesters and one year (2 semesters) in the subjects Physics and Chemistry and passed examinations therein yet not being eligible. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania further pointed out that various universities across the country allow similarly placed students of B.Tech (Electronics and Communication) to be admitted in PTET Examinations. The Maharshi Dayanand 5 Saraswati University however arbitrarily seeks to deny such students including the petitioner, admission to write the PTET Examination.
Mr. R.A. Katta then on the merits of the case submitted that the issue of eligibility for an examination is a matter in the domain of experts. This court does not have the domain knowledge to take a view one way or the other with regard to eligibility for an examination/ admission determined by the concerned university. The conclusions of an academic body cannot be displaced by the court which is bound by the opinion of the experts unless any allegation of malafide has been made and established. Mr. R.A. Katta emphatically submitted that no such allegation of malafide has been made in the petition against any member of the committee. He submitted that in an identical case, that of Shobit Patidar Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.15381/2015, this court vide order dated 2-11-2015, relying on a report of committee of academics found that despite Shobit Patidar having graduated as B.Tech (electronics and communication), as the petitioner has, he was not eligible to write the PTET Examination. Mr. R.A. Katta emphasised that since the passing of the judgment in the case of Shobit Patidar (supra) on 2-11-2015, there has been no change in the eligibility criterion to write PTET Examination. Further the challenge to the judgment in Shobit Patidar (supra) in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.55/2016, failed on 20-4-2016.
6
Mr. R.A. Katta submitted that yet this court by way of abundant caution directed reconstitution of the Committee of academics for a decision afresh on the issue of eligibility of the petitioner a B.Tech (Electronics and Communication) with reference to the curriculum to write the PTET Examination. Thereupon a seven members Committee was re-constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University, of which only three members were those who were on the earlier Committee constituted to evaluate the eligibility of Shobit Patidar. Yet even the second Committee on a detailed consideration of the subjects studied by the petitioner in his 4 year B.Tech course has come to a conclusion that the petitioner did not have the requisite two years experience in two teaching subjects, as required for being eligible to write the PTET Examination 2017. He submitted that in this view of the matter the petition be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
Education by itself is a field of expertise. The issue of eligibility as set out for admission in any institution/ university or for writing an examination conducted by the University is a subject for experts in the field of education. This court would reiterate the rulings of the Apex Court that in the field of education, the expert's view is entitled to the highest regard and should not be interfered with, unless a case of malafide is made out.
7
The issue in the writ petition is the petitioner's eligibility to write the PTET Examination 2017. One of the many eligibility criteria requires the applicant to have prior experience of the teaching subjects. Teaching subjects have been defined to mean a subject studied by a candidate at his bachelor's or master's degree examination as an optional or as a subsidiary subject (as contra distinguished vis-a-vis compulsory subjects) provided that the candidate should have studied the said optional or subsidiary subjects for two years and thereafter taken a university examination therein each year. It has also been emphasised that a teaching subject would not include the subject studied by the candidate only for a part of bachelor's degree and illustratively it has been provided that qualifying subjects like General English, General Hindi, General Education/ History of Indian Civilization and culture, Elementary Mathematics etc. prescribed for the first year TDC shall not be considered as a teaching subject.
The matter has been considered by the seven member Committee at length on 6-5-2017 pursuant to the interim order of this court passed on 25-4-2017. A perusal of the report of the Committee reflects its findings that the petitioner studied Physics and Chemistry only for one year (2 semesters) and passed the examinations. He studied Mathematics for two years (4 semesters) 8 and passed all semester examinations. The Committee further found that the said subjects were neither optional nor subsidiary therefore they did not constitute "teaching subject" as defined for eligibility for the PTET Examination. Additionally the Committee, on evaluation of documents submitted for its consideration by the petitioner, found that the petitioner did not pass his B.Tech examination with specialization in Mathematics and Physics.
The objection of Mr. Pradeep Kalwania to the conclusion of the Committee vociferously articulated, would require the court to sit in appeal thereagainst. Aside of lacking core competence on this count, that would also be beyond the scope of this court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Basavaiah (dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh [(2010)8 SCC 372] was concerned with appointments in the University, and eligibility therefor. In that context it held that its jurisdiction did not extend to intruding into the domain of experts in the field of education. The Apex Court reiterated the well settled legal position that court should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. A similar view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K. Santosh [(2012)12 SCC 106].
I find no force in the contention of Mr. Pradeep Kalwania that the report of the High Powered Equivalence Committee prepared on 9 6-5-2017 is not of experts to be binding on this court. A bare look at the members of the Committee shows that all the seven are Professors/ Principals. They are thus without doubt experts in the field of education. Their capacity to decide and their decision on the eligibility of the petitioner to writ the PTET examination 2017 on the strength of his B.Tech (Electronics and Communication) cannot be doubted. In the circumstances the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Basavaiah (supra) and Sajeesh Babu K. (supra) is binding on this court. Decision of the experts cannot be interfered with. There is no allegation of malafide against the Committee or its members.
The petition has no merit. Dismissed accordingly.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.