Allahabad High Court
Ashwani Kumar Tiwari Son Of Shri ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Basic ... on 2 November, 2007
Author: H.L. Gokhale
Bench: H.L. Gokhale, Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
1. The appellants in all these five appeals seek admission to the Special B.T.C. Course-2007. They are all students, who have obtained their B.Ed degrees by the Distant Education Mode, and it is contended by them that in view of a Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Justice H.L. Gokhale, C.J.) was a party, in Special Appeal No. 1271 of 2007 and others, on 03.10.2007, they are also entitled to the admission to the Special B.T.C. Course-2007.
2. Those appeals arose from a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in a group of matters, bearing Writ Petition No. 33987 of 2007 Renti Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors. along with other connected petitions on 24.8.2007. The controversy in those matters was with respect to the advertisement given by the State Government for the Special B.T.C. Course 2007. The Government Order dated 10.7.2007 issued prior thereto had provided in Clause II thereof with respect to the qualification as follows:
Only those students will be eligible for selection to Special B.T.C. Course-2007, who have the minimum educational qualification of graduation and they should also have the B.Ed, degree from the recognized colleges/post graduate colleges/training colleges run by the State Government/Central Government which are recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education. The candidates must be 'recognized institutional B.Ed, students', (the words used in Hindi are Anumanya Sansthagat B.Ed. Uttirna Abhyarthi).
3. The controversy in those matters was with respect to the interpretation of the term Sansthagat Abhyarthi. The learned Single Judge had taken the view that it meant only those students who had taken B.Ed. degree by face to face mode of education and that those who had done it by distant education mode were excluded. The Division Bench has taken the view that the term 'Sansthagat Abhyarthi' will mean institutional candidate and the term institutional candidate does not indicate any specific mode of education. The Division Bench also referred to a letter of N.C.T.E. dated 9th August 2007, addressed to the Principal Secretary (Basic Education) State of Uttrar Pradesh. The relevant part of it reads as follows:
You may kindly recall that while giving approval to Government of Uttar Pradesh for conduct of Special B.T.C. we have allowed all B.Eds, to be eligible for the above course as requested by Government of U.P. No difference was made regarding B.Ed, (face-to-face) ind B.Ed, (distance mode). As such the degree awarded by IGNOU, a Central University and Institution/University recognized by the N.C.T.E cannot be treated as inferior to other B.Eds.
4. The N.C.T.E. had clearly stated in that letter that it was not making any difference between face-to-face and distant mode and that the degrees awarded by Indira Gandhi National Open University (a Central University) constituted under the Act of 1985, cannot be treated as inferior to other B.Eds. Similar letter was written concerning U.P. Rajarshi Tandon Open University.
5. That apart, the Division Bench noted that this was a scheme to enhance the teaching facility for primary education under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The Special B.T.C. Course was a crash course of six months to impart necessary education to the B.Ed. graduates so that they can qualify to teach the primary students (for which they are not otherwise qualified). Some 60,000 teachers were needed. Many others who had done training course even in Physical Education were also permitted to participate and, therefore, there was no justification to exclude the students who had done their B.Ed. from these two Universities.
6. Most of the appeals were from the students of these two Universities and particularly in view of the aforesaid letter of N.C.T.E. dated 9th August 2007, which was addressed well in time to the authorities of the State Government the Division Bench held that the students of these two Universities will be eligible for admission to the Special B.T.C. Course 2007. Inasmuch as the last date for admission was getting expired, the date was extended till 31.10.2007.
7. Now he present group of appeals arise out of petitions that had been filed by students coming from different institutions/universities, which provide B.Ed. degree by distant education. It must be stated that all these appeals except Special Appeal No. [951] of 2007 arise out of the petitions which were heard and decided by the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, which was considered in Special Appeal No. 1271 of 2007 by the Division Bench, as stated above. Special Appeal No [910] of 2007 is lied by the students of Mahatma Gandhi Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya, Chitrakoot, Madhya Pradesh. As far as this institution is concerned, here is a specific letter from the N.C.T.E. dated 22.6.2004, that their B.Ed, course is recognized from the year 1996-1997. In the counter affidavit fib d by the State, it is submitted, amongst others, that in view of the provisions of the IGNOU Act, 1985, the distant education course of that very University ought to have the recognition from the Distance Education Council constituted under the IGNOU Act. This submission is made on the basis of the preamble of the Act read with Section 4 and Section 16(7) as well as Section 24(j) of the said Act.
8. As far as the recognition from the Distance Education Council is concerned, there is no difficulty and this University does have it. But out of the four appellants, who have filed this appeal, Appellants No. 1 and 4 have their B.Ed. degrees of the year 1994-95 and the Appellants No. 2 and 3 have their B.Ed. degrees of the year 1995-96, i.e., all prior to the recognition by NCTE from 1996-97.
9. Mr. Misra, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that inasmuch the concerned University has been given the recognition by NCTE in 1996-97 and since the NCTE itself was not in existence prior to 1st July, 1995, these students cannot be denied the benefit of equivalence. Mr. Misra, learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of Uttranchal High Court in Anita Khati v. State of Uttranchal and Anr., reported at 2006 (4) E.S.C. 2573 (Utt.), to submit that since the NCTE itself was not in existence earlier, the prior degree of B.Ed. ought to be considered for B.T.C. subject to conditions imposed by the NCTE.
10. Mr. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that as far as this judgment is concerntd, it was with respect to the Shiksha Visharad degree obtained in the year 1993, and the question was as to whether it could be considered as equivalent to the B.Ed. degree for the Special B.T.C. Course in Uttranchal. That apart, he submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court particularly in Yogesh Kumar and Ors. v. Government of NCT, Delhi and Ors. reported at was not placed for consideration before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Upadhyay submits that it may be, at the highest, that these degrees by correspondence course are equivalent to B.Ed. degree. The advertisement, which the State Government had issued, laid down the requirement of recognition by the NCTE for the particular degree. The clause quoted above clearly records that the candidate has to have the degree from a University recognized by the University Grants Commission and that it must also be recognized by NCTE and that the persons must be institutional candidates. He submits that it is for the employer to decide as to from what source and with what qualifications the candidate should be drawn. If the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad lays down that they want the candidates who have degrees from the institutions which are recognized by the NCTE, the candidates ought to have those qualification. He submits that there is a justification for this approach. Under the Norms and standards for B.Ed. (open and distance learning system) laid down by NCTE when it comes to a candidate who is seeking admission to a distant education course, he has to be a teacher serving in a recognized school with Bachelor degree having at least two years experience at the time of admission. The person concerned has to be currently employed Now whether these requirements were satisfied at the relevant time, by the candidate concerned when obtaining B.Ed. degree, cannot be verified. It is true that their degrees may be considered as equivalent to the B.Ed., but as far as the present advertisement is concerned, in his submission, the U.P. Government had decided not to take those, who did not have B.Ed., degree recognized by the NCTE and, this decision is for the employer concerned to take.
11. Reliance is placed upon Yogesh Kumar's case (Supra) particularly on paragraph 8 of the judgment. The relevant portion of that paragraph reads as follows:
This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed., candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of T.T.C. Candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of T.T.C. and B.Ed, are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to T.T.C. pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals (CAs. Nos. 1726-28 of 2001) arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed., qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than T.T.C. because the nature of the training imparted for grant of certificate and for degree is totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed, category and very few from T.T.C. category.
(Undelining supplied)
12. Mr. Upadhyay, then drew our attention to other judgements Firstly, he referred to the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shatra Mahavidyalaya and Ors. reported at and particularly in paragraphs 47 and 48 thereof. The Apex Court has emphasized the necessity for the N.C.T.E. recognition for the concerned educational institutions He also drew our attention to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College reported at , wherein reference is made to Section 17(4) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act. This Section reads as follows:
17. (4) - If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under Sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for the purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.
Emphasis was laid that the institution concerned must obtain the N.C.T.E. permission after the Act comes into force and degrees, which are given before or after the permission is withdrawn, are not valid.
13. Mr. Upadhyay, therefore, submits that the dicta in Yogesh Kumar's case (Supra) will have to be followed and though these candidates may be considered as having B.Ed. degrees, inasmuch as at the relevant time, the institution did not have the N.C.T.E. recognition and since the Government is insisting on that as a necessary requirement, such students cannot be imposed on the government.
14. We have considered the submissions of all the learned counsels. In our view, there is much force in the submission of Mr. Upadhyay. There is no difficulty in saying that the appellants do have the B.Ed. degrees, which could be said to be valid degree for other purposes. However, as far as the present advertisement is concerned, the State Government clearly laid down that they want candidates with B.Ed. degree from the institutions, which have N.C.T.E. recognition. They are very clear in their advertisement. We are not shown that the institutions had the N.C.T.E. approval for the course at the time the degrees were obtained and, therefore, the appellants cannot get the benefit of the judgment, which was rendered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1271 of 2007.
15. Similar is the position in Special Appeal No. [911] of 2007. The appellants claim to be the students of Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M.P.). They have not produced any document that the University concerned had recognition from the N.C.T.E. at the time they got their degrees in the year 1994-95 and 1995-96.
16. Same is the position in Special Appeal No. [927] of 2007, which has been filed by a student of Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Riwa (M.P). The appellant has not placed on record as to whether the University concerned had N.C.T.E. recognition when he obtained degree in the year 1996. For this reason, this appellant cannot get the benefit of the above judgment rendered by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Special Appeals No. [910], [911] and [927] all of 2007 are hereby dismissed.
17. The facts of Special Appeal No. 1368 of 2007 are different. Their students are from Jamia Millia Islamia University. The University did have the N.C.T.E. recognition way back in November 2003. The University also has the recognition of the Distance Education Council. The students concerned have obtained their degrees subsequent to this approval from the N.C.T.E. These appellants, therefore, cannot be denied the benefit of the above judgment rendered by the Division Bench. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. We, however, make it clear that the benefit will be available only to these appellants since they were already in court and were following their applications and litigation vigilantly. Although we allow Special Appeal No. 1368 of 2007, we make it clear that the benefit will be confined only to the appellants and none others.
18. Lastly, we come to Special Appeal No. [951] of 2007. The appellants are the students, who have done their B.Ed. in Special Education meant for the specially challenged students. The appellants have produced the document of 19th January 2005, which shows that the N.C.T.E. has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Rehabilitation Council of India on 19.1.2005 recognizing that the Rehabilitation Council of India will decide the minimum standard for offering teachers' education for specific disability specialization. Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal from where the appellants had studied, has the recognition from this Rehabilitation Council of India. The fact, however, remains that they have obtained their degrees in the year 2003, which is prior to this equivalence being granted by N.C.T.E. That being so at the relevant time, they had not obtained the degrees from the institution, which could be said to be recognized by the N.C.T.E. or by any equivalent body For this reason this appeal cannot succeed and, therefore, stands dismissed. All these appeals stand disposed of with this order. There will not be any order as to costs.