Allahabad High Court
M.G. Educational And Training College ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 24 October, 2017
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
RESERVED ON:13.10.2017
DELIVERED ON:24.10.2017
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12013 of 2017
Petitioner :- M.G. Educational And Training College And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Pratap Singh,Bharat Pratap Singh
Alongwith
WRIC- 17063/2017, WRIC- 15314/2017, WRIC- 20866/2017
WRIC- 9792/2017, WRIC- 14954/2017, WRITC-14956/2017 WRIC- 14847/2017, WRIC- 17325/2017, WRIC- 14433/2017, WRIC- 16253/2017, WRIC- 16251/2017, WRIC- 16249/2017, WRIC- 16076/2017, WRIC- 16078/2017, WRIC- 16218/2017, WRIC- 15574/2017, WRIC- 16221/2017, WRIC- 15137/2017, WRIC- 15314/2017, WRIC- 16450/2017, WRIC- 15277/2017, WRIC- 15578/2017, WRIC- 15577/2017, WRIC- 15576/2017, WRIC- 15571/2017, WRIC- 15503/2017, WRIC- 15575/2017, WRIC- 15538/2017, WRIC- 15540/2017 WRIC- 13040/2017
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
In this bunch of writ petitions, various private institutions imparting D.El.Ed. (BTC) course in the State of U.P. and the candidates seeking admission to the said course are raising a common controversy with regard to the distribution of seats made by the second respondent namely State Council of Education Research and Training (in short SCERT) in Arts and Science group, for the purpose of admission based on a Common Admission Test, on account of which the admissions taken by these institutions against the vacant seats (as per the approved intake) were cancelled.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading writ petition and Sri Pradeep Kumar, Rajesh Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, Ravindra Kumar Yadav, R.K. Singh Rajpoot, Rohit Pandey, Manjari Singh, Kunal Ravi Singh and Rahul Jain-I learned counsels for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions.
Sri B.P. Singh learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE) and learned Standing Counsel appears for the remaining respondents.
To appreciate the controversy at hand, with regard to the categorization/classification of Arts and Science group for the purpose of admission to D.El.Ed (BTC) course, only the facts of the leading writ petition are being narrated herein after. There is no dispute with regard to recognition and affiliation granted to the institutions concerned by the Competent authorities and the approved intake for running D.El.Ed Course.
The petitioner institution has been granted recognition by NCTE for imparting D.El.Ed (BTC) course and was duly granted affiliation by the State Government. The dispute herein pertains to the Academic Session 2015-16 which commenced on 22nd September 2016 in the light of the direction of the Apex Court dated 08.09.2015 in the case of Baba Shiv Nath Singh, Shikshan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & others(Writ Petition (C) No.174 of 2015). In order to regulate the Academic Session, the State Government had issued a Government Order dated 14.06.2016 directing the Second Respondent namely the Director SCERT, U.P. Lucknow and the third Respondent namely the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad to initiate the process of selection for admission to D.El.Ed (BTC) course 2015-16. The concerned District Institute of Education and Training (in short DIET) issued advertisement in the first week of September 2016 inviting applications from the students seeking to pursue two years D.El.Ed (BTC) course. After counseling, the institutions were allocated candidates by the concerned DIET.
Several private institutions intimated the Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority that the candidates provided in the list supplied by the concerned DIET after counseling did not turn up to take admission and as such the seats (as per the approved intake) remained vacant. It appears that considering the request of the institutions, a notification dated 16.09.2016 was issued by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad permitting the private institutions to fill the vacant seats on their own, subject to the conditions provided therein. It was directed that:- (1) the list provided by the DIET against the allotted seats shall necessarily be exhausted and the admission process be completed from the said list by 18.09.2016. (2) In case of any seat remaining vacant after the said date i.e. 18.09.2016, it would be open for the institutions to select candidates category wise/merit wise from the amongst those who participated at any of the stage of counseling but could not secure a seat; (3) the admission process was to be completed by the institutions, strictly adhering to the merit of the candidates between 19.09.2016 and 21.09.2016. In any case, the Academic Session 2015-16 for D.El.Ed (BTC) Course 2015 should be commenced from 22.09.2016, as mandated by the Apex Court.
The case of the petitioners in this bunch is that the admission formalities were completed by the institutions by 21.09.2016 against the vacant seats after exhausting the list of the candidates supplied by the DIET by 18.09.2016 i.e. strictly in terms of the directions in the notification dated 16.09.2016. No candidate from the list provided by the DIET was denied admission. The admission of the candidates was made upto 21.9.2016 only against the remaining seats as per the approved intake. The list of admitted students was provided to the DIET concerned. No communication was received from the office of the Principal, DIET for a sufficient long time i.e. till the first week of November 2016. The petitioner institution, (in the leading writ petition) received a show cause notice with respect to the list of 13 candidates admitted by it, on its own. Main objection taken by the Principal DIET to the said list of admitted candidates is that the admissions were taken of the candidates of Arts category against the vacant seats of Science category. However, in some cases, objections have been taken regarding merit of the candidates as also they having obtained lesser marks than the Cut-off marks, notified by the DIET.
At the very outset, it was submitted by Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the only issue of admission of the candidates of Arts category in seats of Science category, as per the classification made by the respondents State may be decided. In so far as the objections on the merit of the candidates admitted by the institution or they having obtained lesser marks than the Cut off marks or any other objection in respect of candidature of a particular candidate, the matter may be left open for fresh examination by the Principal DIET concerned. The said submission of Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate was adopted by other counsels for the petitioners appearing in the connected petitions. This Court, therefore, proceeds to decide the controversy regarding classification/categorization of seats in Arts and Science category for admission to D.El.Ed (BTC) Course.
Learned Senior Advocate would vehemently submit that there was no rationale behind such classification/categorization as there cannot be any such classification for admission to Teachers Training Course of the candidates who are supposed to teach the children from Class I to VIIIth. As per classification made by the State, 70% seats were allocated for the candidates who graduated in different disciplines of Arts (humanities and Commerce) whereas 30% seats were allocated for the candidates who had graduated in the disciplines of Science. The classification made by the State Government has no rationale with the aim and object of achieving the standards laid down by the NCTE for quality teachers training to prepare teachers for the elementary stage of education i.e. Class I to VIIIth.
Moreover, the said classification has been done away by the State on its own for the academic session i.e. 2017-18. The Academic Session 2016-17 has been declared "Zero Session" by the State as it has not been able to regulate the academic session year to year as per the mandate of the Apex Court.
It is further submitted that initially, the categorization of Arts and Science group was based on the fact that the candidates having completed the BTC course, as was then called, were directly being appointed in the Government Colleges/institutions upto Junior High School (Lower and Upper Primary level) i.e. from Class I to VIII. The said scheme is no longer in existence with the privatization of Teachers Education Programme both at the elementary and higher stage of education. Now the candidates who complete the D.El.Ed. (BTC) teachers education programme, are not directly being appointed rather they have to undertake further scrutiny/test to secure a post of teacher in the aided and unaided recognized institutions in the State of U.P. The State Government has simply adhered to the old obsolete policy for the admission in the Session 2015-16 without any review of the need or requirement of such classification.
By amendment, prayer in the nature of certiorari has been added for quashing of the paragraph no.3(1) of the Government order dated 22.07.2013 whereby the State Government had earmarked 50% of BTC seats for Science stream and 50% for Arts stream. To challenge the said clause of the government order, it is submitted that originally the Assistant teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Board of Basic Education, were being recruited from the candidates who qualified the teachers training courses namely BTC/ Special BTC course in Arts and Science category, separately and as such similar categorization was maintained in granting admission to the BTC/special BTC training courses also. Such categorization was however, maintained during the recruitment of 72,825 Apprentice teachers in the last selection held pursuant to the Government order dated 29.11.2011 [reference paragraph 4(Kha)] but the said policy has been discontinued in all subsequent recruitments of Assistant Teachers from the year 2012 onwards. The Government orders dated 29.11.2011, 09.12.2014, 25.06.2016 and 02.03.2017 have been brought on record to demonstrate the said fact.
With reference to the Government order dated 05.06.2017 (appended with the rejoinder affidavit), it is demonstrated that the State has done away with the categorization of Science/Arts, Male/female category and directed the Director, SCERT U.P., Lucknow and the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad to ensure that the selection be made against the sanctioned seats as per the merit of the candidates without making any reference to said classification. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Advocate that while granting recognition, no such condition has been laid down by the NCTE and further that the State Government cannot alter the terms and conditions of recognition by creating the class/category which has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
In rebuttal, learned Standing Counsel has insisted upon the requirements of the Government order dated 14.06.2016 issued with regard to the admission in question i.e. the admission to D.El.Ed (BTC) course for the Academic Session 2015-16, so as to impress upon the Court that the institutions were under obligation to adhere to the procedure of admission as per the reservation position/policy applicable on the date of the notification for the said admission. A specific direction was given by the State to the second and third respondents to strictly adhere to the selection procedure for admission and they cannot be said to have erred in abiding the same.
So far as the plea of the petitioner that the said classification/categorization was applied for admission in 2015-16 mechanically, without application of mind by the State and challenge to the conditions of the Government order dated 22.07.2013, it is noteworthy that the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, U.P i.e. the first respondent has not come forward to make clear its stand. The counter affidavits in all the writ petitions have been filed by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad on behalf of second and fourth respondents only i.e. the Director, SCERT and the Principal, DIET concerned.
Thus, so far as the grounds of challenge to the decision of the State Government to apply categorization/classification of male/female, Arts/Science category for admission to the Academic Session 2015-16 are concerned, they remained unrebutted. This Court is constrained to note that the State Authorities sitting at the helm of the affairs are not conscious about their duty to submit their answer in a Court of law that too the highest Court of the State.
In writ petition (C) No.801 of 2017, on 05.09.2017, the Apex Court has observed that the High Court may dispose of the matters within six weeks. When the matter was taken up for final argument on 13.10.2017, on a qurey made by the Court from the learned Standing Counsel as to why the first respondent has refrained from taking a stand on the issue, time was sought by the learned Standing Counsel with the request to postpone the matter after Diwali vacations i.e. after 22.10.2017 with the request to give a chance to file reply, by the first respondent.
This Court is not inclined to postpone the matter for two reasons;(1) the matter pertains to admission in the Academic Session 2015-16 which has been protracted for long; (2) the State Authorities are under obligation to file their reply to make clear their stand on the issue as soon as they receive notice of the pending dispute before this Court, even if there is no direction to them to submit a reply, more so, when the validity of the Government order issued by the first respondent is under challenge. The reply to the amended paragraphs of the writ petition has been given by the second and fourth respondents only, in the counter affidavit filed on 11.04.2017, on their behalf.
The stand taken by the second and fourth respondents therein is that the private institutions which participated in the counseling held by respective DIETs were allotted candidates category wise in Male (Arts and Science) and Female (Arts and Science) in accordance with the vertical and horizontal reservation in conformity with the rules relating to admission. They were required to take admission of the candidates whose names were sent in the list forwarded from the office of the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad. The Cut off marks of the selected candidates category wise, were notified in the newspapers on 04.09.2016. The list of selected candidates who were found eligible for admission was intimated to the institution by the concerned Principal DIET. The Managers and Principals of the institutions in all the districts in the State were directed to take admission strictly adhering to the list sent by the DIET concerned and to upload the details of the admitted candidates strictly as per the classification/categorization and to adhere to the cut off merit. The intimation regarding the candidates who did not turn up to take admission was also required to be sent to the concerned DIET.
To exemplify, it is contended that the institution in the leading writ petition was provided list of 39 candidates classification/category wise namely male/female; Arts/Science. Despite specific direction, the institution took admission on its own of the candidates belonging to the Arts category against the seats vacant for the Science category. It is submitted that the bifurcation of Arts/Science and Male/Female was made by the respondents as per the NCTE Regulations and the candidate of one classified category could not have been given admission in another classified category. As a result of it, after scrutiny, the admissions which were found against the norms were cancelled. The Managers and Principals of the institutions were, therefore, issued notice to explain their position regarding the admission of those candidates who were admitted by them, on their own.
On the plea of the petitioner regarding the previous policy of absorption of BTC trained teachers on the post of Assistant Teachers in the Junior Basic Schools, it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the said appointment cannot be made only on the basis of completion of BTC training course. The BTC training completion certificate is only one of the qualifications for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Selection of Assistant Teachers are being made subject to passing of the Teachers Eligibility Post(T.E.T) and fulfillment of all other eligibility requirements from amongst the list of applicants prepared merit wise. BTC training and appointment of Assistant Teachers are two independent matters. In any case, a BTC trained candidate cannot seek direct appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools, for selection of which, advertisements are being issued and the date of attaining of qualification is determined from time to time with reference to the date of the advertisement. It is also stated that the selection of 72,825 Assistant Teachers purusant to the advertisement issued in the year 2011 in the Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad had nothing to do with the BTC training Course.
Learned counsels appearing for NCTE placing the NCTE Regulations 2014 submits that the eligibility and the admission procedure has been provided in Appendix-2 of the Regulations 2014, which pertains to norms and standards fixed for D.El.Ed (BTC) course. In so far as the classification/categorization of Male/Female, Arts/Science is concerned, no such categorization is contemplated under the Regulations 2014 nor any such condition was put in the recognition order passed by the NCTE, specifying the approved intake. In the crux, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the NCTE that the decision for such classification/categorization was the own decision of the State Government while making selection for grant of admission. The NCTE has not provided/prescribed for such classification.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only question, thus, has arisen for consideration as to whether the State can be said to have erred in providing the classification/categorization for Arts and Science group; Male and Female category for the purpose of admission to the D.El.Ed. (BTC) Course namely Diploma in Elementary Teachers Education Programme.
Indisputably, norms and standards for Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed.) BTC course are fixed by the NCTE Regulations, 2014. The NCTE has been established by the NCTE Act 1993 with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country and for regularization and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teachers education system as per the policy of education. The Regulations 2014 framed by the NCTE in exercise of its power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 32 of NCTE Act 1993 are applicable to all matters relating to teachers education programme i.e. for preparing norms and standards, procedure for recognition of institution, commencement of new programme and addition to sanctioned intake in the existing programme.
The eligible institutions are required to approach NCTE for grant of recognition which would be provided to them subject to fulfillment of the conditions provided in the Regulations. Appendix 2 as contained in the Regulation 9 of the Regulations 2014 provides the norms and standards for D.El.Ed (BTC) Course. It is a professional programme of teachers education with an aim to prepare teachers for the elementary stage of education i.e. Class I to VIII. The aim of elementary education is to fulfill the basic learning needs of all children in an inclusive school environment. The D.El.Ed course which carries different nomenclature such as BTC, J.B.T., D.El.Ed. is a two academic years duration course. The admission to D.El.Ed course is granted on the merits prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the comman admission test as per the policy of the State. The Course Curriculum of D.El.Ed programme is designed so as to prepare the teachers having skill to meet the physiological, social, educational demand of the childhood and help a child to develop knowledge and communication skills. D.El.Ed programme comprises of (a) compulsory and optional Theory course; (b) compulsory Practicum course; (3) compulsory School Internship.
As per clause 4.1 of Appendex-2 of the Regulations 2014, theory and practicum courses shall be assigned a weightage in the proportion determined by the affiliating body. The theory course as per clause 4.1 (a) comprises of courses; (i) Foundations/perspectives of Education (ii) curriculum and pedagogic course means "method and practice of teaching" including the optional course in pedagogy means an academic subject or theoretical course.
The theory course thus includes three broad perspectives of education namely Child Studies, Contemporary Studies and and Educational Studies and also includes language proficiency and communication and relevant field based units of study including assignment and projects. The curriculum pedagogy courses is designed for primary and upper primary curriculum areas which includes compulsory study of language, Mathematics and environmental studies for the primary stage i.e. class I to V and Optional pedagogy course in Social Science Education, Language Education, Mathematics Education and Science Education for teaching at the upper primary stage i.e. from Class VI to VIII.
Compulsory Practicum course is; (a) Field Engagement Course designed together to give opportunities to acquire a repertoire of professional skills and capacities in craft, fine arts, work and education, creative drama and theater in education, self development, children's physical and emotional health, school health and education.
(b) The compulsory school internship is a minimum of 20 weeks of internship in schools during the course of which four weeks would be dedicated to class room observations etc. during the first year and minimum period of 16 weeks of internship in the elementary classes, including primary and upper primary in the second year of the Course. The aim is to equip the students to cater the needs of diverse learners in schools.
(c) The programme shall include visits to innovative centres of pedagogy and learning, innovative schools, educational resource centres, teaching-learning centres and include stipulations in the Right to Education Act, 2009 on the duties of the teacher and community engagement.
(d) The institution imparting teachers training course shall have easy access to sufficient number of recognized elementary schools in the neighborhood for field work and practice teaching related activities of student-teachers. The institutions have to furnish undertaking from the schools willing to provide facilities for practice teaching.
Clause 4.2 of Appendix 2 pertains to Programme Implementation by the institution, sub claus (vi) of clause 4.2 provides that the optional pedagogy course for upper primary school teaching shall be selected by the student.
Clause 4.3 is the method of assessment of students on the percentage of marks distributed for theory course, 20%-30% (for continuous internal assessment) and 70% to 80% for examination conducted by the examining body). One-fourth of the total marks are to be allocated to evaluate the student's performance during the 16 weeks of compulsory School Internship. The weightage for internal and external assessment is to be fixed by the affiliating body within the ranges specified in the aforesaid clause. The candidates are to be internally assessed on the entire practicum course and not only on the project/field work given to them as part of their units of study. The basis of internal assessment may include individual or group assignments, observation records, diaries, reflective journals etc. As per clause 3.2, the eligibility qualification for admission to D.El.Ed. Course is ,
(a) atleast 50% marks in higher secondary (+2) or its equivalent examination; (b) the reservation and relaxation in marks for SC/ST/OBC/PWD and other categories as per the rules of the Central Government/State Government, whichever is applicable.
Total Working Days as per Clause 2.2 is:-
(a) at least two hundred working days each year exclusive of the period of examination and admission.
(b) The institution shall work for a minimum of thirty six hours in a week (five or six days) during which physical presence in the institution of all the teachers and student- teachers is necessary to ensure their availability for advice, guidance, dialogue and consultation as and when needed.
(c) The minimum attendance of student-teacher shall be 80% for all course work including practicum, and 90% for school internship.
Thus a comprehensive study of the norms and standards fixed by NCTE for imparting teacher education programme leading to D.El.Ed. Course under the Regulations 2014, makes it evident that the study of a specific subject in Arts/Science stream by a student admitted to the teachers training course is optional. A student-teacher can opt for pedagogy courses (subject course) in any of the streams such as social science, language, mathematics and science for teaching at the upper primary level i.e. class VI to VIII.
For the primary stage (Class I to V) the pedagogy courses only in language, mathematics and environmental studies are compulsory. This leads to a conclusion that at the stage of admission to the D.El.Ed. Course, a teacher education programme to prepare teachers for the elementary stage of education (class I to VIII), there is no requirement of identifying candidates in Arts stream or Science stream category. The D.El.Ed course is meant to prepare and equip a student to become a teacher having knowledge and skills in the methods of teaching for imparting formal education to children of tender age group. No material has been brought on record by the State to show that there was a nexus between such distribution of seats and the object sought to be achieved.
Apart from the Government order dated 15.11.2013 and the circular dated 22.07.2013, nothing has been brought on record to justify the action of the respondent in making such classification. In fact there is no basis of the Streamwise i.e. Arts/Science and Male/Female distribution of the total number of seats allocated for admission to D.El.Ed course. The Government order dated 14.06.2016 issued for the purpose of regulating admission to D.El.Ed Session 2015-16 i.e. the academic session-in-question does not make any reference of the Government order dated 15.11.2013 or any other direction in this regard. The Government order dated 14.06.2016 in paragraph no.2 and 5 uses the words "वर्गवाद/श्रेणीवाद" (classification wise/category wise) without any further detail/reference to the decision of the State to provide such classification/categorization for the Academic Session 2015-16. For ready reference paragraph no.2 and 5 of the Government order dated 14.06.2016 are quoted as under:-
^^2& bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkar ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k l= 2015 esa p;u gsrq vkuykbZu vkosnu ,oa p;u izfdz;k fuEuor~ fn'kk funsZ'k ds vUrxZr lEikfnr dh tk;sxh%& ¼1½ vkosnu gsrq vH;FkhZ dh vk;q 01 tqykbZ] 2015 dks 18 o"kZ ls de rFkk 35 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gksA U;wure vk;q lhek esa fdlh izdkj dh NwV u gksxhA vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa] vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa] fiNM+h tkfr dks vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 05 o"kZ dh NwV gksxhA fodykax vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 15 o"kZ dh NwV gksxhA HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dh vk;q esa NwV fu;ekuqlkj ^^;fn lsuk ds fdlh HkwriwoZ deZpkjh }kjk lsuk esa dh x;h lsok dh lEiw.kZ vof/k mldh okLrfod vk;q esa ls ?kVuk nh tkrh gS vkSj ;fn bl izdkj ?kVk;h x;h vk;q fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre vk;q lhek ls rhu o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks rks ;g le>k tkrk gS fd og ,slh lsokvksa rFkk inksa ij HkrhZ dh vk;q ls lEcfU/kr 'krksZ dks iwjk djrk gSA**] ns; gksxhA ¼2½ ,u0vkbZ0lh0] y[kuÅ }kjk bZ&esy ls [email protected] 'kSf{kd xq.kkad ds vojks/kh dze esa izsf"kr lwpuh dks lfpo] ijh{kk fu;ked izkf/kdkjh] m0iz0] bykgkckn }kjk lEcfU/kr tuin ds izkpk;Z] ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa dks bZ&esy ds ek/;e ls izsf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA lfpo] ijh{kk fu;ked izkf/kdkjh] m0iz0] bykgkckn }kjk vfHkys[kksa dh tkWap djkus dh fu/kkZfjr frfFk dh lwpuki ,dhd`r :i ls m0iz0 ds cgqizlkfjr lekpkj i=ksa ds lHkh laLdj.kksa esa foKkfIr izdkf'kr dh tk;sxhA vfHkys[kksa dh tkWap gsrq vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa esa foKkfIr esa fu/kkZfjr frfFk;ksa esa mifLFkr gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA foKkfIr ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh ek/;e ls vH;FkhZ dks lwfpr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA izkpk;Z] ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ewy vfHkys[kksa dh tkap dh tk;sxhA izkpk;Z] ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk dkmaflfyax esa vgZ rFkk vugZ ik;s x;s lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku ds lwpukiV ij pLik dh tk;sxh rFkk bls tuin ds osclkbV ij Hkh iznf'kZr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼5½ tuin esa vkoafVr lhVksa ds izfr vkj{k.k fu;eksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, esfjV vojksgh dze esa [email protected]& rhl xquk ¼fo'ks"k vkj{k.k Js.kh ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, ipkl xquk½ vFkok 'kr izfr'kr lhVksa ds Hkjs tkus ds mn~ns'; ls vko';drk ds vuqlkj vH;FkhZ vfHkys[kksa dh tkWap gsrq lEcfU/kr izkpk;Z] ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk cqyk;s tk;sxsA vfHkys[kksa dh tkWap dk rkRi;Z ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k l= 2015 esa izos'k dh lqfuf'prrk ugha gSA ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k esa izos'k esfjV ds vk/kkj ij fjfDr;ksa ds lkis{k gh fd;k tk;sxkA bl gsrq dV vkQ esfjV dk izdk'ku lEcfU/kr izkpk;Z ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk izns'k ds cgqizlkfjr lekpkj i=ksa esa fd;k tk;sxkA lkFk gh lkFk vius tuin ds ,u0vkbZ0lh0 ds ek/;e ls tuin dh osclkbV ¼District Name. nic. in½ ij Hkh iznf'kZr fd;k tk;sxkA** For the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, the question arises for consideration as to whether the State can be said to be justified in making the categorization/classification of Arts/Science/Male and Female category and whether the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Article 14 speaks of equality but it does not forbid reasonable classification. In order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled namely (1) that the classification must be found on an intelligible differential which distinguishes the persons or things that are grouped together from others belonging to the same group; (2) that the differentia must have a rationale to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute or the scheme framed by the State.
While the classification may be founded on different basis but what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of the classification and the object of the provision under classification (reference R.K. Garg Vs. Union of India & others1, Motor General Traders & another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others2.
Article 15 (5) permits reservation in admission of socially and educationally backward classes. The State Government of U.P, issued a legislation to provide special reservation (with horizontal reservation to the persons belonging to such category in their caste wise category i.e. SC/ST and OBC). Apart from the reservation provided by the legislation namely the U.P. Admissions to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006, there is no other provision for reservation or classification in favour of a particular category candidate.
Ours is a welfare State, it cannot make discrimination or classification or provide restriction except in conformity with the principles noted above. Identifying 70% seats for Arts stream and 30% for science stream with further classification of Male and Female category in the said streams for admission is without any basis which may have been reflected from the Government order dated 14.06.2016, issued by the State for regulating admission to D.El.Ed course 2015-16. No such disclosure has been made in the counter affidavit by the second and fourth respondents who had relied solely upon the Government orders issued in the year 2013 pertaining to the admission to D.El.Ed course in the year 2013-14 and afterwards, to justify the classification/categorization.
The basis for providing classification/categorization in Arts /Science Streams earlier was the selection made pursuant to the Government order dated 27.09.2011 whereby the students-teachers who undertook BTC (teachers training course) were being absorbed directly in the Junior Basic Schools being run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The said categorization for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic School had been discontinued much before. As per own stand of the second and fourth respondents, there is no relation of the teachers training programme (D.El.Ed.) with the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools in the State.
The Court, therefore, reaches to an irresistible conclusion that the old practice of classification/categorization for Arts/Science, Male/Female for the purpose of admission to D.El.Ed. course in the Academic Session 2015-16, was adopted by the State without any further study or rationale for requirement of such classification in the interest of the people of the State. The old and obsolete practice has been adopted mechanically little realizing the changes in the recruitment/appointment of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. There appears to be no study of requirements of Male and Female teachers in Arts and Science stream as per the requirement of teachers in Primary and Upper Primary level (class I to VIII) in the school running in the State of U.P. At least, no such factual position reflects from the record.
Admittedly, the State-wise selection based on the comman admission test and allocation of institutions to the candidates is merit wise. The institutions are required to grant admission strictly adhering to the merit list provided by the concerned DIET, prepared in the comman admission process-subject to fulfillment of eligibility requirements.
What logically follows is that there was no rationale for distribution of seats (Arts/Science, Male/Female) by the State for admission to D.El.Ed course, aimed to equip the students with teaching skills so as to meet the physiological, social and educational demand of the children of tender age (class I to VIII). Such classification/distribution cannot be said to be based on an intelligible differentia and as such cannot withstand the test of scrutiny of reasonable classification. The distribution of seats for admission to D.El.Ed course in Arts/Science, Male/Female category is, therefore, held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In a matter of Minor P. Rajendran vs State Of Madras & Ors3, the question which came up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the District wise distribution of seats for the purpose of admission to MBBS course was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held in paragraph no.11 therein, as follows:-
"The question whether districtwise allocation is violative of Art. 14 will depend on what is the object to be achieved in the matter of admission to medical colleges. Considering the fact that there is a larger number of candidates than seats available, selection has got to be made. The object of selection can only be to secure the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to the provision for socially and educationally backward classes. Further whether selection is from the socially and educationally backward classes or from the general pool, the object of selection must be to secure the best possible talent from the two sources. If that is the object, -it must necessarily follow that that object would be defeated if seats are allocated district by district. It cannot be and has not been denied that the object of Selection is to secure the best possible talent from the two sources so that the country may have the best possible doctors. If that is the object, the argument on behalf of the petitioners/appellant is that that object cannot possibly be served by allocating seats districtwise. It is true that Art. 14 does not forbid classification, but the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable classification. The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be achieved in a case of the kind with which we are concerned is to get the best talent for admission to profes- sional colleges, the allocation of seats districtwise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such allocation will result in many cases in the object being destroyed, and if that is so, the classification, even if reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted from either of the two Sources."
Similar question came up again in the matter of MBBS admission in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,4 wherein following its previous decision, the Apex Court had held that such classification/distribution of seats was violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
The question of District Wise distribution of seats again came to be considered by the Apex Court in the year 2000 in Govind A. Mane & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others5; in relation to admission to B.Ed course. It was reiterated that since district wise distribution was made by the respondent State without indicating any material to show the nexus between the said distribution and the object sought to be achieved, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The view taken by this Court in the instant matter that the State was not justified in making the classification of Art/Science and Male/Female category, is, thus, fortified from the decisions of the Apex Court as noted above.
In view of the above discussion, this Court has left with no doubt in holding that the decision of the third respondent in cancelling the admission of the candidates of Arts stream against the vacant seats of Science stream, made by the institutions on its own, cannot be sustained.
Now the last question left before the Court is as to what relief can be granted to the students-petitioners in the present bunch.
Indisputably, the institutions were granted recognition for 50 seats (one unit) to impart D.El.Ed. (BTC) training course and in most of the cases, the concerned DIET could not provide candidates for admission against all 50 sanctioned seats. The institutions were initially directed to take admission from the list provided by the concerned DIET and to provide information regarding the admitted students and the vacant seats. Vide notification dated 16.09.2016, the private institutions were permitted to take admission of the candidates (strictly adhering the merit of those who participated in the common admission process and were placed above the cut off marks) between 19.09.2016 till 21.09.2016, after exhausting the allotment list provided by the concerned DIET. The last date for admission was 21.09.2016. Pursuant to the direction of Apex Court in Baba Shiv Nath Singh, Shikshan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan (supra), the Academic Session 2015-16 had commenced from 22.09.2016. The list of candidates who were granted admission between the aforesaid period by the institution concerned, on its own, was also to be provided to the concerned DIET.
It appears that the list of admitted candidates by the private institutions as provided by them was examined by the Principal DIET. Raising several objections regarding the eligibility of the admitted candidates, the admissions taken by the institutions, on their own, were cancelled largely on a common ground that the managements/Principals of the institutions had granted admission to the candidates of Arts stream against the vacant seats designated for the candidates of Science streams. Show cause notices were issued to the Principals and Managements of the institutions and the admissions taken by them were cancelled by the orders passed by the Principal concerned. As a result thereof, the aggrieved institutions and candidates approached this Court in various writ petitions which are tagged in this bunch.
At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that all other objections with regard to the admission made by the institutions, on their own, are not being dealt with by this Court in as much no arguments in that regard have been advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. Only issue raised for consideration with regard to the classification/distribution of seats in Arts/Science stream, Male/Female category has been dealt above. Having came to the conclusion that such classification could not have been made in the admission to D.El.Ed course, the orders passed by the Principal DIET concerned, for cancellation of admission taken by the institutions (within the permissible intake of students) of the candidates of Arts stream against the vacant seats in Science stream have been found to be unjustifiable.
It is noteworthy that in many of the writ petitions, interim orders were granted by this Court to the admited candidates to undertake the first semester examination provisionally, subject to the final decision in the writ petitions. Pursuant thereto, the candidates who found favour from this Court are stated to have appeared in the first semester examination. But every such candidate was not fortunate enough, some of them have not been permitted to undertake even the first semester examination.
As per clause 4.2 of the Appendix 2, every institution has to provide information regarding the date of commencement of classes (theory and practical) and for the purpose of holding such classes they have to prepare a calender for all activities including school internship and intimate the concerned DIET regarding the number of classes held and attended by each students including the details of school training. The permission to undertake examination can be granted by the concerned DIET on the examination form being submitted by the students subject to them attaining minimum required attendance of 80% for all courses including practical classes and 90% of compulsory school internship.
There is no detail on record regarding the attendance etc of the candidates, whose admissions have been cancelled and who were provisionally permitted by this Court to appear in the first semester examination and as such the permission, as prayed for, to allow them to appear in the second semester examination (scheduled from 25.10.2017) cannot be granted.
However, in order to set the controversy at rest considering the interest of the students who fulfill eligibility qualification and had been admitted against the approved sanction intake/vacant seats uptill 21.09.2016, following directions are issued:-
A. (I) The list of candidates admitted by the concerned institutions already sent to the Principal DIET shall be examined afresh and the intimation be sent to each candidate fixing a date for his/her appearance before the Principal DIET concerned alongwith the original documents of educational qualification and other requisite testimonials. The date so fixed shall also be notified in two daily newspapers of wide circulation in the concerned district.
(ii) The documents of educational and other requisite qualifications furnished by the candidate alongwith his/her admission form, provided by the institution concerned, shall be verified from the original documents produced by such candidate before the Principal DIET.
(iii) After such verification, the report be prepared by the Principal DIET concerned regarding the eligibility of each candidate admitted by the institution (as per the list submitted by it). The copy of the said report shall be provided to the concerned institution as also the examining body namely the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority Allahabad.
(iv) In case, any of the candidate is found ineligible or fails to furnish the requisite documents, his/her admission shall be cancelled by passing the order in writing by the Principal DIET under due intimation to the candidate through the institution concerned.
(v) The entire exercise regarding verification of the eligibility and other requisite eligibility qualifications of the candidates, admitted by the institutions as per the list provided by them shall be completed by the Principal DIET concerned within a period of four weeks from today.
B. For such candidates, whose admissions are found regular and valid in the aforesaid exercise and who had been permitted to undertake first semester examination under the interim orders of this Court, his/her result shall be declared subject to verification of him/her having attended the requisite number of classes (both theory and practical course). The information in this regard provided by the institution concerned, if any, shall be verified from the records of the institution to be produced before the Principal DIET concerned.
C. In all such cases, where the candidate had not attended the requisite number of classes (both theory and practical) before undertaking first semester examination, his/her result shall not be declared. Each such candidate would be requiring to attend the requisite number of classes (both theory and practical) before undertaking first semester examination of D.El.Ed (BTC) course, afresh.
(D) The examining body in consultation with the Principals DIET shall prepare a calender for completion of requisite period of study for each semester i.e. first and second semesters (with the intervening examination period) spread over the period between 15th November' 2017 and 30th April' 2018. The schedule for examination of both first and second semester, in the intervening period, giving sufficient gaps, between two examinations for completion of requisite period of study shall also be included in the said calender.
(E) The calender so prepared shall be intimated to each institution and the validity admitted students through the Principal DIET concerned on or before 30th November' 2017, so that every student shall be aware of the period of study he/she has to complete and further the period during which he/she has to undertake examination for each semester.
(F). The compulsory school internship of four weeks (required for the first year of D.El.Ed course) is also to be completed by each student and arrangement in this regard shall be made by the Principal DIET concerned in-cordination with the Basic Education Officer.
(G). The institutions are required to hold requisite number of special classes (both for theory and practical courses) for each semester as per the calender provided to them by the Principal DIET and to strictly follow the schedule provided therein.
The institutions and the respondents authorities shall strictly adhere to the directions given herein above and in case of any disobedience or non compliance of the said direction, they may be held liable for adverse action after fixing their responsibility.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the present bunch of writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date : 24.10.2017 Himanshu