Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shameemunnisa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 31 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR1996KAR3127, 1996(6)KARLJ157, 1997 A I H C 1812
ORDER G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to approve the admission of the petitioner to the T.C.H, course which she has taken in the 3rd respondent-Institute.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been admitted to the 3rd respondent-Institute in December 1995 within the permissible intake as fixed by the affiliating authority before coming into force of the National Teacher Education Council Act, 1993. In the present case, the first and second respondents have refused to approve the admission of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of admission, her age was more than 35 years and as per the Government circular dated 5.6.1995 it was not permissible for any institute to admit the candidates of more than 35 years of age. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the validity of the said Government circular on the ground that it is opposed to the statutory rules framed with regard to the holding of T.C.H. examination.
3. The T.C.H. examination is held by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board which has been constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board Act, 1966 (in short 'the Act'). Section 15 of the Act empowers the Board to hold T.C.H. examination in accordance with the regulations framed by it in this regard. The power to frame regulations is contained in Section 26 of the Act which provides that the Board may, from time to time, by notification, make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Sub-rule(2) of this Act specifically provides for framing of regulations for admission of candidates to the examinations and the conditions governing such admissions.
4. Pursuant to the said powers, the Board has framed the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board First regulations 1976. Chapter VII of these regulations provides for holding of T.C.H. examinations and the eligibility of the candidates, who appear at the said examination. Rule 57, which is relevant for the present case reads as under:-
(A) Training certificate (Higher) - (i) Candidates who have passed Mysore SSLC examination or any examination considered equivalent to the Mysore SSLC examination, will be eligible for admission to the Examination.
ii) They should have undergone training for two academic years in a Government/non-Government Training institution recognised by the Department for imparting training in the courses of studies prescribed for this examination.
iii) They should have attended the recognised Training Institution for not less than 75 percent of the number of working days in each academic year to which effect candidates appearing for the examination for the first time are required to produce a certificate from the Head of the Institution in which they have undergone training.
iv) every candidate appearing for the examination for the first time is required to produce a certificate from the Head of the Training Institution to the effect that he/she carried out the year's work satisfactorily in Community Living, Practice Teaching, Craft-work, and other activities mentioned in the syllabus."
From the above referred regulations, it is clear that no age limit has been prescribed by the Board for any candidate to be eligible for appearing at the T.C.H. examination. None the less, the State Government purporting to act under its executive power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution has issued the circular/executive instructions prescribing the age limit. The circular is clearly not in conformity with the eligibility criteria which have been laid down under the statutory regulations.
5. In the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. LAVU NARENDRA NATH AND ORS., . it has been held by the Supreme Court that:-
".....The Executive have a power to make any regulation which would have the effect of a law so long as it does not contravene any legislation already covering the field...
The said enunciation of law has been followed with the approval in several later decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KUMARI NIVEDITA JAIN.,
6. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it cannot be disputed that the subject pertaining to admission of candidates to T.C,H. Course is covered by a legislation on this subject as noticed above. Therefore, it was not competent on the part of the Executive to lay down any additional eligibility criteria. Accordingly, the circular of the Government dated 5.6.1995 to the extent it lays the additional criteria of age limit for admission to T.C.H. Course is held as ultravires and inoperative. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondents to approve the admission of the petitioner and permit her to appear at the examination subject to the statutory provisions of the State as also the Central legislation particularly Sections 14 and 16 thereof. No costs.