Namrata Rawat vs State Of U.P. And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 6063 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 7
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4876 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Namrata Rawat
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, Dharmendra Kumar Srivasta,Pulkit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,R A Akhtar
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the records and set-aside the impugned order dated 20.8.2007 passed by Director, State Council of Educational, Research & Training, J.B.T.C. Campus, Nishtaganj, U.P., Lucknow/respondent no.2.

ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to forthwith permit to petitioner for pursuing Special B.T.C. Training, 2004 under General/Female/Art category.

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner holds degree of "Shiksha Shastri", which has been obtained by him from "Shri Digamber Jain Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya Shri Mahaveerji" which is an affiliated college of Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati University, Ajmer (Rajasthan). This college has been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education, vide order dated 18.7.1997, which is reproduced below:

In exercise of powers conferred under Section 15(3)(a) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the Northern Regional Committee, hereby grants permission to Shri Digamber Jain Adarash Mhila Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. Shri Mahaveerji, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) to start new course in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) with duration of one year from the year 1997-98 with an annual intake of 120 students.

The permission is subject to the condition that the institute continues to fulfill the norms laid down under the regulations and submission of Annual Report in this regard.

By order

Regional Director"

4. Pursuant to advertisement dated 22.1.2004, inviting applications for admission for Special B.T.C. Course 2004, the petitioners applied. However, the petitioner was not sent for training and as such the petitioner filed Writ A No.42302 of 2004 to seek a direction to the respondents to forthwith sent the petitioner for Special B.T.C. Training 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 18.9.2006 as under:

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court at this stage without expressing any opinion on the merits directing the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no.2 annexing all the relevant documents in support of the fact that Shiksha Shastri Course which the petitioner has passed from Shree Digamber Jain Adarsh Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya, Sri Mahaveerji, District Karoli (Rajasthan) is a recognized Course by National Council for Teachers Education and in case any such representation is made, the respondent no.2 shall look into the matter and pass appropriate speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks' from the date of production of certified copy of this order alongwith the aforesaid representation. In case it is found that the petitioner's Course is duly recognized and the petitioner ought to have been granted admission in Special B.T.C. Course, 2004, subject to other eligibility conditions, the respondent no.2 shall take necessary steps allowing admission to the petitioner in the aforesaid Course without any further delay.

With these observations this writ petition is finally disposed of."

5. The petitioner submitted a certified copy of the aforequoted order before the respondent no.2, vide application dated 9.10.2006 and requested for compliance. By order dated 20.8.2007, the respondent no.2 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that in the advertisement for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 the degree of "Shiksha Shastri" has not been included and as such it is not an eligible degree for Special B.T.C. Course 2004.

6. In appears that in the mean time, the petitioner had also filed the contempt petition no.2268 of 2007, which remained pending till 22.9.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to challenge the impugned order dated 20.8.2007.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the degree of "Shiksha Shastri" of Shri Digamber Jain Adarash Mahila Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. Shri Mahaveerji, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) is recognised by the National Council for Teachers Education. The said degree has been held to be a degree equivalent to B.Ed. by the Lucknow Bench of this Court by Order dated 23.12.2009 in Misc. Single No.4505 of 2007 (Ramesh Tiwari Vs. The State of U.P.). He, therefore, submits that rejection of the application by the impugned order is wholly erroneous and, deserves to be quashed.

8. Learned standing counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that degree of "Shiksha Shastri" was neither covered by the advertisement nor by the Government Orders dated 14.1.2004 and 20.2.2004 and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course. Consequently, the action of the respondent was wholly lawful. The impugned order has been passed lawfully and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned standing counsel further submits that the degree of "Shiksha Shastri" has been obtained by the petitioner from an institution outside the State of U.P. and, therefore, the petitioner was not possessing the required eligibility in terms of the advertisement dated 20.2.2004, which provides that the candidate must possess degree of a University or recognised institution within the State of U.P.

9. Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Submits that the degree of "Shiksha Shastri" from the aforesaid institution has been recognised by the N.C.T.E. vide recognition letter dated 18.7.1997, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. He admits that aforesaid degree is equivalent to B.Ed. and the law stands settled in this regard.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record before me.

11. It is undisputed that the degree of "Shiksha Shastri" obtained by the petitioner from "Shri Digamber Jain Adarash Mahila Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. Shri Mahaveerji" has been recognised by the N.C.T.E. vide recognition letter dated 18.7.1997 for starting new course in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) with duration of one year from the year 1997-98. The petitioner has completed the "Shiksha Shastri" course in the year 2000 which is equivalent to B.Ed. Thus, it can not be disputed by the respondent that the petitioner possess B.Ed. degree which has been termed as "Shiksha Shastri" and the said degree is duly recognised by N.C.T.E.

12. In the case of Ramesh Tiwari (supra) this Court has observed that the candidates who holds teacher training certificate under the nomenclature of "Shiksha Shastri" cannot be deprived from the opportunity of admission in training course only on the ground that they obtained teacher training certificate under the different head than the head mentioned in the advertisement and, accordingly held that such candidates are entitled for admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course 2004.

13. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Soni and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3733 of 2009) and other connected writ petitions decided on 13.8.2010, a full Bench considered the question "Whether the degree obtained by a student from an institution/university established by law, situate at a place out side the State of Uttar Pradesh but duly recognized by the N.C.T.E. can be refused acceptance as valid qualification for being admitted to Special B.T.C. Course- 2008 by the State?

14. While answering the aforesaid question the full Bench observed that all institutions imparting training course for teachers approved by the N.C.T.E. are a class by themselves and there can be no distinction as to whether they pass their B.Ed. from an institution in the State of U.P. or other States of India, as long as the institutions are recognized by the N.C.T.E. and also have recognition of any other body in the State, if required. The State has also not provided for any reservation based on the State's interest. Therefore, the notification excluding such degree/diploma/certificate holders as well as the advertisement would be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. The full Bench answered the aforequoted question as under:

"In answer to Question No.(a), it is not open to the State or the State authorities to exclude the students, who have obtained degree/diploma/certificate in LT/B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. from Institutions/Universities established by law situate at place outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and duly recognized by the NCTE, from applying either for the Special B.T.C. Course or B.T.C. Course. Any such exclusion is illegal."

15. In concluding paragraph the full bench in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soni and others (supra) held as under:

"29. We may now answer the reference:

(1) In answer to Question No.(a), it is not open to the State or the State authorities to exclude the students, who have obtained degree/diploma/certificate in LT/B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. from Institutions/Universities established by law situate at place outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and duly recognized by the NCTE, from applying either for the Special B.T.C. Course or B.T.C. Course. Any such exclusion is illegal. Question No, (a) is answered, accordingly.

(2) Insofar as Question No.(b) is concerned, the classification, if any, is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, the only ground given by the State Government for not putting restriction on B.Ed. degree, and putting restriction on LT/B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed., is not sustainable in terms of the rules of N.C.T.E., as the admission can only be based on merit.

(3) Insofar as Question No.(c) is concerned, the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha (supra) did not answer the issue of admission to Special B.T.C. Course, but dealt with the issue of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Even otherwise, considering the findings on question nos.(a) & (b), we will have to hold that the judgment in Vijay Kumar Kushwaha does not lay down the correct law.

30. Reference is answered, accordingly. All judgments to the contrary are overruled.

31. The Government has issued orders closing these courses except for those, whose applications were rejected on the ground that they did not possess the L.T./B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. from institutions in U.P. and the matters are pending before this Court. With respect to the Special B.T.C. Courses for the years 2004, 2007 or 2008, if the petitioners, whose petitions are pending, are eligible, they shall be considered for training for the Special B.T.C. Courses, which shall be commenced within a reasonable period."

16. In view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the full Bench in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soni and others (supra) and also by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Tiwari (supra), I am of the view that the ground taken by the respondent no.2 to deny admission to the petitioner in Special B.T.C. Course 2004 is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.8.2007 can not be sustained and is hereby quashed. The respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to take appropriate action in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

17. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Order Date :- 31.10.2017/vkg