Gaurav Mishra And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9564 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 39
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13967 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Gaurav Mishra And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Srivastava,Hari Narain Singh (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

1. Heard Sri Hari Narain Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rishabh Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K.S. Parihar learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. The petitioners herein have obtained Bachelors Degree in various disciplines of B.Tech (Bachelor of Technical Education) from the technical institutions recognized by All India Council of Technical Education (In short "AICTE"), affiliated with the Technical Universities. They claim of having studied Mathematics and Science as the subjects in the B.Tech course. They also claim to have obtained B.Ed (Bachelor of Education) degree from the institutions recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education (In short "NCTE").

3. The contention is that the petitioners are eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate Teachers) (In short "T.G.T") in Mathematics and Science, to teach students upto the Secondary level, i.e. Classes IX & X, being qualified as per the regulations framed by NCTE providing minimum qualification for appointment to the said post.

The vires of the Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1998") and Appendix 'A' as contained in Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1921") is sought to be challenged on the ground that the qualifications prescribed therein for selection/appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in Mathematics and Science is inconsistent with Section 12-A of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 (In short "NCTE Act") readwith the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the NCTE Regulations, 2014).

Further prayer in the writ petition is to quash the qualification prescribed in Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 for Trained Graduate Teachers in subjects Mathematics and Science and further to incorporate qualifications as provided in Regulations, 2014 framed by NCTE.

4. By means of the amendment application, the petitioners also challenge the Advertisement No. 01/2021 dated 15.3.2021 published by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj for the posts of Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate Grade) in the subjects Mathematics and Science.

5. It is argued by Sri Hari Narain Singh learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the challenge raised herein is substantiated from the bare perusal of the statement in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. In the said affidavit, respondent no. 1 had admitted that the qualification prescribed in Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act is not in conformity with the prescribed qualifications for the post of Assistant Teachers in the NCTE Regulations 2014. As per the disclosure made therein, the proposal of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Prayagraj dated 26.11.2020 has been returned back with certain objections and the State requires time (preferably six months) to complete the process to bring the Rule 5 of the Rules, 1998 and Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 in conformity with the NCTE Act, 1993 and NCTE Regulations, 2014.

It is argued that in view of the admission of the State respondents that the prescribed minimum qualifications in Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 is not in conformity with the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the Selection Board cannot proceed for the selection of the Assistant Teachers in various subjects pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.3.2021.

The submission, thus, is that the qualifications prescribed in the Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act be quashed and the State be directed to withhold the selection of the Assistant Teachers (Trained Graduate Grade) till the amendments are made in the existing provision.

The alternative prayer is that all the petitioners herein being qualified as per the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE be permitted to participate in the selection process on provisional basis or else the writ petition would be rendered infructuous.

The supplementary affidavit dated 15.7.2021 has been filed to bring on record the syllabus of B.Tech, B.A./B.Sc. course in the subjects Mathematics and Science to assert that the petitioners are graduates in the relevant disciplines and are eligible for appointment.

6. At the outset, we may note that the complete syllabus of the course concerned for making comparison of the papers of study in Mathematics and Science of B.A./B.Sc. courses has not been brought on record.

The controversy, thus, revolves around the prescribed qualification for selection to the post of the Assistant Teachers (T.G.T.) in the subjects Mathematics and Science in the State of U.P.

7. Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents, in rebuttal, submits that there is no inconsistency in the prescribed qualification as published in the advertisement dated 15.3.2021. The State is under obligation to complete the selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (T.G.T.) against all the current and future vacancies reported as per the Rules, in view of the directions of the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 (Sanjay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others) read as under:-

"12. We end with the hope that we will never be faced with the aforesaid situation again and the State Government and the Commission will also make every endeavour to ensure that the order is complied in its true intent and spirit and specially the aspect of holding examinations for the future taking into consideration all current and future vacancies reported as per rules is followed in times to come. We need not emphasize that education in a very important role performed by a State apart from the area of medical assistance to citizens and thus it is necessary that the full benefit is extended to the students which can only take place if the full strength of teachers is available at the requisite time. This in turn requires compliance with the aforesaid directions for the future.

13. Since there is always hope, we hope for a better future.

14. The aforesaid exercise by the Commission in consultation with the State Government should be completed well in time to ensure that at least in the session commencing in July, 2021 all teachers up to date are in place."

As regards the process of amendment in the Appendix 'A', Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, it is contended that the proposal of the Board of High School and Intermediate had been considered and it was sent back for clarification in view of the inconsistency in the qualification proposed by the Board. The specific anomaly mentioned in the 'Note' forwarded to the Board has been pointed out from the Annexure "S.C.A.-1" to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

It is then argued that the petitioners being B.Tech Graduate cannot seek selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (T.G.T.) in the subjects Mathematics and Science as they are not eligible/qualified. The advertisement dated 15.3.2021 published by the Selection Board, hence, cannot be quashed at the instance of the petitioners.

8. To deal with the controversy at hands, it would be appropriate to first note the relevant provisions pertaining to the field.

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Act, 2009 (in short "R.T.E. Act, 2009") has been enacted to provide compulsory elementary education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. Section 23(1) of the R.T.E. Act, 2009 provides that for being eligible for appointment as a teacher, any person must possess such minimum qualifications as laid down by an Academic Authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification. After coming into operation of the R.T.E. Act, 2009, by the notification dated 23.8.2010, the Central Government had appointed NCTE (National Council of Teacher Education) as the Academic Authority to determine the qualification for appointment of teachers so as to maintain the norms and standards in the teaching education system. The NCTE Amendment Act, 2011 was enacted by the Parliament on 12th October, 2011 and was promulgated in the Official Gazette on 12th November, 2014. The expression "School" was inserted by Clause (ka) in Section 2 of the Principal Act which reads as under:-

"Section 2 (ka) "school" means any recognised school imparting pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary or senior secondary education, or a college imparting senior secondary education and includes-

(i) a school established, owned and controlled by the Central Government, or the State Government or a local authority;

(ii) a school receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the Central Government, the State Government or a local authority;

(iii) a school not receiving any aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the Central Government, the State Government or a local authority;"

Section 12-A inserted by Amendment Act 18 of 2011 (w.e.f. 1.6.2012) reads:-

"12-A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers.- For the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the Council may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called, established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government or a State Government or a local or other authority:"

Pursuant to the NCTE Amendment Act, 2011, the Regulations had been published in the Official Gazette on 12th November, 2014, known as the "Regulations of National Council for Teacher Education (determination of the qualifications for persons to be recruited as education teachers and physical education teachers in pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college) Regulations 2014".

Clause (2) of the said Regulations says that these regulations shall be applicable for recruitment of teachers in any recognised school imparting pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college established and controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or a local or other authority as also the schools which are recognised but not receiving any grant or aid to meet out their expenses.

Clause (4) of the Regulations says that the qualifications for recruitment of teachers in any recognised school (noted above) shall be as given in the First and Second Schedule(s) annexed to these Regulations.

First Schedule provides minimum academic and professional qualifications for Secondary/High School (For Classes IX-X) in Item No. (4) of the table given therein, which provides as under:-

"(a) Graduate/Post Graduate from recognized University with at least 50% marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation (or its equivalent) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution.

Or

(b) Graduate/Post Graduate from recognized University with at least 45% marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation (or its equivalent and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution [in accordance with the National Council for Teacher Education (From of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002 notified on 13.11.2002 and National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 notified on 10.12.2007}

Or

(c) 4-years degree of B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed. from any National Council for Teacher Education recognized institution".

9. Placing qualifications in Item No. 4(a) of the table in the First Schedule of the Regulations 2014, it is argued by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the NCTE being the Apex Academic body appointed by the Central Government had determined the qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (T.G.T.) for Secondary/High School (Classes IX & X) as "Graduate from a recognized University with at least 50% of the marks in Graduation alongwith B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) degree from the institution recognized by NCTE". The petitioners having Graduate degree in B.Tech and training qualification B.Ed. are, thus, qualified. The Selection Board, however, illegally excluded them from consideration by mentioning specific eligibility qualifications as B.A./B.Sc. in the subjects Mathematics and Science in the advertisement, which is provided in Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

Further submission is that the Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations has to be appropriately amended by the State Government to bring it in conformity with the NCTE Regulations, 2014 as NCTE Regulations will have an overriding effect over the provisions of Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the Act, 1921.

10. To deal with the said submissions, we may note that the appointment of teachers in High School and Intermediate institutions in the State of U.P. is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act which has been enacted for the establishment of a "Board of High School and Intermediate Education" to regulate and supervise the system of the High School and Intermediate Education in the State of U.P. and prescribe courses therefor. Section 15 of the said Act empowers the Board of High School and Intermediate Education to frame Regulations for the purpose of carrying into the effect the provisions of the Act, 1921. Section 16 provides that the Regulations framed by the Board under Section 15 of the Act, 1921 shall be made by the Board only with the previous sanction of the State Government and shall be published in the Gazette. The regulations, under the Act, 1921, framed by the Board as contained in Chapter II provide for appointment of teachers and Heads of Institutions. Regulation 1 of Chapter II states that the minimum qualifications for appointment as teachers in any recognized institution, whether by direct recruitment or otherwise, shall be as given in Appendix 'A'.

Appendix 'A' contains the minimum qualifications for appointment of Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X and Classes XI & XII. Entry '3' of Appendix 'A' provides the minimum qualification for Mathematics teacher for High School (Classes IX-X). The educational training experience prescribed therein is B.A. or B.Sc. (Mathematics) and the desirable qualification is 'Trained'. Similarly Entry '33' provides minimum qualification for Science teacher for High School (Classes IX-X) as B.Sc. in Chemistry and Physics (Educational Training Experience) and trained (desirable qualification).

11. A comparison of the minimum qualification prescribed for Secondary/High School in Item No. '4' of the table to NCTE Regulations, 2014 and the Appendix-A in Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 shows that for being appointed as Assistant Teacher to teach subjects Mathematics and Science for classes IX & X, a candidate has to study upto Graduate or Post-Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) as the training qualification. This reveals that a subject teacher has to be a graduate in the relevant subject, i.e. he or she must have studied the relevant subject (Mathematics or Science) at least upto Graduation. The B.A. or B.Sc. in the relevant subjects Mathematics and Science, as prescribed qualification in the Appendix-A of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, therefore, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the qualification prescribed in the NCTE Regulations, 2014.

12. The NCTE Act, 1993 is a law relatable to Entry '66' of List-I of Schedule-VII of the Constitution of India which empowers the Parliament to legislate for coordination and determination of standards in the institutions for higher education. Whereas the Intermediate Education Act is a legislation which is referable to Entry '25' of List-III-Concurrent List, to be noted as under:-

"25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."

In respect to the field "education", the State, thus, has power to legislate, subject to the provisions of Entry '66' of List-I.

13. First contention of the petitioners is that since both the above legislations operate in the same field, the field being covered by the Central law, the qualifications prescribed in the State Act being not in conformity with the Parliamentary Act is void.

Having examined both the provisions, we have noted that there is no repugnancy as the subject "Education" falling within the legislative competence of the State is unquestionable. The attempt of the State Legislature is to provide complete measures and methodology to regulate and supervise the system of High School and Intermediate Education in the State. As is seen from the legislative scheme, the Regulations framed under the NCTE Act provide the minimum standards to the extent that a candidate for being appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher at Secondary School level must be at least a Graduate and possess training qualification for teaching. Whereas, the Intermediate Education Act ensures that a candidate to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in a subject must be well versed in the relevant subject/discipline, in which he/she is appointed to teach.

14. One of the settled principles to examine the repugnancy or conflict between the provisions of a law enacted by one legislative constituent and the law enacted by the other under the concurrent list, is to apply the doctrine of pith and substance. The purpose of applying this principle is to examine, as a matter of fact, the nature and character of the legislation in question. To examine the 'pith and substance' of the legislation, it is required for the Court to examine the legislative scheme, object and purpose of the Act and practical effect of its provisions. After examining the statute and its provisions as a whole, the Court has to determine whether the field is already covered. While examining these aspects, it should be kept in mind that the legislative constituent enacting the law has a legislative competence with respect to Article 246 readwith the lists contained in Schedule-VII to the Constitution. It is the result of this collective analysis which will demonstrate the pith and substance of the legislation and its consequential effects upon the validity of that law. [Reference Offshore Holdings Private Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others1]

15. The Apex Court in Offshore Holdings Private Limited (supra) has noted its previous decision in Deep Chand v. State of U.P.2, wherein the principles to examine the repugnancy between the two statutes were enunciated as under:-

"101. While examining the repugnancy between the two statutes, the following principles were enunciated in the case of Deep Chand v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 648]:

29. (1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing statutes;

	(2)    Though there may be no direct conflict, a State law may be  inoperative because the Commonwealth law, or the award of the Commonwealth Court, is intended to be a complete exhaustive code; and
 
	(3) Even in the absence of intention, a conflict may arise when both State and Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the same subject matter."
 
	It has further been held therein:-
 

 

"102. The repugnancy would arise in the cases where both the pieces of legislation deal with the same matter but not where they deal with separate and distinct matters, though of a cognate and allied character. Where the State legislature has enacted a law with reference to a particular Entry with respect to which, the Parliament has also enacted a law and there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two laws so enacted, the State law will be a stillborn law and it must yield in favour of the Central law. To the doctrine of occupied/overlapping field, resulting in repugnancy, the principle of incidental encroachment would be an exception".

16. Thus, the repugnancy between two legislations, if is an irreconcilable conflict, only then the Sate law must yield in favour of the Central law. Keeping in mind the doctrine of pith and substance, having gone through the legislative scheme of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (a State legislature), suffice it to note that the State Act is a self-contained code enacted with a distinct and predominant purpose of regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in the State of Uttar Pradesh. There is no overlapping between two legislations resulting in any repugnancy.

For the above discussion, we are also unable to persuade ourselves to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the qualifications prescribed in Entry '3' and '33' of Appendix 'A' for the post of Assistant Teachers (T.G.T.) in subjects Mathematics and Science are inconsistent with the qualifications prescribed in Item No. 4 of the Table in the First Schedule of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. The challenge to the said entries in Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act being ultra vires to Section 12-A of the NCTE Act readwith NCTE Regulations, 2014 is, therefore, turned down.

17. Furthermore, we may note that the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. had forwarded a proposal to the State Government for bringing the qualifications prescribed in Appendix 'A' of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 in line with the qualifications prescribed in the First Schedule of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in T.G.T. grade. The qualifications prescribed in NCTE Regulations, 2014, once incorporated in Appendix 'A' of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 would result in addition of more qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. The qualifications prescribed in Appendix 'A' at present would remain as they are included in the proposed amendment and they can neither be said to be inconsistent nor irrelevant for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Secondary/High School institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

It would be relevant to note at this juncture that we are not faced with any of such candidate in the present petition who can claim that he has been excluded from consideration though he possessed the qualifications prescribed in the NCTE Regulations, 2014.

18. The prayer of the petitioners herein is to treat the qualifications possessed by them as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in the NCTE Regulations, 2014. The assertions of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners is that the word "Graduate" mentioned in the First Schedule of NCTE Regulations being the prescribed qualification would include "all Graduates" including those who possessed B.Tech degree. We are afraid to give such a wide meaning to the word "Graduate". The reason being that "the Graduate" incorporated as qualification in the NCTE Regulations is the prescribed minimum standard educational qualification to be possessed by a person for recruitment as Education Teacher in a Secondary School. As per the NCTE Regulations, 2014, a person who is not a "graduate" cannot be treated as qualified for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a Secondary School. For the subject teacher, however, there cannot be a dispute that a person to be recruited as a subject teacher at the secondary school level must be well versed with the subject which he/she is supposed to teach to the students of classes IX & X. A teacher who does not have good knowledge of the subject cannot clear all doubts of his/her students or create interest in his/her pupils about the subject. A teacher's role in the lives of his/her adolescent students cannot be underestimated. He not only teach but also influences the choices of his/her pupils about their career and goal in life. The certification of academic and training qualification of a candidate is to test the attributes of the teacher in him. Every candidate aspiring to become a teacher has to be possess the qualification needed to teach the subject.

As regards Mathematics and Science, the subjects in question in the present writ petition, a candidate having studied B.A. & B.Sc. in the relevant subject cannot but be treated to be qualified to teach the said subjects to the students of classes IX & X level, as per the scheme of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Appendix 'A' in Chapter-II) as also the NCTE Regulations, 2014.

As regards the B.Tech Course, the petitioners who had completed graduation in various disciplines of Engineering may have studied Mathematics and Science as one or two study papers in the Five years course, but it is not possible for the Court to hold that the B.Tech degree is equivalent to the "Graduation" "(B.A. or B.Sc. course)" in the subjects Mathematics and Science.

19. As noted above, such a comparison is not possible to be made by the Court for the additional reason that the complete syllabus of two courses is not before us. Even otherwise, the comparison of syllabus and determination of equivalence to the two qualifications is within the domain of the subject experts. It is not possible for the Court to hold that the "Graduates in various disciplines of B.Tech course" which is a technical course, are qualified for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher in the subjects Mathematics and Science.

We, therefore, cannot grant the prayer in the writ petition to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection in question.

20. We may further note that taking strong exceptions to the State of affairs in the matter of appointment of teachers in the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 (Sanjay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others) had issued directions to the State Government to complete the process of selection of teachers/lectures at T.G.T. and lecture level against all current and future vacancies reported as per the Rules, at least in the session commencing in July, 2021 so that the full strength of teachers is available to extend benefits to the students. The Apex Court had disapproved the practice of making adhoc appointments for a long time and noted that this had created a mess in the education system starting from primary level to the highest education level, causing adverse effect for the students who are in the need to benefit from the best education process.

Consequently, as regards the challenge to the advertisement in question and the alternative prayer of the petitioners to permit them provisionally to participate in the selection in question, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioners.

21. Now on the question of equivalence of B.Tech course with B.A. or B.Sc. (Mathematics and Science), we may note the submissions of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State that an equivalence Committee of experts has been constituted by the State Government and it can examine the said issue. We may further note that this issue has come up to this Court from time and again and in order to put the controversy at rest, it is necessary that the question of equivalence of B.Tech course with B.A. and B.Sc. in the subjects Mathematics and Science and also other relevant subjects shall be placed before the Equivalence Committee for necessary decision at their end. The said decision would also rule out any kind of confusion in the minds of the youth of the State who aspire to become teacher. We are reminding ourselves that every year whenever selection to the post of Assistant Teachers in Science and Mathematics subjects is initiated, the issue of equivalence crops up and in our considered opinion, the above directed action on the part of the State by getting an expert opinion would bring the controversy to its logical conclusion.

22. In view of the above, we direct the State Government to place the matter of equivalence before the Expert Committee which has been constituted for the purpose to take an expeditious decision, in accordance with law.

23. Now lastly, with regard to the proposal of the Board of High School and Intermediate, Uttar Pradesh forwarded by the letter dated 26.11.2020 and the inaction of the State in keeping it pending for approximately a period of about one year, we may note that the Column-IV of the said proposal in Parishisth 'Ga' appended as Annexure S.C.A. '1' to the short counter affidavit filed by the State, refers to three alternative qualifications, prescribed in the First Schedule of the NCTE Regulations, 2014.

The qualification in clause 'Ga' of "four years B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed. degree" from the institutions recognised by NCTE refers to the degree of an integrated course of "B.A. with B.Ed." or "B.Sc. with B.Ed." and cannot be confused as referring to the four years B.Ed. degree. Moreover, being an alternative qualification, if there is no institution in the State of U.P. imparting integrated course of B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed., it is open for the State Government to modify the proposal of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Prayagraj while making amendments in Appendix 'A' of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, to bring it in line with the NCTE Regulations, 2014.

24. We are surprised and at pain to note that in the affidavit of the Special Secretary Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow filed on behalf of the State of U.P., such a minor issue has been highlighted to give an impression that the State needed much deliberations to remove the discrepancy in the recommendations of the Board of High School and Intermediate in its proposal dated 26.11.2020. We may remind the State of its power to make necessary amendments/suggestions in the proposal of the Board while making amendment in the Regulations, provided under Section 16 of the Intermediate Education Act. For the reasons best known to the officers of the State, the issue has been prolonged unreasonably and unnecessary for a period of approximately one year. The officers sitting at the helm of the affairs are expected to be well versed with the Statutes and their duties and responsibilities in the State matters.

The Court, thus, taking exception to the assertions in the paragraphs '5' and '6' of the short counter affidavit of the Special Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow, is constrained to record that the State could not offer any reasonable explanation for not moving in the matter of amendment of minimum qualifications, for incorporation in the Appendix 'A' in Chapter-II of the regulation framed under the Act, 1921, to bring it in line with the qualifications prescribed under the NCTE Regulations, 2014.

25. Even in the short counter affidavit, six months time sought by the State to complete the process has not been adhered to. More than five months have passed but no concrete action of the State or the Board of High School and Intermediate could be brought before the Court.

In the written instructions provided by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. in the Court, it is sought to be explained that the process of amendment in the Regulations could not be completed due to the onset of pandemic Covid-19.

26. We are unable to accept the explanation for the delay on the part of the State as it cannot be said or imagined that the State Machinery (specifically the Education Department of the State) was paralyzed during the pandemic.

More so, when the Court has noticed that the proposal of the Board dated 26.11.2020 has been kept pending only because of the confusion in the own minds of the officers of the concerned department.

27. Being the welfare State, it has to keep in mind that any kind of confusion or doubt in the minds of youth of the State created on account of any inaction on its part or uncertainty in the process of selection and appointment not only hampers the progress of the State but also burden this Court with unnecessary load of litigation consuming precious time of the Court proceedings and, thus, add to the mounting pendency in the Court. The State cannot act as an ordinary litigant whenever it presents its stand before the highest Court of the State. It was more appropriate on the part of the officers of the State to remove all discrepancies/confusions and take necessary corrective steps before bringing their stand in this Court. The approach of the officers of the department concerned in filing short counter affidavit in a casual manner without even application of their minds addressing the issue at their own end, is deprecated in the strongest terms.

28. Taking exception to the attitude and casual approach of the State in the present matter, while turning down the prayers of the petitioners herein, we dispose of the present writ petition with the hope and trust that the State will take necessary speedy action to bring the controversy to its logical end by notifying the necessary amendments in the Appendix 'A' in Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and by referring the issue of equivalence before the Expert Committee for its expeditious decision.

Order Date :- 5.8.2021

Brijesh