Ram Gopal Chaturvedi And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11413 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22819 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Chaturvedi And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bharat Pratap Singh,Dhananjay Awasthi
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Prakhar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-NCTE.

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

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari directing to the respondent no.3 to quash/cancel the admission process which is started from 20.07.2021 in compliance of Govt. Orders vide G.O. No.9/2021/402/68-4-2021-9(3) dated 16.06.2021 and G.No.426/68-4-2019-2067/2013 Basic Siksha Anubhag-4 (Annexure No.1)."

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the new eligibility criteria for admission in Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) formerly known as B.T.C examination as is directed by the Govt. Orders vide G.O. No.9/2021/402/68-42021-9(3) dated 16.06.2021 and G.No. 426/68-4-2019-2067/2013, Basic Siksha Anubhag-4.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners have passed senior secondary examination (10+2), hence they were eligible for appearing in D.El.Ed examination as per the rules of National Council for Teacher Education. The applications were invited by U.P. Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj through order No.9/2021/402/68-4-2021-4-9(3)/2021 Basic Siksha Anubhag-4, Date 16.06.2021 from all eligible candidates against the vacancies in government/private colleges in State of U.P. The eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement is that the candidates should have passed High School or equivalent, Intermediate (+2) or equivalent and graduation from any recognized University. The eligibility criteria as per the advertisement is as under:-

"शैक्षिक योग्यता-D.EL.Ed प्रशिक्षण में चयन हेतु ऐसे अभयार्थी ऑनलाइन आवेदन करने के पात्र होंगे, जिन्होन आवेदन पत्र भरने के पूर्व माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद, उत्तर प्रदेश प्रयागराज/सीबीएसई/आईसीएसई से मान्यता प्राप्त संस्थानो से हाई स्कूल व उसके समकछ तथा इंटरमीडिएट व उसके समकछ घोषित परीक्षा और विधि द्वारा स्थापित और UGCसे मान्यता प्राप्त विश्वविद्यालय/ महाविद्यालय से स्नातक परीक्षा न्यूनतम 50 प्रतिशत अंको के साथ उत्तीर्ण की हो। अनुसुचित जाति / अनुसूचित जनजाति / अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग / विकलांग / स्वतंत्र स्नग्राम सेनानी आश्रित / भूतपूर्व सैनिक (स्वयं) के अभ्यर्थियों को न्यूनतम अंको में 05 प्रतिशत की छूट दी जाएगी।"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the new eligibility criteria for D.El.Ed course as mentioned in the advertisement, which is against the regulations prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE') as well as against the criteria as is being followed in other States. The requirements of pursuing the aforesaid course as laid down by the NCTE regulation of 2014 is that the candidates should have at least 50% in Higher Secondary (+2) examination or its equivalent examination.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the letter dated 09.08.2021 of Director Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to the Sachiv Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari, Prayagaj, U.P., wherein it has been specifically stated that for the purpose of D.El.Ed examination, the minimum qualification is recommended to be fixed as "Intermediate" and has directed him to proceed accordingly.

7. Since deliberations were going on with respect to the eligibility criteria for the aforesaid course and sufficient application forms were not received in comparison to the number of vacant seats, therefore, the last date of submission of the form of D.El.Ed. Course was extended up to 15.09.2021. Regarding the vacant seats, a press release note has also been issued showing that the vacant seats have not been fulfilled till date.

8. Reference may also be made to the norms and standards for diploma in elementary teacher education Programme leading to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.ED) as contained in Appendix-2 of NCTE Regulations 2014 which provides eligibility for admission to the training course. Relevant Clause '3.2' reads as under:-

"3.2 Eligibility (a) Candidates with at least 50% marks in the higher secondary (10+2) or its equivalent examination are eligible for admission.

(b) The reservation and relaxation in marks for SC/ST/OBC/PWD and other categories shall be as per the rules of the Central Government/State Government, whichever is applicable."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the standards for Elementary Education Programme fixed by the NCTE, 2014 would prevail over the said regulations as is laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) ALJ 71 and Suraj Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. passed in Writ-A No. 5981 of 2019.

10. Mr. Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-NCTE does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the admission in the D.El.Ed course has to be done in accordance with eligibility criteria mentioned in the Government Order dated 25.06.2019, which provides that the candidates should have passed High School (Class-X) or equivalent, Intermediate (Class-XII) or equivalent and graduation from any recognized University, securing 50% marks in all the courses. As the aforesaid Government Order and advertisement mentioning the condition of possessing the new eligibility criteria has not been challenged, therefore, the relief prayed by the petitioners to admit them in D.El.Ed course cannot be granted. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case on Government of Maharashtra and others vs. Deokar's Distillery reported in (2003) 5 SCC 669 and Edukanti Kistamma (dead) through Lrs. and others vs. S.Venkatareddy (dead) through Lrs. and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 756, wherein the Apex Court has held that without challenging the Government Order/basic order, consequential relief cannot be granted to the petitioners.

12. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that after obtaining diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed), the petitioners will claim appointment on the post of teacher in primary education, qualification of which is mentioned in U.P Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred as "Rule 1981").

13. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in a controversy with respect to issuance of appointment letters for the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school, objections were raised with respect to validity of the Diploma in Education as obtained by the candidates, was prior to completion of graduation. The objection has raised as per Rule 2(q) 1 of the 1981, which reads as follows:-

"Training means training course recognized by the Government from time to time to teach children from class I to VIII for which graduates are eligible for admission."

The aforesaid-mentioned Rule contemplates only graduates appearing in the training course and obtaining a Diploma on completion thereof, shall be eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.

14. However, the Court while dealing with the controversy permitted those candidates, who have completed their graduation course prior to completion of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) to be eligible for issuance of appointment letters but did not deal with eligibility criteria as required for admission in D.El.Ed. / training course and it was left open for the respondents to deal with the issue.

15. Keeping in mind the qualification as required for the post of Assistant Teacher, who should possess training as recognized by the government from time to time, for which graduates were eligible, the Government order mentioning the new eligibility criteria has been issued.

16. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the policy decision has been taken by the State Government changing the eligibility criteria for admission in D.El.Ed. course, which cannot be judicially reviewed by this Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association ..... Vs State of Telangana & Ors. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 172, wherein it has been held that the Court can neither act an appellate authority nor can usurp jurisdiction of decision maker and make the decision itself. Until and unless the same is arbitrary or in violation of any provision of law or is infringing the fundamental rights of any person.

17. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri vs Union of India, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 568, it was also observed:-

"35. ....We certainly agree that judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien system of separation of powers. The court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the directorate of a government company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super auditor, take the Board of Directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of public administration."

18. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737, where the Apex Court held as follows:-

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate."

19. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in the present case as eligibility of training course as mentioned in Rule 1981 is graduation, hence the Government Order dated 16.06.2021 has been issued.

20. Learned Standing Counsel submits that admission to any course should be made strictly in accordance with terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar And Others vs Government Of NTC Delhi reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548.

21. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that standards for diploma in elementary teacher education Programme fixed by the NCTE Regulations, 2014 would prevail over the regulations only, in case they are adopted by the State Government. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the NCTE regulation, 2014 has been adopted by the State Government or not?

22. With respect to submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that other States are following the NCTE regulations, 2014, according to which, the eligibility criteria for D.El.Ed. course is that the candidates should have at least 50% marks in higher Secondary (+2) examination or its equivalent examination, learned Standing Counsel states that it is a policy matter and the policy decisions of the State are not to be disturbed/interfered with unless they are found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational.

23. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage without calling for further affidavits specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today.

24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make a detailed representation before the respondent no.2 for redressal of their grievances. If any such representation is made, the respondent no.2-Sachiv, Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari, U.P., Elanganj Prayagraj, shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.

25. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

Order Date :- 02.12.2021

JK Yadav