Bombay High Court
Vishnu S/O Kisan Mote vs Indira Gandhi National Open ... on 16 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.3448.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3448/2016
Vishnu s/o Kisan Mote
Aged about 34 years, occu: service
R/o Shree Villa, Near Maroti Temple
Dwarka nagari, Shrirampur
Tasil: Pusad, Dist: Yavatmal
445 515. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) Indira Gandhi National Open University
Through its Regional Director
Regional Center
Nagpur, Gyan Vatika 14 Hindustan Colony
Amravati Road, Nagpur-440 033.
2) Late Dr. Shankarrao Satava D.Ed.,
B.Ed. & M.Ed. College & IGNOU
Program Study Center, Kalamnuri
Hingoli-431 702
Through its Principal. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for petitioner
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 16 November, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
wp.3448.16
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant admission to the petitioner to B.Ed. course in
respondent no.2 College, or any other Centre.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with Zilla
Parishad, Yavatmal. The petitioner applied for admission to B.Ed. course for
theacademic session 2016-17. The petitioner passed the written test conducted
by the respondent no.1. The petitioner received a letter from respondent no.1
offering admission to him for B.Ed. course. However, he was not granted
admission on the ground that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria specified
in clause (4) of the Offer Letter dated 22.4.2016. According to the petitioner,
the respondent no.1 has acted arbitrarily in depriving admission to him
despite the fact that he fulfills all the eligibility criteria.
4. Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently argued that as per the terms of the advertisement, a candidate
must possess either a certificate of trained in-service teachers in elementary
education or secure a certificate of NCTE recognised teacher education
programme through face-to-face mode. According to him, the petitioner fulfills
all the prescribed eligibility criteria. The advertisement demonstrates that in
order to be eligible, a candidate must possess a degree with minimum 55%
marks and must be trained in-service teacher in elementary education or must
possess a NCTE recognised teacher education programme certificate through
wp.3448.16
face-to-face mode. According to Shri Joshi, the petitioner fulfills both the
eligibility criteria inasmuch as he has secured a degree certificate with 65.92%
marks and has also secured Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) in October 2007 as
in-service candidate while in service with Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. Thus,
according to Shri Joshi, there is no reason to deprive the petitioner of his right
to admission in B.Ed.course.
5. Per contra, Shri P.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent
nos.1 and 2 contended that perusal of clause (b) sub-clause (ii) of the
advertisement, would reveal that the candidate other than in-service candidate
would be eligible, only if he has completed NCTE recognised teacher education
programme through face-to-face mode. Clause (i) speaks that only trained in-
service teachers in elementary education service are covered under the said
clause. Shri Patil, contended that a trained teacher means a teacher who has
completed NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-
face mode and therefore, the candidate covered under clause b-(ii) must be a
candidate who has completed NCTE recognised teacher education programme
through face-to-face mode. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is
not eligible for admission in B.Ed. course.
6. After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record, it is
noticed that the relevant extract of the advertisement stipulates as under :
"Eligibility:
a) Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in
wp.3448.16
the Bachelor's Degree and/or in the master's Degree in
Sciences/Social Sciences/Commerce/Humanity, Bachelor's in
Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and
Mathematics with 55% marks or any other qualification
equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the
programme.
and
b) The following categories are eligible to be the students
of B.Ed.(ODL):
(i)Trained in-service teachers in elementary education.
or
(ii)The candidates who have completed a NCTE
recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face
mode. ............"
7. As regards clause (a),the petitioner has secured degree certificate
with 62.92% marks and has also secured Diploma in Education (D.Ed). As far
as clause (b) is concerned, the petitioner is a trained in-service teacher in
elementary education. It is clearly mentioned in the advertisement that either
the student should be trained in-service teacher in elementary education or
candidates who have completed NCTE recognised teacher education
programme through face-to-face mode.
8. It is significant to note that the word 'or' is normally disjunctive
and 'and' is normally conjunctive, but at times they are read as vice-versa to
give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed from the
context. As stated by SCRUTTON, L.J.: "You do sometimes read 'or' as 'and' in
wp.3448.16
a statute. But you do not do it unless you are obliged because 'or' does not
generally mean 'and' and 'and' does not generally mean 'or'. And as pointed
out by LORD HALSBURY the reading of 'or' as 'and' is not to be resorted to,
"unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention of it requires
that to be done." Where provision is clear and unambiguous the word 'or'
cannot be read as 'and' by applying the principles of reading down."
9. Thus, on a plain reading of the rule for admission, it is clear that
a candidate should either be a trained in-service teacher in elementary
education or should complete NCTE recognised teacher education programme
through face-to-face mode. The petitioner has fulfilled the criteria laid down in
clause (b)(i) of the advertisement. The condition in the offer letter dated
22.4.2016 that the applicant should possess a certificate of having completed
NCTE recognised teacher education programme seems to be improper. In view
of the facts and circumstances, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for
admission in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2016-17 in the respondent
no.2-College. The respondents should grant admission to the petitioner at the
earliest.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
