Purnendu Sekhar Debnath vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 3883 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Purnendu Sekhar Debnath vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 4 June, 2024

Author: Suman Shyam

Bench: Chief Justice, Suman Shyam

                                                              Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010121792020




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WA/197/2020

         PURNENDU SEKHAR DEBNATH
         S/O- LATE BENOD BEHARI DEBNATH, ROYNAGAR, P.O. KARIMGANJ-
         788711, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
         (REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
         ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
         781006.

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION-CUM-MEMBER
         SECRETARY

          STATE SELECTION BOARD
          ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI- 781019
          ASSAM.

         3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

          CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE
          P.O. SILCHAR- 788001
          DIST.- CACHAR
          ASSAM.

         4:THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION

          EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE
          REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR
          15 NILKANTHA NAGAR
                                                                   Page No.# 2/13

             NAYAPALLI
             P.O. BHUBANESWAR- 751012
             ORRISSA.

            5:THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY
             SILCHAR
             (REP. BY THE REGISTRAR/ CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
             CHAIRMAN
             P.O. SILCHAR- 788014
            ASSAM).

            6:THE VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
             KARIMGANJ
             (REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
             P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
             DIST.- KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM.

            7:ASIT BARAN PAUL
             S/O- LATE AMULAYA BHUSAN PAUL
            ASSISTANT TEACHER
             BHIKAMCHAND BALIKA VIDYANIKETAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
             KARIMGANJ
             RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHARBAZAR
             P.O. KARIMGANJ- 788711
             DIST.- KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N DHAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

Date of hearing : 30.05.2024.

Date of judgment :        04.06.2024.
                                                                          Page No.# 3/13

                            JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Suman Shyam,J)

Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel assisted by Mr. T. U. Laskar, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Standing

Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam appearing for the respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 3, Mr. I. Alam, learned Standing Counsel, NCTE appearing for the

respondent No.4, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Assam University, Silchar

appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel

representing the respondent No.7/writ petitioner.

2. In this intra-court appeal, the judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 passed by

the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4443/2017 has been put to challenge. By filing

WP(C) No.4443/2017 the respondent No.7, as writ petitioner, had called into question

the validity of the B.Ed. degree obtained by the writ appellant on the ground that

due to want of recognition of the concerned Institute by the National Council for

Teachers Education (NCTE) at the relevant point of time, the B. Ed. degree was invalid

in the eyes of law and hence, the writ appellant cannot be granted any service

benefit on the basis of such invalid B. Ed. Degree. By the impugned judgment and

order dated 27.02.2020 the learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of the

respondent No.7/writ petitioner and declared that the B. Ed. degree obtained by the

writ appellant was invalid. Hence, this appeal.

3. The facts and circumstances of the case, briefly stated, are these. The writ

appellant herein had got admission in B.Ed course for the session 1995-96 under the Page No.# 4/13

Vivekananda College of Education (VCE), Karimganj on 22.06.1995. At that point of

time, the VCE did not have recognition of NCTE. As a matter of fact, the NCTE was

not in existence on that date. However, the National Council for Teachers Education

Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as the "Act of 1993") enacted by the Parliament

came into force with effect from 01.07.1995 which is the appointed date. As per the

provision of the Act of 1993, it was mandatory for all institutions offering B. Ed. degree,

to obtain recognition/permission from the NCTE.

4. While the appellant was pursuing his B.Ed. course, the Assam University, Silchar,

by the communication dated 25.07.1995 had granted permission to VCE for

establishment of a new B. Ed. College. Thereafter, by the communication dated

31.05.1997, the Assam University had also communicated the decision of the

Affiliation Committee of the University to accord ex-post facto renewal of permission

to VCE for 1996-97 session. On 02.09.1996, the VCE had applied before the Regional

Committee, ERC, NCTE seeking recognition of the Institute. While the application

made by the VCE seeking recognition was pending consideration, the appellant had

completed his B.Ed. degree course on 08.03.1997.

5. It is not in dispute that on the date of completion of B.Ed. degree course by

the appellant, the VCE did not have the recognition of the NCTE. However, what

would be significant to note herein that VCE had admittedly submitted its application

seeking recognition within the prescribed period of time. On 23.06.1998 the ERC of

NCTE, on consideration of the application made by VCE seeking recognition, had

granted permission to continue with its B. Ed. degree course for the session 1998-1999.

Page No.# 5/13

Thereafter, on 24.11.1998, provisional recognition for one more year i.e. 1999-2000 was

granted to VCE by the NCTE. Finally, on 13.03.2001, the NCTE had granted recognition

to VCE for conducting B. Ed. degree course.

6. The NCTE, which was impleaded as respondent No.4, had filed affidavit in the

writ petition inter-alia stating that the B. Ed. degrees obtained from VCE, Karimganj

prior to 13.03.2001 would not be valid as the Eastern Regional Committee (ERC) of the

NCTE had granted its recognition to VCE only on 13.03.2001. The stand of the VCE

before the learned Single Judge, on the other hand, was that since the writ appellant

had taken admission in the B.Ed. course on 22.06.1995, which is prior to the coming

into effect of the Act of 1993, hence, the provisions of the Act would not be

applicable in the case of the appellant.

7. The Assam University, which was impleaded as respondent No.5, had also filed

affidavit in the writ petition stating that VCE, Karimganj was operational prior to

01.07.1995 and it had also applied for recognition from the NCTE as per the Act of

1993, which was never refused by the NCTE. Taking note of the stand taken by the

respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had arrived at

the conclusion that the B.Ed. degree held by the appellant was invalid.

8. Referring to the materials on record, Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the

appellant has strenuously argued that his client had taken admission in the B.Ed.

course in VCE, Karimganj prior to 01.07.1995. As such, the provisions of the NCTE Act,

1993 cannot have any bearing on the B.Ed. degree obtained by the appellant. It is

also the submission of Mr. Dhar that the VCE had proper affiliation under the Assam Page No.# 6/13

University, which is recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC). That apart,

VCE had also submitted application seeking recognition of the NCTE within the time

prescribed under the statute. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Dhar, there was

no justifiable ground for the learned Single Judge to declare that the B.Ed. degree

obtained by the appellant was invalid. Mr. Dhar has further argued that the case of

the appellant is squarely covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court

rendered in the case of Swapan Kumar Singha Vs. State of Assam and others [Writ

Appeal No.154/2022 dated 28.04.2023] and Muchabbir Ali vs. State of Assam and

others [Writ Appeal No.415/2023 dated 21.02.2024]. Therefore, the impugned

judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 is liable to be set aside by this Court.

9. Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the private respondent No.7, on the

other hand, has opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhar. He has made an

attempt to distinguish the decisions of the Division Bench rendered in the case of

Swapan Kumar Singha (supra) and Muchabbir Ali (supra) on facts. By referring to the

materials available on record, Mr. Purkayastha has also questioned the procedure

adopted by the Assam University while granting affiliation to the VCE by contending

that since proper procedure was not followed by the University, hence, the affiliation

itself stood vitiated in the eyes of law. In support of his above argument Mr.

Purkayastha has not only referred to the provisions of Sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the

NCTE Act, 1993 but has also relied upon and referred to the decisions rendered in the

case of Mukta Ram Deka Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2013 (4) GLT 528

as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Council for

Teacher Education and another vs. Venus Public Education Society & others reported Page No.# 7/13

in (2013) 1 SCC 223 and Dr. Zakir Hussain Primary Teacher vs. State of Bihar reported in

2010 (0) Supreme (Pat) 2613 to argue that the impugned judgment and order passed

by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference

by this Court.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the official respondents have fairly

submitted that the main controversy involved in this appeal is covered by the

decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Swapan Kumar Singha (supra) and

Muchabbir Ali (supra).

11. We have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the

parties and have also gone through the materials available on record.

12. At the very outset, it deserves to be mentioned herein that the National

Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Act of 1993) came into force with effect

from 01.07.1995 which is the appointed date. As per section 14 of the Act of 1993, an

application seeking grant of recognition is required to be submitted to the Regional

Committee as per the procedures prescribed by the Regulations. Section 14 further

lay down that any institution offering a course or training in teachers education

immediately before the appointed date would be entitled to continue with such

course or training for a period of six months if it had made an application for

recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the

Regional Committee. Subsequently, the period for making such application was

extended by the NCTE till 18.08.1997 and finally, till 31.03.1999. There is no controversy

about the fact that the VCE, which was in existence prior to 01.07.1995, had, in fact, Page No.# 8/13

made an application seeking recognition from the NCTE on 02.09.1996 which was

within the extended period of time, as prescribed by the NCTE. The application made

by the VCE was duly considered by the NCTE and recognition was also granted to

VCE, provisionally on 24.11.1998 and thereafter, finally on 13.03.2001.

13. We find from the materials on record that although the NCTE had apparently

taken a stand before the learned Single Judge that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the

appellant was not valid, yet, by filing an additional affidavit in the Writ Appeal on

22.08.2023, a somewhat different stand has been taken by the NCTE. The averments

made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit would be relevant for the purpose of

this case and therefore, are being reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

"6. That your humble deponent begs to state that the ERC also extended the time of six months as provided under Section 14 of NCTE Act upto 18.08.1997 for the colleges who have not applied but to apply before the extended date of 18.08.1997. The Section 14 of the NCTE Act which is quoted below for your Lordships ready reference :

"14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education.--(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations :

Provided that an institution offering a course of training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee."

Page No.# 9/13

7. That the humble deponent begs to state that the Assam University granted permission vide letter dtd. 25.07.1995 to start B.Ed. Classes for the session 1995-96 to the Institute Vivekananda College of Education, Karimganj. The NCTE Act, 1993 came into force from 01.07.1995. Under the Section 14 of the NCTE Act, the institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months which was extended upto 18.08.19978. The deponent humbly begs to state that the ERC allowed the B.Ed. degree obtained from the existing colleges who have applied within 18.08.1997 as a valid degree and this Hon'ble Court also accepted the stand of the ERC, NCTE.

8. That your humble deponent begs to state that the Assam University on 25.07.1995 granted permission to establish new B.Ed. College namely Vivekananda College of Education, Karimganj, Assam and the NCTE Act came into force from 01.07.1995 a such the institute, namely Vivekananda College of Education is not an existing institution when the NCTE Act came into force. However, it is made clear that the Vivekananda College of Education applied on 02.09.1996 for recognition before the ERC which is within the extended period of 18.08.1997."

14. This Court had the occasion to deal with a question of similar nature in the

case of Swapan Kumar Singha (supra) pertaining to validity of B.Ed. degree granted

by "Dr. Shashi Bhushan Institute of Education". The challenge made to the B. Ed.

degree obtained by a candidate was on the ground that the B. Ed. degree was

obtained prior to granting of recognition by the NCTE to the said institution. A Division

Bench of this Court had rejected the challenge made to the B.Ed. degree in the case

of Swapan Kumar Singha (supra).

15. The decision in Swapan Kumar Singha (supra) was followed by another Division Page No.# 10/13

Bench of this Court in Muchabbir Ali (supra). That was also a case where the B.Ed.

degree granted by "Dr. Shashi Bhushan Institute of Education, Hailakandi" to the

private respondent No.7 therein, was called into question by filing a writ petition

before this Court on the ground that the institution was not recognized by the NCTE

on the date on which the B.Ed. degree was obtained. In that case also the institute

was established on 31.12.1995 and it had applied for recognition of its B.Ed. degree

course from the NCTE on 12.08.1997. The NCTE had granted provisional recognition on

13.01.2000 and final recognition was granted on 15.06.2001. However, respondent

No.7 in that proceeding had obtained his B.Ed. degree from the institute in the year

1997 on which date, Dr. Shashi Bhushan Institute of Education was admittedly not

recognized by the NCTE. The learned Single Judge had rejected the prayer made by

the Writ Petitioner in WP(C)No.5221/2022 assailing the B.Ed. degree of the private

respondent No.7 on the above grounds. The appeal, being Writ Appeal No.415/2023,

preferred by the writ petitioner therein was also dismissed by the Division Bench by

observing that the NCTE had issued notification extending the time for submitting

application seeking recognition, initially, upto 01.04.1997 and thereafter, upto

18.08.1997 and finally, upto 31.03.1999. By referring to the decisions rendered by the

Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Bhupendra Nath

Tripathi & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 2023 as well as other connected decisions

this Court has held that "Dr. Shashi Bhushan Institute of Education" had filed

application seeking recognition of its B.Ed. degree within the extended period of

time. Therefore, the B.Ed. degree cannot be held to be invalid. The observations

made in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the decision rendered in the case of Muchabbir Page No.# 11/13

Ali (supra) would be relevant and therefore, are being reproduced herein below for

ready reference :-

15. Considering the above fact situation, as already noted above, the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 154/2022 [Swapan Kumar Singha (supra)] has clearly held that the B.Ed. degree offered by Dr. Shashi Bhushan Institute of Education for the academic session 1996-1997 is a valid degree.

16. In the present case, the respondent No.7 has obtained the B.Ed. Degree from Dr. Shashi Bhushan Institute of Education in the academic session 1996-

1997 and therefore, there is no reason to hold that the said B.Ed. Degree obtained by the respondent No.7 is invalid.

17. So far as the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that Section 14 of the NCTE Act speaks only about those Institutions which were existing on the appointed day, i.e. 01.07.1995 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the NCTE vide various notifications has extended the last date for submission of application seeking recognition of B.Ed. Degrees and with the extension of the said date all the Institutions existing up to the extended date and offering B.Ed. courses were eligible for submitting applications seeking recognition of B.Ed. Degrees offered by them. Needless to say that the power of the NCTE of extending the date has already been recognized by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 154/2022 [Swapan Kumar Singha (supra)] and the said judgment has already been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP preferred (supra)."

16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of

the unhesitant opinion that the ratio laid down in the case of Swapan Kumar Singha

(supra) as well as in Muchabbir Ali (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts

of the present case. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge

has committed a serious error in holding that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the Page No.# 12/13

appellant was invalid.

17. Having held as above, we have also noted that although the writ

petitioner/respondent No.7 did not have any right which could be specifically

enforced in the writ petition, yet, he had instituted WP(C) No.4443/2017 with the

prayer to declare the B.Ed. degree of the writ appellant as invalid. On a pointed

query made by this Court as to the reason for doing so, Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned

counsel for the respondent No.7 has submitted that the writ appellant had earlier

challenged the Masters degree obtained by the writ petitioner/respondent No.7

which had briefly interfered with his promotion/appointment to the post of Principal of

the school and that is the reason, the writ petitioner/ respondent No.7 had also

instituted the writ petition assailing his B.Ed. degree. We are afraid, such an argument

of the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 is wholly unacceptable.

18. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Courts are required to

exercise extraordinary jurisdiction meant for protecting the fundamental and legal

rights of the citizens. The forum of writ court cannot be used to settle private vendetta

between two or more individuals or entities. Permitting such a recourse would clearly

amount to abuse of the process of the court. Such being the position, we have

serious doubt about the locus standi of the writ petitioner/ respondent No.7 to institute

the writ petition. It appears that, unfortunately, the said aspect of the matter has

completely escaped the notice of the learned Single Judge.

19. In so far as the plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.7

questioning the validity of the affiliation granted by the Assam University to the VCE, Page No.# 13/13

such argument of Mr. Purkayastha also cannot be entertained by this Court for two

reasons. Firstly, materials on record do not indicate that any such specific plea was

taken in the writ petition. Secondly, from a plain reading of the impugned judgment

and order dated 27.02.2020, we find that no such case was evven projected by the

writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. Such being the position, the learned

counsel for the respondent No.7 cannot be permitted to take a new plea for the first

time before the appellate forum, that too in an appeal preferred by the opposite

party being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2020.

20. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the opinion that the learned

Single Judge was not correct in declaring the B.Ed. degree of the appellant invalid by

the impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2020. Therefore, the judgment and

order dated 27.02.2020 stands set aside.

21. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4443/2017 stands dismissed.

22. The Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Parties to bear their own cost.

                           JUDGE                       CHIEF JUSTICE

T U Choudhury/Sr.PS




Comparing Assistant