Gauhati High Court
Smti. Shelley Das Chowdhury vs Sirazul Ambia And 8 Ors on 26 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010240902019
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./168/2019
SMTI. SHELLEY DAS CHOWDHURY
I/C, PRINCIPAL, KALAIN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VILL- TARAPUR,
P.O- KALAIN, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788815
VERSUS
SIRAZUL AMBIA AND 8 ORS.
S/O- LATE ABDUL KHALIQUE, VILL- BRAHMANGRAM, DIGBOR ROAD,
P.O- KALAIN, P.S- KATIGORAH, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788815
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE STATE SELECTION BOARD
THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN (I.E THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM)
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT
GUWAHATI- 781006
4:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 19
5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE
SILCHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/8
PIN- 788001
6:THE SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE
KALAIN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
CACHAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY SRI ABINASH
SUKLABAIDYA SUBJECT TEACHER OF KALAIN HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL
VILL- TARAPUR
P.O- KALAIN
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788815
7:SILCHAR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SITUATED AT UTTAR KRISNAPUR
NAGATILLA
SONAI ROAD
SILCHAR-788006
ASSAM.
8:THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY
THROUGH ITS CONTROLLER
DARGAKONA
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788011.
9:THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON
HANS BHAWAN (WING-II)
1 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELH
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A C BURAGOHAIN, MR. H. BURAGOHAIN,MS A DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU, MR. M R CHOUDHURY (R-1),MS L HMAR (R-1),MR. B
BORAH,MR. I H SAIKIA (R-1),MR. K KALITA (R-1),MR. K N CHOUDHURY (R-1),SC, N C T
E,MR. I ALAM
Page No.# 3/8
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
26-11-2025
(Arun Dev Choudhury,J)
1. Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I. H. Saikia,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. N.J.Khataniar, learned Standing
counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr.
I. Alam, learned Standing counsel, NCTE, for the respondent No. 9.
2. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order
dated 29.04.2019, passed in W.A. No. 354/2018, arising out of the judgment and order
dated 01.11.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4674/2017.
3. The respondent No.1 herein preferred the said WP(C) No. 4674/2017, assailing
an order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam,
whereby the present petitioner was appointed as a regular Principal of Kalain Higher
Secondary School of Cachar District. The eligibility of the petitioner to be appointed to the
post of Principal was questioned in the aforenoted writ petition, on the ground that B.Ed.
degree obtained by her from Silchar College of Education was not recognised by the
National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE).
4. The learned Single Judge, by its order dated 01.11.2018, declined to enter into
the merits of such dispute raised as the degree obtained by the petitioner was not under
challenge. Accordingly, the matter was relegated to the respondent No.2 therein, i.e., the
Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secondary Education Department,
who was the chairman of the State Selection Board, to decide the validity of B.Ed. degree
Page No.# 4/8
obtained by the petitioner, by keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner had obtained
her B.Ed. Degree in the year 1998, and that Silchar College of Education applied for its
recognition from the NCTE only on 26.02.1996, and the NCTE Act became applicable
since 01.07.1995.
5. Though such a determination was challenged by the petitioner in WA No.
354/2018, the same was also dismissed by the order dated 29.04.2019.
6. Assailing the aforesaid determinations, the petitioner approached the Apex Court
by filing a Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) No. 18536/2019, which was also dismissed
on 27.08.2019 with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer a review petition before this Court,
based on the new materials that were placed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and
accordingly, the present review petition is filed.
7. The new facts and evidence, which, according to the petitioner, were discovered,
suggest that B.Ed. degree obtained by her from Silchar College of Education was from a
duly recognised institution. According to the petitioner, Silchar College of Education had
applied for NCTE recognition as early as May 1997, which the NCTE acknowledged, and it
received provisional recognition in November 1998 and January 2000.
8. According to the petitioner, in terms of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, more
particularly, the second proviso thereto, the institutions that filed their applications within
the stipulated/extended period of time, were entitled to continue running the course till
their applications were finally decided, inasmuch as, the NCTE itself issued a certificate in
the year 2019 recognising the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner from Silchar
College of Education.
9. The respondents do not dispute that the NCTE issued Extension letters on
29.07.1997 and 10.07.1997.
10. The petitioner contends that the degree obtained from Silchar College of
Education, during the academic session 1997-98, was held to be valid degree by a Co-
Page No.# 5/8
ordinate Bench in Swapan Kumar Singha Vs. the State of Assam & 7 Ors. reported
in (2023) SCC Online GAU 1403 and therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the determinations made in Swapan Kr. Singha (supra).
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
12. The learned counsels for the respondents also submit that the case of the
petitioner shall be squarely covered by the decision rendered in Swapan Kr. Singha
(supra).
13. In Swapan Kr. Singha (supra), the issue was similar, i.e., whether the B.Ed.
degree obtained by the respondents Nos. 6, 7 & 8 therein from Silchar College of
Education for the academic session 1997-98 was valid in the absence of any recognition
by the NCTE. The Co-ordinate Bench held such a degree as valid.
14. The relevant paragraphs of the aforenoted judgment are quoted herein below for
completeness:-
"6. Section 12 of the NCTE Act enjoins upon the council a duty to take all such
steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher
education. In our considered opinion, recognition being an integral part of the duties
defined under Section 14, the council was definitely clothed with the power to grant
extension to the concerned colleges at least during the transitional period. The NCTE
issued letters on 10.07.1997 and 29.07.1997, intimating the Registrar of Assam
University, Silchar, to intimate the existing institutions to apply for recognition by
18.08.1997. It is further not in dispute that the Silchar College of Education submitted
the application for recognition on 12.08.1997, i.e., within the extended period. Thus, the
institution from which the private respondents acquired their B.Ed. degrees, having
applied for recognition within the extended time as provided by the NCTE, was fully
entitled to intake students and impart B.Ed. degree course for the sessions, which
commenced before 18.08.1997. The respondent NCTE, by affidavit-in-opposition filed
in the writ proceedings, has affirmed the fact that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the
respondent no. 6 was a valid degree. This position of law has been crystallised by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Bhupendra Nath
Tripathi (supra) referred to above.
7. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, lays
down the principle that UGC Regulations would prevail in case the State Act is not in
Page No.# 6/8
conformity with the same. There is no dispute to such a proposition of law as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the factual situation of the case in hand makes
it clear that the Silchar College of Education had applied to the NCTE for the grant of
recognition for B.Ed. degree course within time, and such recognition was granted,
albeit after some delay.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of P. Kasilingam & Ors. vs. P.S.G.
College of Technology & Ors., reported in (1995) 2 SCC 348 observed that many
provisions of the Act (NCTE Act) could be put into operation only after the relevant
provisions or forms came to be prescribed in the Rules/Regulations. In the absence of
the Rules, the Act cannot be enforced. As the NCTE Regulations were notified on
03.12.1997, it would not have been possible for the colleges to apply for recognition
during this period, which was thereafter extended from time to time.
9. Be that as it may, the students who had commenced their B.Ed. degree course
in the Silchar College in the intervening period would definitely be protected by the
Extension Letters dated 29.07.1997 and 10.07.1997. The learned Single Judge, after
interpreting the factual and legal issues involved in the matter, has dismissed the writ
petition. In our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity
warranting interference. Hence, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of
merit.
10. No order as to cost."
15. The law is well settled that a review petition is maintainable, firstly, on discovery
of new and important matters or evidence which, even after the exercise of due diligence,
were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when
the decree was passed or the order was made. Secondly, such a review petition shall be
maintainable on account of such mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or
for any other sufficient reason.
16. The material error, to exercise the power of review, must be manifested on the
face of the order and would result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness.
17. The error apparent on the face of the record shall mean a self-evident error, and
no process of reasoning is required to detect such error. Therefore, when an error is not
self-evident and is required to be detected by the process of reasoning, such an error
cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record.
18. It is also equally well settled that while exercising review jurisdiction, a Court
Page No.# 7/8
cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, even when two views
are possible in a matter.
19. It is well settled that any other sufficient reasons shall mean "a reason sufficient
on the ground at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
20. In the case in hand, the materials brought on record were subsequently
discovered by the petitioner, which suggests that B.Ed. degree awarded by Silchar College
of Education was valid, more particularly, for the reason that the NCTE not only extended
the time period for submission of application for recognition, which was done by Silchar
College of Education, but also that the petitioner had completed her B.Ed. degree during
such an extended period of time, and therefore, her case is also covered by the
determination made in the State of U.P. (supra), as well as in Swapan Kumar Singha
(Supra).
21. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has made out a case for review of the
order dated 29.04.2019.
22. It is important to note that the petitioner has, in the meantime, retired from
service, and there is no scope, as on date, to restore her position to the post of Principal
of said Kalain H.S. School.
23. Generally, when exercising our review jurisdiction, no further direction is required
to be passed, except recalling the judgment under review, if a case is made out for review
within defined parameters, and a fresh hearing on the merits is required to be held;
however, in the given facts of the present case, such an exercise shall be a futile exercise,
in the given fact of the petitioner's superannuation from service in the mean time, but at
the same time, she has been able to establish that the degree obtained by her is a valid
degree. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, we deem it fit to close the present
review petition, holding that B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner from Silchar College
of Education is a valid and recognised degree and nothing more.
Page No.# 8/8
24. With the aforesaid observation and determination, this review petition stands
disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
