Jharkhand High Court
Sunita Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017
1. Sunita Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Khagendra Mahto,
resident of Village Jara Tola, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District-
Ramgarh
2. Bhuneshwari Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Phulchand
Mahto, Resident of Village Bhuchungdih, P.O. & P.S. Rajrappa,
District- Ramgarh.
3. Vinita Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Parmeshwar
Mehta, resident of village Nawadih, P.O. Kutipisi, P.S. Padma,
District- Hazaribagh.
4. Swati Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Parmeshwar Mehta,
resident of village + P.O. Tangtona, P.S. Kasmar, District- Bokaro.
5. Divya Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Binod Kumar Sah,
resident of At+ P.O. Banghi, P.S. Deodhar, District- Godda.
6. Neha Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Ajay Kumar,
resident of Village Goriyari Bagh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District-
Ramgarh.
7. Chhaya Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Haricharan
Mahto, resident of Village Nagdih, P.O. Goradih, P.S. Silli, District-
Ranchi.
8. Nisha Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Santana Das,
Resident of Village + P.O. Bagda, P.S. Kasmar, District-Bokaro.
9. Mamta Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Arjun Ram Mahto,
resident of village Shokhadih, P.O. Manjura, P.S. Kasmar, District-
Bokaro.
10.Rekha Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Mahesh Mahto
resident of village Ambargarha, P.O. Jamira, P.S. Rajrappa, District-
Ramgarh.
11.Rani Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Loknath Mahto,
resident of village Sarwaha, P.O. & P.S. Charhi, District-
Hazaribagh. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary situated at
Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-
Ranchi.
4. The National Council for Teachers Education through its Regional
Director, Easter Region Committee, Bhuwaneshwar, P.O. & P.S.
Bhuwaneshwar, District- Bhuwaneshwar (Orissa).
5. Radha Govind Primary Teachers' Training College, Ramgarh,
through its Secretary, Baijnath Sah, son of late Govind Sah, resident
of Goushala Road, Vikas Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh Cantt.,
District- Ramgarh.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 2685 of 2015
Priyanka Kumari, Daughter of Sri Binod Kumar Yadav, R/o
Village- Karke, P.O.- Annraj Nawadih & P.S.- Garhwa, District-
2
Garhwa, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, AT- Project Building, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, AT- Bargawan, P.O.
& P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, AT-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. Gurupad Primary Teacher's Training College through its Principal,
At - Kanka Kalan Rankaraj, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 2723 of 2015
1. Priyaranjan Prasad Gupta, Son of Sri Sudama Prasad Gupta,
Resident of - vill.- Lawhikala, P.O. & P.S.- Dandai P.S.- Garhwa,
District- Garhwa, Jharkhand
2. Shekhar Raj, son of Dileep Kumar Singh, Resident of - vill.-
Rankaraj, P.O. & P.S.- Ranka, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand.
3. Anita Kumari, Daughter of Sri Lalji Korwa, Resident of vill.-
Kushmahi. P.O.- Peska, P.S.- Meral, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand
4. Archana Kumari, Daughter of Sri Ajay Prasad, vill.- Rankaraj, P.O.
& P.S.- Ranka, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand
5. Nishya Kumari, Daughter of Sri Satish Yadav, Resident of vill.-
Bilashpur, P.O.- Jamui, P.S. - Nagar Untari, Dist.- Garhwa,
Jharkhand
6. Pintu Saha, Son of Sri Kamlakant Saha, Resident of vill.-
Khanijhara, P.O.- Dharmkhapra, P.S.- Maheshpur, Dist.- Pakur,
Jharkhand
7. Kumari Rita Singh, Daughter of Late Brahmadeo Singh, Resident
of village- Hurdag, P.O.- Sevadih, P.S.- Ranka, Dist.- Garhwa,
Jharkhand
8. Rajiv Ranjan, Son of Sri Krishna Yadav, Resident of village-
Maheshpur, P.O.- Maheshpur Raja, P.S.- Maheshpur, Dist.- Pakur,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, AT- Project Building, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, AT- Bargawan, P.O.
& P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, AT-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. Gurupad Primary Teacher's Training College through its Principal,
At - Kanka Kalan Rankaraj, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
3
W.P.(C) No. 3194 of 2016
Savita Kumari, Daughter of Surendra Singh, Resident of- village &
P.O.- Majhi Gawan, P.S.- Trhsi, District- Palamau, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, At- Bargawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, At-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. National Council For Teachers Education, through its regional
Director, Eastern Region Committee, Bhubneshwar, P.O. & P.S.
Bhubneshwar, Dist- Bhubneshwar, Odissa
6. Radha Govind Primary Teacher's Training College through its
Secretary, At- Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 3578 of 2016
1. Chhaya Kumari, Daughter of Haricharan Mahto, Resident of At.-
Village- Nagdih, P.O.- Goradih, P.S.- Silli, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. Mamta Kumari, Daughter of Arjun Ram Mahto, Resident of At.-
Village- Shokhadih, P.O.- Manjura, P.S.- Kasmar, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
3. Nisha Kumari, Daughter of Sanatan Das, Resident of At.- Village
and P.O.- Bagda, P.S.- Kasmar, District- Bokaro. Jharkhand.
4. Swati Kumari, Daughter of Prakash Kumar, Resident of At- Village
& P.O.- Tangtona, P.S.- Kasmar, District- Bokaro. Jharkhand.
5. Rekha Kumari, Daughter of Mahesh Mahto, Resident of At- Village
Ambagarha, P.O- Jamira, P.S.- Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand.
6. Neha Kumari, Daughter of Ajay Kumar, Resident of At- Village
Goriyari Bagh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist- Ramgarh. Jharkhand.
7. Bhuneshwari Kumari, Daughter of Phulchand Mahto, Resident of
At- Village- Bhuchungdish, P.O. & P.S.- Rajrappa, District-
Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
8. Rani Kumari, Daughter of Loknath Mahto, Resident of At - Village-
Sarwaha, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
9. Divya Kumari, Daughter of Binod Kumar Sah, Resident of At- and
P.O.- Bhangi, P.S.- Deodhar, District- Godda, Jharkhand.
10.Sunita Kumari, Daughter of Khagendra Mahto, Resident of Village-
Jaratola, P.O., P.S. and District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
11.Vinita Kumari, Daughter of Parmeshwar Mehta, Resident of
Village- Nawadih, P.O.- Kutipisi, P.S.- Padma, District-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
4
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, At- Bargawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, At-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. National Council For Teachers Education, through its regional
Director, Eastern Region Committee, Bhubneshwar, P.O. & P.S.
Bhubneshwar, Dist- Bhubneshwar, Odissa
6. Radha Govind Primary Teacher's Training College through its
Secretary, At- Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 3625 of 2016
Prerna Mehta, Daughter of Baijnath Mehta, Resident of P.O.-Surajpara,
P.S.- Padma, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, At- Bargawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, At-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. National Council For Teachers Education, through its regional
Director, Eastern Region Committee, Bhubneshwar, P.O. & P.S.
Bhubneshwar, Dist- Bhubneshwar, Odissa
6. Radha Govind Primary Teacher's Training College through its
Secretary, At- Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 3674 of 2016
With
I.A No.8980 of 2019
1. Chanchal Kumari, Daughter of Sri Uday Kumar Mehta, Resident of
- vill. Ghurwa, P.O. & P.S. Shivpur, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand
2. Deonarayan Singh, son of Shankar Singh, Resident of- Vill. Karri,
P.O. & P.S. Vishrampur, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand.
3. Rahul Paswan, Son of Sri Tapeshwar Paswan, Resident of Vill.
Ramkanda, P.O. & P.S. Ramkanda, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand.
(Withdrawn pursuant to I.A. No.8980 of 2019)
4. Priyanka Kumari, Daughter of Sri Ramlal Thakur, Resident of Vill.
Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. Ranka, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand
(Withdrawn pursuant to I.A. No.8980 of 2019)
5
5. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Surya Narayan Yadav, Resident
of Vill. Ranpura, P.O. & P.S. Ranpura, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand.
6. Vivek Kumar, Son of Sri Sharwan Das, Resident of Vill.
Kharaundhi, P.O. & P.S. Kharaundhi, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand.
7. Sudhanshu Kumar, Son of Sri Ramchandra Ram, Resident of Vill.
Vishunpur, P.O. & P.S. Nawada, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand.
(Withdrawn pursuant to I.A. No.8980 of 2019)
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
Dist.- Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, At- Bargawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkom , Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, At-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. Gurupad Primary Teacher's Training College through its Principal,
At- Kanka Kalan Rankaraj, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa,
Jharkhand.
6. National Council for Teacher Education through its Regional
Director, Eastern Region Committee, Bhubneshwar, P.O. & P.S.-
Bhubneshwar, Dist.- Bhubneshwar, Odissa.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 3781 of 2016
1. Krity Kumari, Daughter of Ramnath Ram, Resident of P.O. Giddi
"A", P.S.- Giddi "A", District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
2. Mamta Kumari, Daughter of Mukesh Mahto, Resident of P.O.
Sangrampur, P.S. Gola, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
3. Shradha Jyoti, Daughter of Nishakar Dey, Resident of P.O. & P.S.
Khairachatar, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand.
4. Sushama Kumari, Daughter of Sukhdeo Mahto, Resident of P.O.
Bariatu, P.S. Rajrappa, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
5. Sima Kumari, Daughter of Mahesh Prasad Mahto, Resident of Vill.
Kunda, P.O. Tirla, P.S. Mahuatand, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand.
6. Preeti Priya, Daughter of Devanand Mandal, Resident of Vill.
Ramla, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Godda, Jharkhand.
7. Savitry Kumari, Daughter of Bhikhan Mahto, Resident of
Merudaru, Tola- Irguwa, P.O. & P.S. Arjuwa, Dist. Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
8. Mamta Kumari, Daughter of Rameshwar Mahto, Resident of
Koihara, P.O. & P.S. Rajrappa, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
9. Bharti Kumari, Daughter of Madho Mahto, Resident of Bahatu,
Jamira, P.O. & P.S. Jamira, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
10.Lalita Kumari, Daughter of Late Kajru Mahto, Resident of Vill.
Murubanda, P.O. Barkipona, P.S. Rajrappa, Dist. Ramgarh,
Jharkhand.
11.Mehnaz Praween, Daughter of Md. Meraj Ahmad, Resident of
Manpur, P.O. Pihra, P.S. Ganwan, Dist- Giridih, Jharkhand.
12.Chanchala Kumari, Daughter of Rupesh Kumar Mahato, Resident
of Vill. & P.O. Bagdaha, P.S. Rajganj, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
6
13.Pooja Bharti, Daughter of B. N. Kumar, Resident of Sector- 6D, Q.
No. 1196, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand.
14.Krishna Kumari, Daughter of Prayag Prasad Yadav, Resident of
Mohani, P.O. Mohani, P.S. Poraiyahat, Dist. Godda, Jharkhand .
15.Barkha Kumari, Daughter of Pankaj Karmali, Resident of Chhotki
Dundi, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
16.Rehan Arsh, Daughter of Mumtaz Ansari, Resident of Kasmar, P.O.
Kasmar, P.S. Kasmar, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand.
17.Antra Kumari, Daughter of Manoj Kr. Sharma, Vill. Bachwona,
P.O. & P.S. Bachwona, Dist. Begusari, Bihar.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, At- Bargawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, At-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. National Council For Teachers Education, through its regional
Director, Eastern Region Committee, Bhubneshwar, P.O. & P.S.
Bhubneshwar, Dist- Bhubneshwar, Odissa
6. Radha Govind Primary Teacher's Training College through its
Secretary, At- Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 4292 of 2017
With
I.A. No.8981 of 2019
1. Dimpy Kumari, Daughter of Sri Umesh Prasad Soni, Resident of-
vill.- Ranka, P.O. & P.S. - Ranka, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand
2. Shagufta Noori, Daughter of Karamat Ali Ansari, Resident of - vill.-
Korwadih, P.O. - Kalyanpur & P.S.- Garhwa, Dist.- Garhwa,
Jharkhand
3. Maya Kumari, Daughter of Sri Lalan Sav, Resident of vill.-
Majhiow, P.O. & P.S.- Majhiow, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand
4. Megha Lakra, Daughter of Sri Prakash Lakra, vill.- Champa, P.O.
& P.S.- Mahuadanar, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand
5. Priyanjali Deo, Daughter of Sri Chandrashekhar Pratap Deo,
Resident of vill.- Mahadeiya, P.O.- Mahadeiya, P.S.- Nagar Untari,
Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand
6. Sushma Kumari, Daughter of Sri Sudama Prasad Yadav, Resident
of vill.- Rampur, P.O.- Narigawa, P.S.- Majeow, Dist.- Garhwa,
Jharkhand (Withdrawn pursuant to I.A. No.8981 of 2019)
7. Sangeeta Kumari, Daughter of Sri Bishnah Yadav, Resident of
village- Sidaha, P.O.- Utarirdad, P.S.- Pandu, Dist.- Palamau,
Jharkhand (Withdrawn pursuant to I.A. No.8981 of 2019)
8. Priyanka Kumari, Daughter of Sri Nandu Ram, Resident of village-
Bahiyar Khurd, P.O.- Tandwa, P.S.- Ramuna, Dist.- Garhwa,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioners
Versus
7
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of
Jharkhand, At- Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, At- Bargawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, At-
Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand
6. Gurupad Primary Teacher's Training College through its Principal,
At - Kanka Kalan Rankaraj, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa,
Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 985 of 2015
Radha Govind Primary Teachers' Training College, Ramgarh, through
its Secretary, Baijnath Sah, Son of Late Govind Sah, Resident of
Goushala Road, Vikas Nagar, P.O. & P.S.: Ramgarh Cantt., District:
Ramgarh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, At Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O.
& P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary, situated at
Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.: Namkum, District:
Ranchi.
4. The National Council for Teachers Education through its Regional
Director, Eastern Region Committee, Bhuwneshwar, P.O. & P.S.:
Bhuwaneshwar, District: Bhuwaneshwar (Orissa).
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No. 4192/2017]
Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate
[in remaining writ petitions except WP(C)
No. 985/ 2015]
For Resp.- State : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, G.A.- V
Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, S.C.-VII
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-V
Mr. Awanish Shekhar, A.C. to A.A.G.-I
Mr. Rahul Deo, A.C. to S.C. (L & C)- III
For Resp.- N.C.T.E. : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. - J.A.C. : Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate
Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate
For the Resp.- College in W.P.(C) No. 4192/2017 and petitioner
college in WP(C) No. 985/ 2015: Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
8
Ms. Kirti Sahoo, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 12/02/2021 Pronounced on 13/05/2021
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Kushal Kumar, learned
Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017.
2. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, Advocate assisted by Ms. Kirti
Saboo, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - college in W.P.(C)
No. 4192 of 2017 who has supported the case of the petitioners. They have also
advanced their arguments in the separate writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 985
of 2015, filed by the concerned college (Respondent college in W.P.(C) No.
4192 of 2017).
3. Heard Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate in other writ petitions. He has
adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Indrajit Sinha in W.P.(C) No. 4192 of
2017.
4. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel along with Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, Mr.
Anil Kumar Singh, Mr. Awanish Shekhar and Mr. Rahul Deo, learned
advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Jharkhand.
5. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Radha
Krishan Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Jharkhand Academic Council.
6. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent- National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).
I.A. No.8980 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.3674 of 2016 and I.A. No.8981 of 2019
in W.P.(C) No.4292 of 2017
7. I.A. No.8980 of 2019 has been filed in W.P.(C) No.3674 of 2016
wherein the petitioner nos.3, 4 and 7 have prayed for withdrawal of the writ
petition so far as they are concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition of petitioner
nos.3, 4 and 7 in W.P.(C) No.3674 of 2016, is dismissed as withdrawn.
Similarly, I.A. No.8981 of 2019 has been filed in W.P.(C) No.4292 of 2017
seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition so far as it relates to petitioner
nos.6 and 7. Accordingly, the writ petition with respect to petitioner nos.6 and
7 in W.P.(C) No.4292 of 2017 is dismissed as withdrawn. I.A. No.8980 of 2019
and I.A. No.8981 of 2019 are disposed of.
8. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing clause-
6 of Resolution No. 1382 dated 20.05.2004 issued by the State of Jharkhand
prescribing the minimum age for admission in the course of Primary Teachers
Training Programme as 18 years on 1st of July of the academic session ,
interalia on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the norms of
National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993(hereinafter referred to
as the N.C.T.E. Act) and is also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and beyond the legislative competence of the State of
Jharkhand. All the writ petitions have been filed by the students who were
admitted to the said course at an age below 18 years by the concerned
respondent college and W.P.(C) No. 985 of 2015 has been filed by one such
college for the same relief.
9. It has been specifically submitted by the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties that the present batch of matter relates only to diploma in
primary teachers' training course although the impugned clause 6 relates to
other courses also including B.Ed. Further the students involved in these cases
are from session 2011-2013 onwards.
10. It is not in dispute that similar issues are involved in all the writ
petitions. The lead cases in this batch of writ petitions are W.P.(C) No.4192 of
2017 and W.P.(C) No.985 of 2015, whose records have been placed during the
course of arguments.
11. Admittedly the writ petitioner students were already admitted for
diploma in primary teachers' training course in the respondent college, but
their admission to the college was in violation of impugned clause 6 contained
in Resolution no.1382 dated 20.05.2004 issued by the Respondent State
Government as their age was admittedly less than 18 years at the time of
admission to the college and consequently they were not permitted to fill the
registration form for examination to be conducted by Jharkhand Academic
Council which became a cause of action to file the present batch of writ
petitions. Interim orders were also passed in the cases by which the petitioners
were permitted to submit their application to respondent - Jharkhand Academic
Council, who was directed to issue admit card to them and they were permitted
to appear in the examination. In order dated 09.02.2017 it was recorded that
though the results of other students were declared, but the results of 37 students
including the petitioners were withheld on the ground that they were below 18
years at the time of their admission in primary teachers' training course.
12. The facts about the teacher's training college has been narrated in
W.P.(C) No.985 of 2015 filed by Radha Govind Primary Teachers' Training
College, Ramgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Training College). The
training college was recognized by National Council for Teachers Education
(hereinafter referred to as N.C.T.E), Eastern Regional Committee on
09.04.2008 (Annexure-1) for conducting Primary Teachers Training (D. Ed)
course of elementary level of two years and was also affiliated to Jharkhand
Academic Council, Ranchi by order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure 2). It has been
stated that the college was carrying on its training program and examination for
session 2009 - 2011 till 2011 - 2013 and the examination was conducted by
Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi and no objection was ever raised by
Jharkhand Academic Council regarding any minimum age criteria at the time
of admission though the impugned resolution is dated 20.05.2004. However,
no specific instance of any student having been admitted in violation of Clause
6 of resolution dated 20.05.2004 during the session 2009 - 2010 till 2011 -
2013 has been mentioned by the said College in the said writ petition.
13. Resolution No.1382 dated 20.05.2004 was published by the
Government of Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department
Whereby Clause 6 of the resolution, interalia, prescribed the minimum age for
admission in training colleges i.e., 18 years for all the courses, such as B. Ed,
C.P. Ed, PTT etc. Vide Resolution No.1386 dated 03.08.2012, the Government
of Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department amended the
Resolution No.1382 dated 20.05.2004 and the minimum educational
qualification marks for admission in two years Primary Teachers Training
Programme, was raised to 50% from earlier 45%, but no amendment was made
in clause 6 of the Resolution dated 20.05.2004. The college had taken
admission of some of such students who had not attained 18 years of age on 1st
of July of the academic year of two years Primary Teachers Training
Programme and consequently their admission was not in consonance with
clause 6 contained in resolution no.1382 dated 20.05.2004 and hence the said
clause itself has been challenged.
14. It is the case in W.P.(C) No.985 of 2015 that as per the Central Board
of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as C.B.S.E), the student who is
appearing in class 10 should have completed at least 14 years of age and
accordingly, the student can pass his Plus Two examination at the age of 16,
but if the student wants to enhance his educational qualification by doing
Primary Teachers Training Programme i.e., Diploma in Elementary Education
in the State of Jharkhand, he will have to wait for 2 more years for getting
admission for such course in the State of Jharkhand. It has also been urged that
the resolution dated 20.05.2004 has given minimum age of 18 years by Clause
6 for all the courses including Bachelor in Education, which is a glaring
example of un-mindfulness of the authorities in preparing the impugned
resolution.
15. Further case of the petitioners is that Appendix 2 of National Council
for Teachers Education norms for diploma in Elementary Teacher Education
Programme provides for sole eligibility criteria for admission to the course by
providing cut-off marks in senior secondary or equivalent examination and
therefore, further eligibility criteria of age vide impugned clause 6 of the
Resolution dated 20.05.2004 is not in consonance with the norms of National
Council for Teachers Education.
16. The main ground for challenge is that the impugned Clause 6 of the
Resolution dated 20.05.2004 is neither in consonance with the norms of NCTE
Act nor is rational as it deprives the students from getting admission in Primary
Teachers Training Program solely on account of non-completion of age of 18
years as on 1st of July of the academic year of admission though the student
might have minimum qualifying marks required for such admission. It has been
submitted that the additional criteria of minimum age limit, over and above the
minimum qualifying marks, is totally unjustified and violative of Articles 14,
16 and 19 of the Constitution of India
Submissions of the petitioners in W.P. (C) 4192 of 2017 (In addition to
aforesaid points)
17. It has been submitted as under:
(i) A notification dated 31.08.2009 was issued by NCTE whose Appendix 2
mentions the eligibility criteria for admission in Diploma in Primary
Teachers Training Course which does not prescribe any age embargo and
accordingly, it is contended that NCTE never intended to put any age
embargo for admission to the said course. The fixation of minimum age
of 18 years for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training
Course vide impugned clause 6 of Resolution dated 20.05.2004 issued
by the State Government is contrary to the NCTE norms.
(ii) Fixing of minimum age of 18 years vide impugned clause 6 of
Resolution dated 20.05.2004 for seeking admission in Diploma in Primary
Teachers Training Course also fixes the same minimum age of 18 years
of admission in B.Ed . Such fixation of minimum age for both the courses
reflects non application of mind and accordingly the same is irrational,
illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional, which is apparent from the fact
that for admission in B.Ed minimum eligibility is Bachelor Degree
whereas for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course
minimum eligibility is 10 + 2 Degree only and qualifying Bachelor Degree
requires 3 more years after qualifying 10 +2 Degree but the minimum age
for admission in both the courses is 18 years.
(iii) The State Government has issued the impugned resolution in purported
exercise of powers conferred by notifications dated 13.11.2002 and
06.06.2003, both issued by NCTE. The Notification dated 06.06.2003 was
an Amendment Regulation by which Para 6 of the regulation dated
13.11.2002 was substituted.
(iv) The Notifications dated 13.11.2002 [except Regulation 8(i)] and
notification dated 06.06.2003 have been repealed by Notification no. F 49-
42/2005-NCTE (N & S) dated 27.12.2005. Regulation 8(i) of the
Notification dated 13.11.2002 contains the norms and standards of various
teachers education programmes, and thus the eligibility criteria for
Elementary Teacher Education Programme as provided by NCTE reads as
under:
"3. Eligibility
a) Candidates with at least 45% marks in the senior secondary
examination (+2) or its equivalent, are eligible for admission.
b) Admission should be made either on the basis of marks
obtained in the qualifying examination or in the entrance
examination conducted by the State Government, as per the
policy of the State Government.
c) There shall be reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC,
handicapped, women, etc. as per the rules of the concerned State
Government.".
(v) It is clear that neither the notification dated 13.11.2002 nor the
notification dated 06.06.2003 empowered the State Government to
provide for eligibility conditions for taking admission in the Elementary
Teacher Education Programme and hence the reference to those
Notifications in the impugned Resolution No.1382 dated 20.05.2004 is
completely misplaced and misconceived.
(vi) The sequitur of the above would be a question viz. whether the State
Government is otherwise empowered and competent to provide for
additional eligibility criteria for taking admission in an educational course
which is regulated by the National Council for Teachers Education.
(vii) Notifications dated 13.11.2002 and 06.06.2003 were framed by the
NCTE in exercise of powers under Section 32(2)(f) & (g) read with
Sections 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act.
Point no. 1 -Regarding Power of State Government to impose additional
conditions
(viii) It has been urged that the impugned clause 6 contained in resolution
no.1382 dated 20.05.2004 is arbitrary, irrational and not in consonance
with the constitutional scheme. The field of training in education is fully
covered by Entry 66 List I of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution and
therefore, the State Government is denuded of its powers to legislate on
the subject or to prescribe further guidelines on the subject.
(ix) In the case of "Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors." reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the NCTE Act was enacted under Schedule VII,
List I, Entry 66 of the Constitution of India by the Parliament and
therefore, takes precedence and has overriding effect over laws made by
the State / University Acts relating to teacher's training under Schedule
VII, List III, Entry 25 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that
NCTE Act is a special statute and therefore, directions by the State
Government or University or guidelines and policies issued by the State
Government cannot be repugnant to the NCTE Act or the directions,
conditions and standards laid down by NCTE.
(x) In the case of "APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and
Another v. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering
Technology and Others" reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1015, the
Supreme Court of India reiterated and restated the law in this regard, albeit
in the context of AICTE Act, which was also enacted under Schedule VII,
List I, Entry 66 of the Constitution of India by the Parliament of India. The
learned counsel has referred to para 46 to 50 of the said judgement to
submit that it has been reiterated that the role of the States is not
completely excluded from admissions, but at the same time a State Law
providing for such standards, having regard to Entry 66 of List-I, would
be struck down as unconstitutional only if the same is found to be so heavy
or devastating as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the Central field and
not otherwise. The Court also pointed out that if a State law prescribes
higher percentage of marks for extra-curricular activities in the matter of
admissions to colleges, it cannot be said that it would be encroaching on
the field covered by Entry 66 of List-I. It has also been reiterated that the
law is now fairly well settled that while it is not open to the Universities
to dilute the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE, it is always open
to the Universities to prescribe enhanced norms.
(xi) It is submitted that in the light of the position in law indicated above, it
is thus to be seen whether the impugned Resolution of the State
Government prescribing a minimum age of 18 years to be eligible to take
admission in the Elementary Teacher Education Programme dilutes the
norms and standards prescribed by NCTE and whether it is consistent with
the object of promoting higher standards and excellence in higher
education.
(xii) The learned counsel further submitted that Section 12(e) of the NCTE
Act, inter alia, provides that it shall be the function of the Council to lay
down norms for any specified category of courses or training in teacher
education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission
thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of courses,
course contents and mode curriculum. It is in performance of this function,
the NCTE vide resolution 8(i) of the Notification dated 13.11.2002 read
with Appendix thereof provided that, to be eligible for taking admission
in the Elementary Teacher Education Programme a candidate should
obtain 45% marks in the Senior Secondary Examination (+2) or its
equivalent and admissions should be made either on the basis of the marks
obtained in the qualifying examination or in the entrance examination
conducted by the State Government, as per the policy of the State
Government. Admittedly, no examination was held by the State
Government for the academic years in question. No minimum age has
been prescribed by NCTE. Such conflict between the NCTE notification
and the impugned resolution prescribing minimum age for admission in
Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course must be resolved by
applying a test of "adversely affecting standards", which in turn has an
underlying twin test, viz: -
a. Prescribing higher standards for admission by laying down
qualifications in addition to or higher than those prescribed by
NCTE, and
b. The same must be consistent with the object of promoting higher
standards and excellence in higher education.
(xiii) So far as the prescription of a minimum age of 18 years is concerned,
it does not satisfy both the sub-tests, as minimum age of 18 years is neither
a qualification in addition to or higher than those prescribed by NCTE nor
the same is consistent with the object of promoting higher standards and
excellence in higher education. No material has been brought on record by
the State Government to justify as to how the imposition of minimum age
of 18 years would promote higher educational standard. On the contrary,
the imposition is absurd. The minimum educational qualification is 45%
marks in the Senior Secondary Examination (+2) or its equivalent and it
is a matter of common knowledge that a person usually is around 17 to 18
years of age by the time he/she passes the Senior Secondary Examination
(+2) or its equivalent and thus, in order to fulfil the criteria contained in
the impugned resolution may have to wait for a year and consequently lose
a year. No value addition is done in a candidate by merely wasting a year
in his or her life rather many eligible candidates will be dissuaded to join
the course and would opt for some other degree course where there is no
such age bar. Usually, after passing the Senior Secondary Examination
(+2) or its equivalent, a candidate is eligible to take admission in various
degree courses including professional courses such as Medicine, Law,
Engineering, and no rationale can be deciphered as what can be the
possible justification in making such a condition.
(xiv) Though the State is not completely denuded of its power to impose
additional conditions prescribing eligibility for admissions, but such
imposition can only be made if the same is consistent with the object of
promoting higher standards and excellence in higher education and not
just for the sake of exercising its power. It is well settled that the existence
of power per se does not entitle the authorities to exercise the same unless
there is a legitimate aim or purpose. In the instant case, the State of
Jharkhand without any application of mind and without ensuring that the
additional condition in any manner is consistent with the object of
promoting higher standards and excellence in higher education, has
proceeded to frame the impugned resolution.
Point no. 2 - regarding Article 14 of the constitution of India.
(xv) The issue can also be approached from another angle. The NCTE, while
laying down the minimum eligibility standards by its notification dated
13.11.2002 vide resolution 8(i) read with various appendices, has chosen
to prescribe minimum age only for one course i.e., Bachelor of Elementary
Education by providing that the candidate must have completed the age of
17 years on or before the commencement of admission as per University
Calendar. He submits that if the NCTE, which is the competent body, is
of the opinion that completion of 17 years of age is sufficient for taking
admission in Bachelor of Elementary Education, then the fixation of
minimum age of 18 years for being eligible to take admission in Diploma
in Elementary Education/ Elementary Teacher Education Programme is
manifestly arbitrary and liable to be quashed for being violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. The executive / administrative power of
the State to impose additional conditions is not absolute but is fettered by
constitutional limits and subject to it not being in derogation of the
standards fixed by the NCTE. Any act of the State which cannot satisfy
the test of being fair and reasonable is liable to fail and must be set at
naught by this Hon'ble Court.
(xvi) It is well settled that Article 14 forbids classification for the purpose of
State action, be it legislative or administrative. It is equally well settled
that in order to meet the test of Article 14, the following must be satisfied:
a) classification must be based on intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
those that are left out of group, and
b) the differentia must have a rational nexus to the objects sought
to be achieved by the executive or legislative action under
challenge.
(xvii) Apart from the above tests, it is now well settled that after the
judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the case of "E.P. Royappa v.
The State of Tamil Nadu" reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3 and also in the
case of "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another" reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 218, there has been a development of the doctrine of
arbitrariness and its application to State action which can be struck down
as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It is also trite that the test of arbitrariness is different
for an administrative action from a legislation and a lesser rigour is applied
in the case of an administrative action whereas the test of manifest
arbitrariness is applied to test a legislative act. The development of Article
14 and the mandate thereof has been elaborately dealt with and discussed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Natural Resources
Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 reported in (2012) 10
SCC 1 (paras 96 to 107) and "Shayara Bano v. Union of India" reported
in (2017) 9 SCC 1 (paras 62 to 101). In the case of "Sharma Transport v.
State of A.P" reported in (2002) 2 SCC 188, para 25, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that the expression 'arbitrarily' means: in an unreasonable
manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate
determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational,
not done or acting according to the reason or judgment, depending on the
will alone.
(xviii) State action should conform to norms which are rational,
proportionate, informed with reasons and guided by public interest. It must
be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious,
unbiased, without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion of
healthy competition and equitable treatment. In absence of any discernible
principle justifying such a cut off age, the same cannot be sustained on the
mere asking of the State Government. Equals are sought to be treated
unequally merely on the basis of minimum age for admission to Diploma
in Primary Teachers Training Course, which is constitutionally
impermissible violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India
(xix) The foundational legal principles are:
a. The State Government has the power to fix norms for admission
to courses in addition to norms prescribed by the specialised
bodies created under Central Acts such as AICTE, NCTE, MCI
etc.
b. A court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom of the State
Government in exercise of its power under judicial review and
is loathe in substituting its view over that of a possible view
taken by the State Government.
(xx) The power of the State Government in both the above situations is not
absolute and is circumscribed by well-defined parameters in so far as the
power of the State Government to prescribe qualifications / eligibility
criteria for admission in courses in addition to that of a body like NCTE
is only available to the extent of providing higher educational
qualifications and higher marks for admission. He submits that this
position has been clarified in the concurring opinion of Hon'ble
Banumathi, J., in the case of "Modern Dental College & Research Centre
and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others" reported in (2016)
7 SCC 353, after considering the judgment of "Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v.
State of M.P." [(1999) 7 SCC 120]. In the majority opinion of Modern
Dental College & Research Centre (supra) Hon'ble Dr. Sikri, J. at para
105 summarized the law in this regard and held as follows:
"105. We do not find any ground for holding that Preeti
Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120
: 1 SCEC 742] excludes the role of States altogether from
admissions. Thus, observations in Bharati Vidyapeeth [Bharati
Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 11 SCC 755 : 2
SCEC 535] that entire gamut of admissions was covered by List
I Entry 66 cannot be upheld and overruled to that extent. No
doubt, List III Entry 25 is subject to List I Entry 66, it is not
possible to exclude the entire gamut of admissions from List III
Entry 25. However, exercise of any power under List III Entry 25
has to be subject to a Central law referable to Entry 25."
(xxi) The judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of "Tamil Nadu
Medical Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India and
Others" reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 699 has restated the law in this
regard and the judgment of Modern Dental College & Research Centre
(supra) has been followed.
(xxii) The learned counsel accordingly submits that none of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the question as to
whether the State Government can fix a cut off age for taking admission
in an educational course when the Regulation framed under a Central Law
provides for a different age or is silent on this aspect.
(xxiii) An argument was also advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the field regarding admission to the examination is already
occupied by Jharkhand Academic Council Act, 2002 as its Section 27(b)
empowers the Jharkhand Academic Council to make regulations on the
condition under which a student shall be admitted to the examination of
the Council. However, during the course of argument and also specifically
mentioned in the supplementary written notes of arguments filed on behalf
of the petitioners, this point was specifically given up.
Arguments of the State.
18. In response, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State has submitted as under:
A. The moot questions which fall for consideration before this Court are :
(a) Whether the State Government is otherwise empowered and
competent to provide for additional eligibility condition with
regard to fixation of minimum age of 18 years for taking
admission in diploma in elementary education programme?
(b) Whether the fixation of minimum age of 18 years is arbitrary
and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or
not?
B. In the case of "Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others
Vs. Union of India and Others" reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 699
decided on 31.08.2020 , para 186 , it has been held that when a subject
falls in a shared field of legislation, there may be cases where the
dominant legislative body may not have had made provisions in a
legislative instrument for which it had the power to do so , but such a
situation does not prevent the secondary legislative body from making
provision in that regard. He submits that it has been held that, only in
cases where the State legislature makes a law repugnant to any provision
of law made by the Parliament, the Parliamentary law would prevail and
the court cannot proceed on the presumption that the entire field of
admission to the course stands covered by the Central legislation and the
court cannot proceed on the basis of there being implied repugnancy as
such repugnancy has to be direct and positive. With reference to the
aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that
it is clear that the State Government is otherwise competent to provide
additional eligibility condition in the matter of education, if minimum
age criteria have not been prescribed by N.C.T.E. Act/Regulation for
admission in the concerned course, it does not prevent the State
Government from fixing minimum age of 18 years for taking admission
in the course. Such power has been exercised under Entry 25 List III of
VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
C. In the present case, the State Government has been given power by
N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 to frame rules with regard to eligibility of a candidate
appearing in the Diploma in Elementary Education programme. He refers
to N.C.T.E. notification /regulation dated 18.06.2002 which also
authorizes the State to formulate the policy. Clause 4 of the notification
reads as under:
"4. Admission
(1) No student other than a student who fulfils the
requirements of the NCTE Regulations laying down the
norms and standards for various teacher education
programmes shall be eligible for admission to a teacher
education programme.
(2) Eligibility of candidates and the procedure for
admission will be regulated as per the policy of the State
Government and in terms of NCTE Regulations, laying
down the norms and standards for various teacher
education programmes, as amended from time to time."
It is submitted that from the perusal of the said notification dated
18.06.2002, it is clear that for eligibility regarding minimum age,
the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 is totally silent and it has delegated the
State to frame admission procedure as per policy of the State
Government. On the basis of such delegation, the State of
Jharkhand has fixed the criteria of minimum age limit of 18 years
for admission to the course involved in the present case and by
no stretch of imagination, it can be said that fixing of the age
criteria by the State of Jharkhand is in conflict with the N.C.T.E.
Act, 1993.
D. It has been submitted that the admissions involved in the present case
start from academic session 2011-13 and others and at the relevant point
of time, National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms
and Procedure) Regulation, 2009 was in force. He submits that as per
N.C.T.E. Regulation, 2009 at Appendix 2, the eligibility criteria and
admission procedure is as follows:
"3. Intake, Eligibility, Admission Procedure and Fees
3.1 Intake
The basic unit shall be of 50 students. Two basic units are
permissible initially. However, Government Institutions
shall be sanctioned a maximum intake of four units subject
to fulfillment of other requirements.
3.2 Eligibility
(a) candidates with at least 50% marks in the higher
secondary (+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.
3.3 Admission Procedure
Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks
obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the
entrance examination or any other selection process as per
the policy of the State Government/UT Administration.
3.4 Fees
The institution shall charge only such fee as prescribed by
the affiliating body/state government concerned in
accordance with provisions of National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) (Guidelines for regulations of tuition
fees and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher
education institutions), Regulations, 2002, as amended from
time to time and shall not charge donations, capitation fee
etc. from the students."
The learned counsel has referred to the aforesaid N.C.T.E.
Regulation, 2009 to submit that N.C.T.E. Regulation, 2002 forms
part of N.C.T.E. (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulation, 2009 which has been framed in exercise of powers
under Section 32 of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 and from which it can be
safely said that the State Government has complete power under
the N.C.T.E. Act and Regulations to fix minimum eligibility of
age with regard to admission in the present course. In addition to
the aforesaid, it has been submitted that the exercise of power in
fixing the minimum age for admission in the course is also in
consonance with the power with the field of legislation under
entry 25 list III of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India
and there is no conflict with any central legislation or norms
under NCTE Act.
E. The learned counsel has heavily relied upon the following judgements -
I. Passed by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
"Sandhya Patel through Guardian Dinesh Patel Vs. Board of
Secondary Education" passed in W.P. No. 4801 of 2015 wherein
the rule framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh namely Diploma in
Education Regular Course Admission Rules, 2010 by which
minimum age criteria of 17 years for admission in the course was
fixed , was under challenge.
II. Passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court reported in 1987 RLW 59
(Gautam Kapoor Vs. State of Rajasthan) to submit that the
question which fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Full Bench
was whether the provision made prescribing the minimum age limit
of 17 years to be completed during the calendar year of admission
to the first year of course in the medical college was valid.
III. Passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the
case of "Ankit Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India through its
Secretary (Health), New Delhi and Others" reported in 2016 SCC
OnLine All 2843 wherein the constitutional validity of age criteria
under Regulation 4(1) of the Regulation on Graduate Medical
Education, 1997 (Regulations) read with Regulation 8 of the
Eligibility Requirement for taking Admission in an Undergraduate
Medical Course was under challenge. The judgement of Rajasthan
High Court, in the case of Gautam Kapoor (Supra) ; subsequent
judgement passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case
of "Akshanjali Morya Vs. Union of India" in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 57 of 2013 decided on 09.05.2013 as well as
judgement passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
"Mohit Kumar Arora Vs. University of Delhi" passed in Civil Writ
Petition No. 4353 of 2003 decided on 11.07.2003 were relied upon
and ultimately age criteria for admission was upheld.
F. The learned counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court finally dismissed the constitutional challenge to
the age criteria by holding that the maturity and experience are not
unrelated to age and, in fact, conventional wisdom would also indicate
that maturity and experience are functions of age and any exception to
the same will not define the ambit of constitutional validity. He submits
that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court also observed that as per Right to
Education Act, 2009, students at the age of 6 will get admission in class
1 and after completing 12 years of education, they will complete their
10+2 /intermediate examination at the age of 18 years. The respondent
State submitted that the stipulation of 18 years fixed by the State
Government in the present case is in total consonance with the Right to
Education Act, 2009 and in the present cases, all the petitioners have
applied for admission in the course involved after coming into force of
Right to Education Act, 2009.
G. The learned counsel, while concluding his argument, has submitted that
the impugned notification is in consonance with N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 and
strictly in conformity with the old education policy as well as new
education policy and has been made within the specified field of
legislation under Entry 25 List III (concurrent list) under the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India. The impugned notification is
neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
which could be evident from the Full Bench judgement of Hon'ble
Rajasthan High Court, Division Bench judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court, judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein it has been
unanimously held that fixing of minimum age criteria in professional
course is not arbitrary and is based on intelligible differentia.
H. Learned counsel for the respondent- State refers to the counter affidavit
filed in W.P.(C). No.985 of 2015 and submits that under normal
circumstances even as per the CBSE guideline, a person would have
completed 17 years at the time of passing class 12 th Examination. He
submits that in the matter of fixation of any cut -off date regarding the
age the legislature has very wide latitude unless it is found to be suffering
from total lack of application of mind. This is over and above the fact
that in the matter of dealing with the gamut of admission to educational
institution, the role of the State is not excluded totally rather a great
latitude has been conferred to the State by the Constitution itself to take
decision depending upon the local conditions and the requirement of
local people while enacting the law.
Arguments of NCTE (National Council for Teachers Education)
19. Learned counsel submits that NCTE regulation dated 13.11.2002 has
been repealed except regulation 8 (i) and notification dated 06.06.2003 has also
been repealed by notification of NCTE dated 27.12.2005 and the impugned
resolution was issued on 20.05.2004. The challenge is to fixing of age for
admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course by the state
government and in this aspect NCTE has not framed any provision. It is correct
that in the regulation issued by NCTE, the age criteria was not fixed and in that
context averment was made that it is a matter of the State Government and
examining body of the State. The counter affidavit also relied upon a judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 502 (The chairman
of Bhartiya Education Society and Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh and Ors.) to
submit that in the said judgment, the Hon'ble apex court has held that the role
of the State Government and the examining body have got right, power /
jurisdiction to prescribe certain norms regarding admission, eligibility criteria
etc. The learned counsel has relied upon following findings from the judgement
passed in the case of Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. (Supra):-
"53. secondly it is not the exclusive power of the state to frame
rules and regulation pertaining to education since the subject is in
Concurrent List. Therefore, any power exercised by the State in the
area of education and Entry 25 of the List III will be subject to any
existing relevant provision made in the connection by the Union
Government, subject, of course Article 254."
Arguments of Jharkhand Academic Council
20. So far as Jharkhand Academic Council is concerned, they have limited
role to play in the present case. Section 27 of Jharkhand Academic Council Act,
2002 provides that the Council may, after previous publication and subject to
confirmation by the State Government, make regulations, inter alia, relating to
the condition under which the students shall be admitted to the examination of
the Jharkhand Academic Council. The present matter does not relate to
admission to examination by the Jharkhand Academic Council which is
conducted only at the end of the course, but the same relates to admission at the
institution in which the petitioners have been admitted for the course. The
admission to the course and admission to the examination are not one and the
same thing and accordingly, Jharkhand Academic Council has no role to play
in the matter.
Rejoinder arguments of the petitioners
21. It has been argued as under.
a. No affidavit in opposition has been filed by the State Government to
contend that the imposition of the minimum age limit of 18 years was
done in view of the fact that the State Government was of the view that
a student of 18 years or more would have the maturity to undergo the
Elementary Education Programme and / or the cut off age enhances the
calibre of the students. In absence of any such pleading, an oral
argument to that effect cannot be accepted. Neither the impugned
resolution of the State Government nor the affidavit filed in the
connected petition disclose as to for what reason the State Government
had fixed the minimum cut-off age to be 18 years. The reference to the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is
incomprehensible. The said statute is a special statute made by the
Parliament of India in terms of Article 21 A of the Constitution of India.
It has no applicability to Teachers Education Programmes which is a
different field occupied by a different legislation under a different
legislative field. A provision of statute cannot be stretched to an extent
which statute does not contemplate.
b. Regarding NCTE Regulation dated 18.06.2002 it is submitted that in
the impugned resolution dated 20.05.2004, the State Government has
referred to its powers purportedly available to it from the Regulations
of the NCTE dated 13.11.2002 and 06.06.2003, however in course of
arguments and from the counter affidavit filed in the connected matter
it appears that the State Government is tracing the source of power to
the Regulation dated 08.06.2002. In this context, it is submitted that the
reliance placed on the said Regulation dated 18.06.2002 is not correct.
From perusal of the said Regulation, it will appear that the same was
framed in exercise of powers conferred by section 12 (h) read with
section 32 (2) (d) (v) of the National Council for Teacher Education
Act, 1993 and it is called the National Council for Teacher Education
(Guidelines for Regulation of Tuition Fees and Other Fees Chargeable
by Unaided Teacher Education Institutions Offering Teacher Training
Programmes) Regulations, 2002. Regulation 3 thereof which provides
for "Admission" merely states that the eligibility of the candidates and
the procedure for admission will be regulated as per the policy of the
State Government and in terms of the NCTE Regulations, laying down
the norms and standards for various teacher education programs, as
amended from time to time. The Regulation dated 13.11.2002 is a
Regulation laying down the Norms and Standards for various teacher
education programs. Therefore, the Regulation dated 13.11.2002, being
the specific regulation governing the field will prevail over the previous
regulation dated 18.06.2002.
c. It would be appropriate to mention that clause 10 of impugned
Resolution dated 20.05.2004 was questioned before this Hon'ble Court
in W.P.(C) 2643 of 2013 and this Court vide a judgment dated
06.02.2015 [Jharkhand Teacher's Training College Association and
Others v. State of Jharkhand; 2015 (2) JLJR 605 (Jhr)] was pleased
to quash the said clause 10 on the ground that the same contravenes the
provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993
and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
d. Regarding Judgments of Rajasthan High Court and Allahabad High
Court it has been submitted that on perusal of the judgments, it would
appear that none of the judgments are applicable to the facts of the case.
The question which was decided was whether the imposition of a
minimum eligibility age fixed by the Medical Council of India or
recommended by the Medical Council of India could be sustained or
not? The cases did not deal with the issue which arises for consideration
in this case i.e whether the State Government could provide for a
minimum cut off age for admission in an educational course, the norms
and standards of which have been laid down by the NCTE? In the
judgement passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon'ble court
was not called upon to decide the question of the competence of the
State Government in the manner in which is being done in the present
case. None of the questions raised in the instant writ petition fell for
consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Findings of the Court
22. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering the
materials on record and the judgements relied upon by the parties, this Court
finds that the main issues involved in these cases are: -
a. Whether the State has the competence to provide for the minimum age for
admission to the Diploma in Elementary education under the NCTE Act/
Regulation dated 18.06.2002 and/or also independent of it i.e. under entry
25 List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India?
b. Whether the impugned Clause 6 of Resolution No.1382 dated 20.05.2004
issued by the State Government fixing minimum age as 18 years on 1 st of
July for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course is
contrary to National Council for Teacher Education Act,1993(NCTE Act)
?
c. Whether the prescription of minimum age is otherwise arbitrary allegedly
having no nexus with the standard of education and hence violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
23. Before dealing with the aforesaid issues, it would be relevant to note
that validity of another clause i.e Clause 10 of Resolution No.1382 dated
20.05.2004 was subject matter of consideration by a co-ordinate Bench of this
court in the case of Jharkhand Teacher Training College Association and
Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, W.P.(C) No. 2643 of 2013
decided on 06.02.2015, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. Vide Clause 10 subject-wise quota was fixed for
admission in B.Ed course. It was specifically argued that clause 10 neither had
any statutory force nor it was backed by any Regulation and that the field of
B.Ed education was fully covered by Entry 66 List I of VIIth Schedule of the
Constitution of India and therefore, the State Government was denuded of its
power either to legislate on the subject or to prescribe further guidelines on
the subject covered under N.C.T.E. Act or Regulations framed thereunder. On
the other hand, it was argued by the State that there was no inconsistency
between the Regulation of N.C.T.E. and clause 10 and the letter granting
recognition by N.C.T.E. made it subject to condition of fulfilling the
guidelines of the State Government. This Court, after considering the
arguments of the respective parties, held in para 14 that the Resolution dated
20.05.2004 has been issued under the order of Governor, State of Jharkhand
and thus, this is an order in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India
and that the said Resolution has the force of law.
The Court analysed the scope of Entry 66 List I of VIIth Schedule to the
Constitution of India as well as Entry 25 List III of VIIth Schedule to the
Constitution of India and in para 15 formulated the point whether Clause 10
in Resolution dated 20.05.2004 prescribes merely an additional criterion or
it covers the field already occupied by the National Council for Teacher
Education Act, 1993. After considering the provisions of law, the Court was
of the view that fixing subject-wise quota for admission in a college cannot
be equated with the cases where higher standards/norms or higher minimum
qualification for admission have been fixed by the State Government and the
provision under Clause 10 of the Resolution dated 20.05.2004 is not a
requirement which in any manner lead to maintaining standard of teacher
education in the B.Ed. colleges. The Court also found that the condition under
Clause 10 of the Resolution dated 20.05.2004 fixing subject-wise seat for
admission was in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being
arbitrary and unreasonable.
24. The findings arrived at in the aforesaid judgement passed in W.P.(C)
No. 2643 of 2013 with regard to Clause 10 of the Resolution dated 20.05.2004
relating to B.Ed. education has no applicability to the facts and circumstances
of the present case except to the extent that the said resolution was held to
have the force of law vide para 14 of the judgement as mentioned above. The
Clause 10 had nothing to do with any additional criteria relating to
maintaining standard of B.Ed. education. In the present cases, this court is
concerned with additional criteria of minimum age of 18 years relating to
admission to only Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course and
accordingly the law is to examined in the light of the issues framed above.
25. Section 12 of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 deals with functions of the
Council. It provides that, it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such
steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of
teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for
teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this
Act, the Council May-
(a) .......
(b) ......
(c) .......
(d) .......
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in
teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission
thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of course,
course contents and mode of curriculum;
(f) .................
(g) ..........
(h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by
recognised institutions.
26. Vide N.C.T.E. Notification /Regulation dated 18.06.2002, which is
titled as National Council for Teacher Education (Guidelines for regulation of
tuition fees and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher education
institutions) Regulations, 2002 , it has been specifically provided that no
student other than a student who fulfils the requirement of the N.C.T.E.
Regulations, laying down the norms of standards for various teacher education
programmes, shall be eligible for admission to a teacher education
programme. It also provides that eligibility of candidates and the procedure
for admission will be regulated as per the policy of the State Government and
in terms of N.C.T.E. Regulations laying down the norms and standards for
various teacher education programmes, as amended from time to time. This is
coupled with the fact that the order of recognition issued from N.C.T.E. to the
college for the course involved in the present case has been issued with the
condition that it will not only follow norms of N.C.T.E. from time to time, but
also follow the various norms as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies
including the State Government. It was followed by the letter of recognition
issued by Jharkhand Academic Council, the authority to conduct the
examination.
27. This Court also finds that although the aforesaid Notification
dated 18.06.2002 issued by National Council for Teacher Education has
specifically referred to Section 12(h) read with Section 32(2)(d)(v) of the
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 dealing with tuition fees
and other fees, but it also provides that the norms for admission are to be
fulfilled by the students as per the requirement of N.C.T.E. regulation and the
eligibility of the candidates and the procedure for admission will be regulated
as per policy of the State Government. Although the said regulation does not
refer to section 12(e ) of NCTE Act,1993 which empowers the Council inter
alia to lay down norms regarding minimum eligibility criteria for admission
to the course and the aforesaid regulation dated 18.06.2002 specifically states
that the eligibility of candidates and the procedure for admission will be
regulated as per the policy of the State Government. There can be no dispute
that eligibility of a candidate for admission to the Diploma in Elementary
education can certainly be in terms of basic qualification /cut off marks as well
as in terms of minimum age. In fact, the NCTE has itself framed regulation
providing eligibility criteria in terms of minimum age of 17 years for
admission to B.Ed. course but no such eligibility criteria in terms of minimum
age for admission has been fixed for admission to Diploma in Primary
Teachers Training Course by NCTE. This court is of the considered view that
in spite of non-reference to section 12(e) of NCTE Act, 1993 in the aforesaid
Regulation dated 18.06.2002 the aforesaid regulation dated 18.06.2002 clearly
provides enough space for the State Government to frame policy in the matter
of eligibility of candidates and the procedure for admission in various courses
including Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course.
28. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 4801 of 2015
decided on 05.08.2015 has relied upon clause 4 of the notification dated
18.06.2002 issued by NCTE in order to uphold the fixation of minimum age
of 17 years for admission in Diploma in Elementary education by holding that
the said notification authorizes the State to form a policy. It has also been held
that for eligibility and regarding minimum age, NCTE is silent and fixation of
minimum age by the state cannot be said to be in conflict with NCTE Act,
1993 and that the college was at fault for disobeying the criteria of minimum
age at the time of admission and found no illegality in the orders of the
respondents in declining the candidature of the petitioners of the said case for
want of minimum age. This court is in complete agreement with the view
taken by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court so far it relates to power of the
State to prescribe minimum age for admission to Diploma in Elementary
education involved in the instant cases as admittedly NCTE has not prescribed
and minimum age for admission to the said course.
29. It is further to be examined whether, otherwise also such fixation of
minimum age for admission is in exercise of power under Entry 25 List III of
the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
It is the specific case of the Respondent State that fixation of the minimum
age for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course is neither
occupied field by the Union nor in conflict with the central legislation,
namely, the NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations framed thereunder as they
are silent on the age criteria of admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers
Training Course.
30. The students who had applied for academic sessions involved in these
cases 2011-13 onwards, at that point of time the National Council for Teachers
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2009 was in force
whose appendix, inter alia, deals with Norms And Standards for Diploma in
Elementary Teacher Education Programme. As per the eligibility condition
mentioned therein, the candidates are required to have at least 45% marks in
senior secondary or equivalent examination and it also provided for certain
reservation for SC/ST/OBC and certain relaxation in their required marks. It
further provided that the admission shall be made on merit on the basis of
marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in entrance exam or any
other selection process as per the policy of the State Government. The
qualifying marks were subsequently enhanced to 50% in the year 2012.
31. It is not in dispute that though section 12( e) of N.C.T.E. Act empowers
the Council to lay down norms for any specified category of course of training
in teachers education including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission
thereof, but admittedly no such norm/guideline/regulation has been provided
by the Council so far, laying down any minimum age criteria for admission to
the course involved in the present case i.e. Diploma in Primary Teachers
Training Course, although such minimum age criteria has been provided for
admission in B.Ed. course.
32. Clause 6 of the impugned Resolution dated 20.05.2004 published by
the Government of Jharkhand, Human Resources Department, provides
minimum age for admission in training colleges to be 18 years for all the
courses including B.Ed. as well as the present course.
33. It is important to consider the Constitutional scheme in the light of the
relevant entry in Entry 66 of List 1 and Entry 25 of List III of the VIIth
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Entry 66 list I of the Union list reads as under:
"66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for
higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."
Entry 25 of List III of concurrent list is 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."
34. The aforesaid provisions of the Constitution of India and their
applicability to the various norms prescribed by the Centre and State/other
authorities were subject matter of consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a number of cases.
35. In the judgment reported (2016) 7 SCC 353 (Modern Dental College
& Research Centre and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), while
examining the scope of present Entry 66 list I and Entry 25 of List III of VIIth
Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also
considered the amendment made in the lists vide 42nd Constitutional
Amendment whereby entry 11 of the State List was deleted and amalgamated
with entry 25 of Concurrent List. It has been held that under Entry 66 of the
Union list, the Union is required to coordinate and maintain standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical
institution and the Union has right to make policy decision to maintain
standards in higher education and these will be binding on the State
Government. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List has been held to be subject to
provision of List I Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 and the State cannot have a policy
contrary to the Central Act. Under Article 257 (1), the executive power of the
State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of
executive power of the Union. The State's power to legislate in relation to
"education, including technical education, medical education and
universities" is analogous to that of the Union. It has also been held that it is
the responsibility of the Central Government to determine the standards of
higher education and the same should not be lowered at the hands of any
particular State.
In paragraph 142 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of
Tamil Nadu Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors."
reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104 and has quoted para 41 of the said report which
deals with interpretation of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 of List III. Para 41 of
the said judgment reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104 is quoted as under:
"41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:
(i) The expression 'coordination' used in Entry 66 of the Union List
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean
evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform
pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or
plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal
of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such
disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which
are necessary to prevent what would make 'coordination' either
impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in
the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full
effect according to its plain and express intention.
(ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the
Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made
under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon
legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under
Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union
List, it would be void and inoperative.
(iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State
legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause (2) of
Article 254, the State legislation being repugnant to the Central
legislation, the same would be inoperative.
(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union
List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the
Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the
two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.
(v) When there are more applicants than the available
situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down
higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or
the Central authority to short-list the applicants. When the State
authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List
or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law.
(vi) However, when the situations/seats are available and the State
authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant
is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case
may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications
laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when
the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not
satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it
satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority,
the State authorities act illegally." {this sub-para has been held to be
not a good law vide judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (2011) 4 SCC 606}
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to the judgment passed in the
case of Preeti Srivastava reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120 which considered the
question whether it was open to the State to prescribe different admission
criteria and it was held that the norms of admission have a nexus with the
standards of education or rules of admission which are covered under entry 25
of the list III and the minimum standard as laid down by the central statute has
to be complied by the states. The Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted para 35 and
36 of the case of Preeti Srivastava(supra) which are reproduced as under:
35. .................Both the Union as well as the States have the power to
legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia,
to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State
has, therefore, the right to control education including medical
education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation.
Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State,
impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this
is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore,
while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for
higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot
adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under
Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject
it is also necessary to remember that from 1977, education, including,
inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent
List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does
so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided
in Article 254.
36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission
have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for
admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admission
can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there
can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect
adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in
exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State may,
for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down
qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I.
This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for
admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the
norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards
of education in the institutes of higher education. Standards of
education in an institution or college depend on various factors. Some
of these are:
(1) the calibre of the teaching staff;
(2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in
the given span of time;
(3) the student-teacher ratio;
(4) the ratio between the students and the hospital beds available to
each student;
(5) the calibre of the students admitted to the institution;
(6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital facilities for
training in the case of medical colleges;
(7) adequate accommodation for the college and the attached hospital;
and
(8) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which
the papers are set and examined and the clinical performance is
judged."
37. It would also be useful to quote para 53 of the judgement passed in the case
of Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120:-
"53. Secondly, it is not the exclusive power of the State to frame rules
and regulations pertaining to education since the subject is in the
Concurrent List. Therefore, any power exercised by the State in the area
of education under Entry 25 of List III will also be subject to any
existing relevant provisions made in that connection by the Union
Government subject, of course, to Article 254."
38. In the majority opinion of Modern Dental College & Research Centre (supra)
Hon'ble Dr. Sikri, J. at para 105 summarized the law in this regard and held
as follows:
"105. We do not find any ground for holding that Preeti
Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120: 1
SCEC 742] excludes the role of States altogether from admissions.
Thus, observations in Bharati Vidyapeeth [Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State
of Maharashtra, (2004) 11 SCC 755: 2 SCEC 535] that entire gamut of
admissions was covered by List I Entry 66 cannot be upheld and
overruled to that extent. No doubt, List III Entry 25 is subject to List I
Entry 66, it is not possible to exclude the entire gamut of admissions
from List III Entry 25. However, exercise of any power under List III
Entry 25 has to be subject to a Central law referable to Entry 25."
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment of the case of Modern
Dental College (supra) in para 148 held that the power of the Union under
Entry 66 of the Union List is limited to prescribing standards of higher
education to bring about uniformity in the level of education imparted
throughout the country and it was held that the scope of Entry 66 must be
construed limited to its actual sense of 'determining the standard of higher
education' and not laying down the admission process. It was also held that in
no case is the State denuded of its power to legislate under List III Entry 25,
more so, pertaining to the admission process in the universities imparting
higher education. In para 149 of the judgement, while upholding the validity
of the legislation which empowered the State Government to regulate
admission process in institutions imparting higher education within the State,
it was held that in fact the State being responsible for the welfare and
development of the people of the State, ought to take necessary steps for
welfare of student community. The field of 'higher education' being one field
which directly effects the growth and development of the State, it becomes
prerogative of the State to take such steps which furthered the welfare of the
people and in particular pursuing higher education. It was also held that in fact
the State Government should be the sole entity to lay down the procedure for
admission and fee etc. governing the institutions running in that particular
state except centrally funded institutions like IIT, NIT etc. because no one can
be a better judge of the requirements and inequalities-in-opportunity of the
people of the particular state than the state itself. It has been held that only the
State legislation can create equal level playing field for the students who are
coming from the state board and other streams.
40. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of "Tamil Nadu
Medical Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others"
reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 699 has restated the law in this regard and
the judgment of Modern Dental College & Research Centre (supra) has been
followed. Paragraph 145 of the judgement of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers
Association (supra) provides the conclusions as under: -
"145. The sum and substance of the above discussion and conjoint
reading of the decisions referred to and discussed hereinabove, our
conclusions are as under:
1) that Entry 66 List I is a specific entry having a very limited scope;
2) it deals with "coordination and determination of standards" in
higher education;
3) the words "coordination and determination of standards would
mean laying down the said standards;
4) the Medical Council of India which has been constituted under the
provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is the creature of
the statute in exercise of powers under Entry 66 List I and has no
power to make any provision for reservation, more particularly, for
in-service candidates by the concerned States, in exercise of powers
under Entry 25 List III;
5) that Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 does not deal with
and/or make provisions for reservation and/or affect the legislative
competence and authority of the concerned States to make reservation
and/or make special provision like the provision providing for a
separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission
to postgraduate degree courses and therefore the concerned States to
be within their authority and/or legislative competence to provide for
a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission
to postgraduate degree courses in exercise of powers under Entry 25
of List III;
6) if it is held that Regulation 9, more particularly, Regulation 9(IV)
deals with reservation for in-service candidates, in that case, it will be
ultra vires of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and it will be
beyond the legislative competence under Entry 66 List I.;
7) Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 to the extent tinkering with
reservation provided by the State for in-service candidates is ultra
vires on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
8) That the State has the legislative competence and/or authority to
provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates
seeking admission to postgraduate degree/diploma courses, in
exercise of powers under Entry 25, List III. However, it is observed
that policy must provide that subsequent to obtaining the postgraduate
degree by the concerned in-service doctors obtaining entry in degree
courses through such separate channel serve the State in the rural,
tribal and hilly areas at least for five years after obtaining the
degree/diploma and for that they will execute bonds for such sum the
respective States may consider fit and proper; and
9) it is specifically observed and clarified that the present decision
shall operate prospectively and any admissions given earlier taking a
contrary view shall not be affected by this judgment."
41. The legal position which emerges from the above judgments can be
encapsulated in the following manner:
The power of the State Government under Entry 25 of List III, VIIth
Schedule of the Constitution of India is not excluded completely by
Entry 66 of List I, VIIth Schedule but is subject to the latter, meaning
thereby it cannot provide any norm or standard for admission which is
in any way adverse to or lower than the standard fixed under a
Parliamentary Legislation. Likewise, the state has the power to
provide additional qualification including prescribing higher
educational qualification and higher marks for admission as the same
is consistent with the object of promoting higher standards and
excellence in higher education. [ Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.,
(1999) 7 SCC 120]
The State being responsible for the welfare and development of the
people of the State, ought to take necessary steps for welfare of student
community. The field of 'higher education' being one field which
directly effects the growth and development of the State, it becomes
prerogative of the State to take such steps which furthered the welfare
of the people and in particular pursuing higher education. It was also
held that no one can be a better judge of the requirements and
inequalities-in-opportunity of the people of the particular state than the
state itself. It has also been held that only the State legislation can
create equal level playing field for the students who are coming from
the state board and other streams. Exception has been made with
regards to centrally funded institutions like IIT, NIT etc. [ (2016) 7
SCC 353 (Modern Dental College & Research Centre and Ors. Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh)]
In Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others Vs. Union
of India and Others" reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 699 it has
been held that Entry 66 List I is a specific entry having a very limited
scope dealing with "coordination and determination of standards" in
higher education which would mean laying down the standards. Under
Entry 66 List I the Union has no power to make any provision for
reservation. The State has the legislative competence and/or authority
to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates
seeking admission to postgraduate degree/diploma courses in medical
colleges, in exercise of powers under Entry 25, List III but that policy
must provide that subsequent to obtaining the postgraduate degree by
the concerned in-service doctors they shall serve the State in the rural,
tribal and hilly areas at least for five years after obtaining the
degree/diploma.
42. There is no dispute that none of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has dealt with the question as to whether the State Government can fix
a cut off age for taking admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training
Course when the Regulation framed under a Central Law is silent on this
aspect.
However, it is also not in dispute that NCTE has itself framed Regulation
fixing Minimum age criteria for admission in certain teachers training courses
including B.Ed. and other authorities including State governments have also
prescribed minimum cut-off age for admission in other streams of higher
education which have been upheld by various High Courts vide judgements
relied upon by the respondent State. Thus, fixing of cut-off age criteria in the
matter of admission to higher education is not alien to the eligibility criteria
for such admissions.
43. This Court, is of the considered view that the impugned additional
criteria of minimum age for admission to Diploma in Primary Teachers
Training Course framed by the State are not inconsistent with the norms for
admission laid down by the NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations made
thereunder as no such minimum age criteria for admission in Diploma in
Primary Teachers Training Course has been prescribed by the NCTE Act,1993
and the regulations framed thereunder. In view of the aforesaid, the minimum
age criteria does not diminish the eligibility norms under the NCTE Act, 1993
and the regulations made thereunder. The impugned minimum age criteria
prescribed by the State for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers
Training Course does not adversely affect the standards laid down by the
NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations made thereunder for admission in
Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course and accordingly, the question
of diluting the standards laid down by NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations
made thereunder does not arise in the present cases. In the instant case the
minimum cut-off marks as laid down by NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations
made thereunder, have to be complied with for admission in Diploma in
Primary Teachers Training Course. In addition, the State has laid down
additional norm of minimum age criteria for admission in Diploma in Primary
Teachers Training Course in exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III of
the Constitution of India in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner
which does not dilute the criteria laid down under central legislation.
44. The argument of the petitioners that NCTE Act, 1993 vide Section 12
(e) empowers the Council to fix the eligibility criteria for admission to the
Diploma in Elementary education and accordingly the State could not have
fixed the minimum age at 18 years unless it reflected better qualification, is
also devoid of any merits. This court is of the considered view that merely
because council under NCTE Act, 1993 has been empowered to fix eligibility
criteria for admission in all courses including Diploma in Elementary
education, the same having not been fixed by the council so far for the
admission in Diploma in Elementary education, the State of Jharkhand is not
denuded of its powers under entry 25 List III to fix a minimum age for
admission to Diploma in Elementary education. Merely because Section
12(e) of NCTE Act, 1993 empowers the Council to fix the eligibility criteria
for admission to the Diploma in Elementary education, the same cannot be
said to be an occupied field by the Union Legislation of NCTE Act, 1993. It
is not in dispute that the Regulation under NCTE Act, 1993 has fixed
minimum age for admission in B.Ed. course as 17 years but the same has no
bearing in the present case as the matter relates to and is confined to admission
in Diploma in Elementary education for which admittedly no minimum age
for admission has been fixed by NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations made
thereunder.
45. In Para 186 of the judgement passed in the case of "Tamil Nadu
Medical Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others"
reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 699 it has been clearly held that there is no
question of implied repugnancy between central and state law referrable to
concurrent list and in order to be repugnant, repugnancy has to be direct and
positive. It has also been held that if certain areas of legislative entry is left
void by the Union Legislature, these void areas would come within the
legislative power of the state under the concurrent list. Para 186 of the
aforesaid judgement is quoted as under:
"186. When a subject fall in a shared field of legislation, there may
be cases where the dominant legislative body may not have had made
provisions in a legislative instrument for which it had power to do
so. But in such a situation the dominant legislative body cannot
prevent the secondary legislative body from making provisions in
that regard. We would make it clear here that we are using the terms
"dominant legislative body" to describe the Union legislature and
"secondary legislative body" to refer to the State legislature in the
context of the concurrent list only. We are doing so because in case
of repugnancy between two legislative instruments originating from
the Union and the State legislatures in relation to any entry therein,
the former is to prevail as per the constitutional scheme. Turning
back to the aspect of occupied field, if certain areas of legislative
entry is left void by the Union Legislature, these void areas would
come within the legislative power of the secondary legislative body
as the constitutional entry gives both the legislative bodies co-
existing, power to legislate on such subjects. Clause 9 of the 2000
Regulations is no doubt a self-contained code. But as we have
already observed, it is not an exhaustive code covering all aspects of
admission in postgraduate medical degree courses. The scope of this
code and extent of its operation has been explained by this Court in
the case of Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel (Supra). Negation of power
of the State cannot be a matter of inference, or such negation cannot
be in anticipation that the Union Legislature may make provisions in
future in the vacant legislative space. The authorities in support of
this proposition are West U.P. Sugar Mills Association v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2020 SCC OnLine SC 380), U.P. Cooperative Cane
Unions Federations v. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association [(2004) 5
SCC 430], S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1] and Tika
Ramji v. State of U.P. (AIR 1956 SC 676). Only in cases where the
State legislature makes a law repugnant to any provision of law made
by the Parliament, the Parliamentary law would prevail. We do not
find the 2000 Regulations so overwhelming in its scope and extent
that we can proceed on the presumption that the entire field of
admission to postgraduate medical course stands covered by it. In
the facts of the given case, we do not think we can proceed on the
basis of there being implied repugnancy. Such repugnancy has to be
direct and positive."
46. In the case of "Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others"
reported in (1999) 9 SCC 620 it was argued that once the Central Legislature
has enacted the provision and evinced its intention to control the price and
distribution of tea or tea waste, the field gets occupied by legislation under
Entry 33 of the Concurrent List and to that extent the provisions of the state
Act under the same entry would get excluded. This argument was rejected in
para 168, 170 and 171 as follows:-
" 168.............It is not possible to accept this contention for the simple
reason that so long as the Central Government does not issue any order
under Section 30 of the Tea Act, the field dealing with fixation of
maximum price or minimum price to be charged by a grower of tea,
manufacturer or dealer, wholesale or retail, for the Indian market
leaving aside the question of export, would not be occupied. In other
words, it would remain open for the State Legislature to cover that field
by exercising its legislative power under Entry 33 of the Concurrent
List. Even this aspect of the matter is also not res integra. It is covered
by a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ch. Tika Ramji
v. State of U.P. In that case, the Constitution Bench was concerned with
the question whether the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Act, 1953 could be said to have been legally enacted by the
Uttar Pradesh State Legislature despite the operation of the IDR Act
which contained a declaration whereby the sugarcane industry was
sought to be regulated by the IDR Act. Section 18-G of the Act referred
to earlier whereunder there was a possibility of the Central
Government issuing appropriate control order to occupy that field was
held not to bar the legislative competence of the State Legislature to
enact appropriate provisions regarding the said industry. Such a mere
possibility of promulgation of order under Section 18-G of the IDR Act
was held not to have occupied the field whereby the State Legislature
could not enact appropriate statutory provisions by exercise of its
legislative power under Entry 33 of List III.
170. The aforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench, therefore,
clearly repels the submission of learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shanti
Bhushan that merely because there is a possibility of issuance of a
Control Order under Section 30 of the Tea Act by the Central
Government, the field is fully occupied in connection with fixation of
the maximum and minimum prices of packed tea to be charged by the
manufacturer or dealer, wholesale or retail or regulating the maximum
quantity of packed tea to be sold to any person. In a later decision of
Bench of two learned Judges to which one of us, Sujata V. Manohar, J.
was a party, the very same view has been reiterated relying upon the
aforesaid decision in Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of U.P. The later decision
is rendered in the case of SIEL Ltd. v. Union of India as noted earlier.
171. It must, therefore, be held that mere possibility of issuance of any
future order under Section 30(1) of the Tea Act by the Central
Government, in the absence of any existing express order to that effect,
cannot be said to have occupied the field regarding purchase and sale
of manufactured tea and fixation of maximum or minimum price
thereof, or the location of such sales. These topics cannot be said to be
legitimately covered by the Tea Act. Hence, the field is wide open for
the State Legislature to exercise its concurrent legislative power under
Entry 33 of List III for effectively dealing with these matters. This is
precisely what has been done by the State Legislature by enacting the
Market Act. The insertion of the item pertaining to tea (leaf and dust)
in the Schedule, therefore, cannot be said to be an unauthorised
exercise on the part of the delegate of the State Legislature, namely, the
State Government which has exercised its power under Section 39 of
the Market Act."
47. In view of the aforesaid principle of law, merely because section 12(e)
of NCTE Act, 1993 empowers the Council to lay down minimum eligibility
criteria, inter alia, for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training
Course, which vide regulation has fixed the eligibility criteria only in one
aspect i.e. in the form of cut-off marks and not in the other aspect including
minimum age eligibility criteria, the field in the matter of fixation of eligibility
criteria in terms of minimum age for admission in Diploma in Primary
Teachers Training Course is unoccupied. Accordingly, the State of Jharkhand
is within its rights to prescribe the minimum age for admission in Diploma in
Primary Teachers Training Course in exercise of powers under entry 25 List
III of VIIth Schedule to the constitution of India.
48. Now the arguments of the petitioners in connection with arbitrary
exercise of power and challenge to the impugned minimum age for admission
in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course being violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India is required to be considered. It has been stated in
the counter affidavit filed by the State that as per CBSE norms and also as per
the State Government norms, minimum age for entering in Class 1 is 5 years,
completed on 31st March of the year and upon passing class 10 he would be
more than 15 years. Consequently, the student will be completing 10+2 at 17
years or more than 17 years of age. For entering into the course involved in
this case, required age is 18 years as on 1st of July. Further as per Right to
Education Act, 2009, students at the age of 6 will get admission in class 1 and
after completing 12 years of education, they will complete their 10+2
/intermediate examination at the age of 18 years. The respondents have also
brought on record a circular vide Memo No. 1291 dated 11.05.2011 issued by
the Human Resources Department (Directorate of Primary Education), State
of Jharkhand which was pursuant to the aforesaid act namely, Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 making the said Act
fully applicable to the State of Jharkhand and all sessions involved in all the
cases are 2011-2013 onwards. Further, the classification on the basis of age in
the instant case is a reasonable classification as the minimum age prescribed
is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
49. Fixation of minimum age is essentially a matter of policy of the State.
The NCTE having not fixed any minimum age for admission to Diploma in
Elementary education, the State of Jharkhand has acted within its powers
under entry 25 List III of the Constitution of India to fix the minimum age for
admission in Diploma in Elementary education.
50. This Court is of the considered view that fixing of minimum age criteria
for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course is based on
intelligible differentia referrable to the Norms of Right to Education Act, 2009
and is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. All admissions in the present cases relate to the session
2011-13 onwards.
51. So far as sufficient nexus to the object sought to be achieved by
prescribing minimum age criteria is concerned, it would be useful to refer to
the various judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the state. Before
the aforesaid Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court, the short question for
decision was, whether prescribing the minimum age limit of 17 years for entry
into a medical college violates Article 14 of the Constitution being
unreasonable or arbitrary having no rational nexus with the objective sought
to be achieved by the provision. The challenge was rejected by holding that it
cannot be doubted that a certain degree of maturity of body and mind is
essential in a student joining the medical course and it was not unusual to
reckon the same with reference to the age of the person. On the basis of the
judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another
Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth" reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543, it was
observed that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise in relation to academic matters which is guided by
rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and
the departments controlling them. The Hon'ble Court was also of the view
that it is well settled that classification on the basis of age is a reasonable
classification unless the age prescribed is arbitrary or unreasonable. The
Hon'ble Court was in full agreement with the following observations made by
Justice Kan Singh in the case of "Miss Kuntal Gupta Vs. The Board of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan" reported in 1967 RLW 157 :
"Therefore, if examinations are taken to be the mile-stones in the
progress of one's education and if the taking of education is made to
depend upon the maturity of mind and body that a person develops
with his or her age, then one cannot say that classification based on
age for the taking of an examination is not rational or that it is not in
keeping with the underlying object of the enactment. System of
examination is integral part of imparting of education and the
education of a person is inevitably judged on the basis of an
examination that one has passed........ Furthermore, the existence of
the ban for taking the examination is bound to induce the students
and their parents or guardians in the long run to so plan their
education that the course will be completed only by the time they
reach the prescribed age in this way the underlying object of
inducing healthy growth of students in body and mind may very well
be achieved."
52. The said judgement of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was followed by
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of "Ankit Chaturvedi Vs. Union
of India through its Secretary (Health), New Delhi and Others" reported in
2016 SCC OnLine All 2843 wherein the minimum age of 17 years for
admission to MBBS course as prescribed by Medical Council of India was
under challenge. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court also followed another
judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Akshanjali Morya Vs.
Union of India" in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 57 of 2013 decided on
09.05.2013 wherein it was held that prescribing a minimum age for admission
was a matter of policy on which the court would not interfere:
"By now it is well settled that it is not the function of the Courts to
go into the question of prescription of age, unless, it seems to be so
absurd and unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not
accept such a prescription. Even otherwise, the Courts are not
equipped with any expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would
be the proper age for a student to enter the M.B.B.S. Course. It is for
the policy makers to consider the various factors which are relevant
to the issue, before fixing the age limit for admission to the medical
courses."
53. This Court is in complete agreement with the aforesaid views expressed
by Full Bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court followed by Division Bench
of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court when applied to the educational training
course involved in the present cases. Merely because the aforesaid judgements
were passed in the matter of entrance into M.B.B.S. course, the same has no
bearing on the underlined principle that maturity and experience are not
unrelated to age and, in fact, conventional wisdom would also indicate that
maturity and experience are functions of age. This view has been categorically
expressed in the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court in the case of Ankit Chaturvedi (Supra). This court is of the considered
view that the prescription of minimum age for admission in the course
involved in the present case is neither absurd nor unreasonable such that a man
of ordinary prudence would not accept such a prescription. There can be no
doubt that prescription of minimum age of 18 years for admission to the course
involved in theses case has sufficient nexus to the maturity of the student. This
Court is of the considered view that merely because a few persons are left out
by virtue of fixation of minimum age of 18 years for taking admission into the
course, the same by itself is not sufficient to hold it arbitrary and hence
violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.
54. This Court finds that the respondent State has given sufficient
justification to fix the minimum age for admission in Diploma in Elementary
education as 18 years. This Court further finds that in the judgement passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2016) 7 SCC 353 (Modern Dental College &
Research Centre and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) it has been held that
the State being responsible for the welfare and development of the people of
the State, ought to take necessary steps for welfare of student community. The
field of 'higher education' being one field which directly effects the growth
and development of the State, it becomes prerogative of the State to take such
steps which furthered the welfare of the people and in particular pursuing
higher education. It was also held that no one can be a better judge of the
requirements and inequalities-in-opportunity of the people of the particular
state than the state itself. It has also been held that only the State legislation
can create equal level playing field for the students who are coming from the
state board and other streams. Exception has been made with regards to
centrally funded institutions like IIT, NIT etc.
55. This Court is of the considered view that in the matter of fixation of any
cut-off date regarding the age the legislature has very wide latitude unless it
is found to be suffering from total lack of application of mind. This is over
and above the fact that in the matter of dealing with the gamut of admission
to educational institution, the role of the State is not excluded totally rather a
great latitude has been conferred to the State by the Constitution itself to take
decision depending upon the local conditions and the requirement of local
people while enacting the law.
56. In view of the aforesaid findings the impugned Clause 6 of Resolution
No.1382 dated 20.05.2004 issued by the State Government fixing minimum
age as 18 years on 1st of July for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers
Training Course is not contrary to National Council for Teacher Education
Act,1993(NCTE Act). Otherwise also the State has the competence to provide
for the minimum age under the NCTE Regulation dated 18.06.2002 and also
independent of it under entry 25 List III of VIIth schedule to the Constitution
of India. The NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder do not occupy
the field of prescribing minimum age for admission in Diploma in Primary
Teachers Training Course and therefore there is no question of any
repugnancy between the impugned Clause 6 of Resolution No.1382 dated
20.05.2004 issued by the State Government, so far it relates to admission to
the Diploma in Elementary education, and NCTE Act, 1993 and the
regulations framed thereunder. This court also holds that the prescription of
minimum age of 18 years as on 1st of July for admission to the Diploma in
Elementary education is additional eligibility criteria provided by the State as
a matter of policy which is neither arbitrary nor illegal nor violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
57. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
58. This court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner students have been
permitted to appear in the examination pursuant to interim orders passed by
this court, but no relief can be ultimately granted to them as the writ petitions
have been dismissed.
59. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/Pankaj
