Komal Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5962 MP

   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                 (Division Bench)


                       W.P. No.17946/2021

                         Komal Goswami
                            -Versus-
               State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Shri M.P. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
       Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
       Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.

       [Hearing convened through virtual/physical modes]

                           ORDER

(Jabalpur, dtd.24.9.2021)

Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-

In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the condition

No.5 to the Notification dated 03-6-2019 and 17-6-2019 regarding

age criteria, issued by the respondent No.1, contained in Annexure-

P/2. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the

respondents to omit the said condition in the light of Admission

Rules issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)

as well as Higher Education Department. A prayer is also made

seeking direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner for

admission in the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), a

two years course of the year 2021-22, accepting the application of

the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned condition in the aforesaid Notification is absolutely illegal

and contrary to the Rules framed by the NCTE, namely, National

Teacher Education Council (Recognition, Norms & Procedure)

Regulation, 2014 wherein no provisions is prescribed for age. It is

further submitted that in the Circular issued for admission for the

year 2021-22 to B.Ed., M.Ed. Courses and other equivalent courses

of three years, no provision regarding age has been prescribed by the

University Grant Commission (UGC). The Higher Education

Department has also omitted the aforesaid provision regarding age

criteria in respect of admission to the Higher Education Department.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General for the State

submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner has already been

considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at

Indore in WP-4801-2015 (Sandhya Patel vs. Board of Secondary

Education & anr.) and WP-4468-2016 (Bhawna Sharma vs.

School Education Department and others). The order passed in

Sandhya Patel vs. Board of Secondary Education & anr. (supra),

dated 5-8-2015 is reproduced hereunder :

"05.08.2015:

Shri Anand Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard.

ORDER Present writ petition is directed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

"(A) Issue appropriate writ of mandamus / certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure P/1). (B) Issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to validate the admission and allow her to appear in examination for D.Ed. For the academic session 2014-15, likely to be commenced from 05.08.2015 as per time table vide Annexure P/2.

2. Brief facts in short are that petitioner got admission in the course of first year Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) course for the sessions 2014-15. After about a period of a year vide order dated 24.06.2015 respondent No.2 canceled the admission on the ground that petitioner was below 17 years of age at the time of her admission.

3. Learned counsel submits that according to the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, person who obtained minimum 50% of marks in Higher Secondary (+2) Examination is eligible for admission. Placing reliance on the decision reported in (2006) 9 SCC 1 -State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others, learned counsel submits that condition of minimum age of 17 years fixed by the respondents is not sustainable because powers and function of NCTE and the State Government are well defined and State Government cannot go contrary to the spirit and scheme of NCTE.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that State has framed rules for Diploma in Education Regular Course Admission Rules, 2010 and according to Rule 5 (kha) minimum age has been prescribed for admission. For Government and private colleges both, for the aforesaid course, State has issued order dated 12.02.2014 which makes it clear that candidate should complete the age of 17 years at the time of admission.

5. Considering the aforesaid, in our considered opinion, rules prescribing the minimum age for admission of certain course cannot be said in conflict and contravention of the provisions of

NCTE Act, 1993. Clause of minimum age of 17 years is in force since last 4-5 years. Why college did not take care of this fact at the time of on-line admission is a matter of concern.

6. Notification issued by NCTE on 18.06,2002 also authorizes the State to formulate a policy. Clause 4 of the notification reads as below:-

4. Admission (1) No student other than a student who fulfills 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.

7. For eligibility and regarding minimum age, NCTE Act 1993 is silent. State has prescribed and fixed the criteria of minimum limit of 17 years of age cannot be said to be in confrontation or in conflict with the provisions of NCTE Act, 1993. College concerned was certainly at fault for disobeying the criteria of minimum age at the time of on-line admission. However, we do not see any illegality in the orders of the respondents declining the candidature of the petitioner for want of minimum age.

8. In the result, writ petition is dismissed for want of merits."

4. Further, in Bhawna Sharma vs. School Education

Department and others (supra) by order dated 01-7-2016 the writ

petition was dismissed, where challenge was made to Clause 5 of

the Circular, dated 7-6-2016 issued by the School Education

Department, prescribing a minimum age limit for admission to

D.L.Ed. Course in the State. Fixation of age limit is based on

consideration of various factors in the policy of the State

Government. Until and unless, the policy-decision by the State

Government is shown to be in breach of any statutory rules,

regulations or constitutional provision, there cannot be any

interference in such matters in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by

the aforesaid judgments, we are not inclined to interfere in the

present writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to

submit a representation before the Principal Secretary, School

Education Department, pointing out that similar age limit has not

been prescribed for admission to the Courses in the Higher

Education. It would be for the State Government to consider the

representation of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

order as to costs.

      (Mohammad Rafiq)                           (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
        Chief Justice                                   Judge

ac.

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.09.28 12:14:11 +05'30'