Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 (III) Whether the exclusion of those candidates from field of eligibility for Special B.T.C. Course 2007 who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of 1993 Act or after the enforcement of 1993 Act during the period when the application of the Institution or the University was pending consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India 15. The Full Bench after referring to the words who are already B.Ed. has held that the permission does not require that such B.Ed. Degree should have been obtained from a NCTE recognized institution alone and no such limited interpretation or scope is contemplated in the letter of the NCTE granting the permission. 16. The aforesaid observation of the Full Bench in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tiwari have to be read with reference to the questions which were examined as quoted above inasmuch as the Full Bench even after making the aforesaid observations in its answer to question no. 1 has held as follows : 17.. “The candidates, who have B.Ed. degree obtained from an institution or University during the period when the application of the institution or the University for grant of recognition under Section 14 of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 was pending, are eligible for Special Basic Training Course 2007 as laid down by the Division Bench in Ekta Shukla’s case (supra). 18. Similarly while answering question no. 2 it has been held as follows: “The proviso to Section 14(1) recognizes continuance of the course, which was being run immediately before the appointed day provided application is submitted within the continuance of such course is deemed recognition of such course and degree awarded therein by express provisions of proviso to Section 14(1) of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.” Lastly while answering question no. 3 it has been held as follows: “The exclusion of the candidates from the field of eligibility for Special Basic Training Course 2007, who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 or after the enforcement of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 during the period when the application of the institution or the University was pending consideration is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The above two categories of candidates are also eligible to participate in Special Basic Training Course 2007.” It will thus be seen that the Full Bench of this Court has not held that any candidate who has obtained a Degree of B.Ed. subsequent to the enforcement of NCTE Act of 1993 from an institution whose application for approval was not pending consideration before the NCTE or was rejected to be qualified for the purposes of admission to BTC Course, 2007. The Full Bench has recognized the B.Ed. Degree granted prior to enforcement of Act of 1993 or such B.Ed. Degrees granted by only those institutions which had made their applications for
3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State of U.P. and others 991 recognition to the NCTE after coming into the force of NCTE Act but their recognition applications had not been finally decided. The students who had a degree of B.Ed. from other two categories of institutions i.e.: a. the institution which did not make any application for recognition after coming into the Act of 1993. b. The institutions which made the applications but their applications had been rejected by the NCTE on various grounds have not been held entitled for admission to Special BTC Course, 2007. This Court has been made aware of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave to Appeal against the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the Case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi which in the opinion of the court does in any way help the petitioners. The issue before this Court is more or less similar to the category of institutions who had not made the applications for recognition even after coming into force by NCTE Act of 1993. The only difference being that the institutions in the State of Jammu & Kashmir can not make such applications as the Act of 1993 had no territorial application in that State. 19. In the opinion of the Court the State of U.P. in its wisdom has decided to entertain applications of those candidates only who have obtained a Degree of B.Ed. from the institution recognized by NCTE. The words had a Degree of B.Ed. even if given the broader interpretation as per the answers given by the Full Bench in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi to question nos. 1, 2 and 3 will not cover an institution situate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir inasmuch as qua the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the NCTE Act has no territorial operation. Therefore, the issue of any approval being applied or being granted by the NCTE to such institutions of the State of Jammu & Kashmir will not arise. 20. The competence of the State Government to lay down the conditions for entertaining the applications for admission to BTC Course 2007 as well as those which flow from the letter of the NCTE while granting permission to start Special BTC Course 2007 are not under challenge. 21. In these set of circumstances if the State with reference to the letter of the NCTE has decided to entertain the applications of the candidates who have obtained a B.Ed. Degree from the institutions recognized by NCTE or who under the Full Bench judgment of the High Court may become entitle to such consideration alone. Such decision cannot be termed as arbitrary in view of the specific norms of teachers education provided under the NCTE Act which are not applicable to the institutions in Jammu & Kashmir. The candidate with a Degree of B.Ed. from institutions in Jammu & Kashmir form a different class and if such class of candidates have been excluded from consideration for admission to BTC Special Training Course, 2007 by the State Government purposely, it cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such action of the district authorities to exclude the candidates like the petitioner from the zone of consideration is in conformity
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 15 and 16: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 17: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70:
3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72:
3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?