Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 552 (ORI)

Miss Mausumi Mohanty v. State of Orissa

2001-12-20

P.K.MOHANTY, P.RAY

body2001
JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner calls in question the action of the opp. parties in not giving her admission to the Bachelor Course in Education (B. Ed) for the academic session 2001-2002. 2. The short fact of the case is that, the Directorate of Teacher Education, S. C. E. R. T., Orissa issued an advertisement inviting applications in the prescribed form for admission to the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2001-2002 in different Teacher Education Institutions (TETs) of the State, a copy of which is Annexure-1. The petitioner has passed +3 Degree Examina¬tion in Science (B. Sc.) having subject combination Chemistry, Zoology with Geography as Honours subject. She having found herself eligible in terms of the admission notice, made an application for admission to the B.Ed. course, but having not been called to the counselling for admission, she enquired from the Chairman of the Admission Committee, but the Chairman could¬ not give any explanation as to why she had not been called to the counselling for admission to the aforesaid course. It is submit¬ted on behalf of the petitioner that perhaps because of the faulty and illegal eligibility criteria fixed in the Admission notice, she has been deprived of admission to the course. Accord¬ing to the petitioner, admission to the B.Ed. course cannot be restricted only to holders of Bachelor’s Degree in Science with P.C.M. or C.B.Z. and Arts with Geography and Economics from a recognised University and as such the eligibility criteria in Clause 2.0.a, is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Sri S. N. Misra, learned counsel for the Department of School and Mass Education and the Director of Teacher Education and S.C.E.R.T.-cum-Chairman, Central Selection Board, on instruc¬tion submits that candidates with Bachelor’s Degree in Science having combination of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics or Chemis¬try, Botany, Zoology or a Bachelor of Arts with Geography and Economics subject combination from a recognised University are only eligible to apply in terms of the admission notice/prospec¬tus for admission to the B.Ed. course 2001-2002 and the petition¬er having passed the Bachelor of Science Examination with a combination Chemistry, Geography, Zoology with Geography as Honours subject which does not come within the eligibility condi¬tion could not claim for the admission nor could she be admitted in terms thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having Geography Honours as one of the sub¬jects at the B.Sc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having Geography Honours as one of the sub¬jects at the B.Sc. stage, could not be denied the admission, rather she having Geography as Honours is more suited and can teach better than a person having Geography and Economics as Pass subject. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stipulation in the notice for admis¬sion to B.Ed. course 2001-2002 fixing the eligibility criteria as Bachelor Degree in Science with Physics, Chemistry and Mathemat¬ics, Chemistry, Biology and Zoology and Bachelor Degree in Arts which Geography and Economics from a recognised University only is illegal and arbitrary and as such should be struck down ena¬bling Graduates with any combination of subjects like the peti¬tioner to be eligible for admission. 4. Law is well settled that in academic matters, the Courts will be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views to the views expressed and decision taken by the academic bodies. Only in cases where the decision is contrary to any provision of the Act or the statute or is unconscionable, the Courts may step in. In this context, a reference may be made to the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in The University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao and another; AIR 1965 SC 491 . The Supreme Court in Principal, Patna College, Patna and others v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman; AIR 1966 SC 707 at paragraph-20 of the Constitution Bench decision held : “It would be recalled that the xx xx xx xx xx xx xx It is hardly necessary to emphasise that in dealing with matters relating to orders passed by the authorities of educational institutions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should normally be very slow to pass ex parte interim orders, because matters falling within the jurisdiction of the education¬al authorities should normally be left to their decision, and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. Even on the merits, we think we ought to point out that where the question involved in one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would gener¬ally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construc¬tion which it is pleased to accept. The limits of the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari are well recognised and it is, on the whole, desirable that the require¬ments prescribed by judicial decisions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in dealing with such matters should be carefully borne in mind.” There cannot be and dispute that the Bachelor Degree course in education is meant for training the students to impart education and method of teaching the students in the schools prosecuting a course of studies for the High School Certificate Examination. A school seeking to open Classes-VIII, IX and X enabling such stu¬dents to appear the High School Certificate Examination requires the recognition by the Board of Secondary Education. Chapter-IX of the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa prescribed the requirement of recognition subject to the condi¬tions stipulated therein. Apart from other conditions, the Regu¬lation requires Trained Science Graduates having Mathematics as a subject at the Degree stage and Trained Arts Graduates preferably having Geography at the Degree stage for Class-IX. For schools having no additional section, it prescribed for four trained Graduate Teachers, out of whom, two must be Arts Graduates and two others must be Science Graduates. Out of two Science Gradu¬ates, one should have Life Science as the subject at the Degree stage, apart from a Headmaster. Keeping the school curriculum in view, the academic body like the Board of Secondary Education, in its Regulation has laid down the qualification required of a teacher to teach in schools preparing students for the High School Certificate Examination. Out of two Science Gradu¬ates, one should have Life Science as the subject at the Degree stage, apart from a Headmaster. Keeping the school curriculum in view, the academic body like the Board of Secondary Education, in its Regulation has laid down the qualification required of a teacher to teach in schools preparing students for the High School Certificate Examination. The petitioner is a Science Graduate with the combination Chemistry, Geography and Zoology with Geography as Honours subject, whereas the requirement of a Trained Graduate to be eligible to be a teacher in High School, he is required to have Bachelor Degree in Arts with Geography and Economics as subjects from a recognised University and for Degree holders in Science, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics or Chemis¬try, Biology and Zoology as their combination of subjects at the Graduate level. Keeping in view the educational curriculum for the schools leading to the High School Certificate, if the educa¬tional authorities have decided to admit the students in the B.Ed. course with specific subject, as required for enabling them to teach in a school, such decision cannot be faulted. In any view of the matter, the petitioner is a Science Graduate with the subjects, Chemistry, Geography and Zoology whereas in the school curriculum, a Science teacher is required to have Physics, Chem¬istry, Mathematics or Chemistry, Biology and Zoology as combina¬tion of subjects and even if she is admitted into the course, it does not serve any purpose of conducting or undertaking any training courses like Bachelor of Education or the like which cannot make her eligible to be appointed as a teacher in any school. Thus, keeping such courses of studies in schools in view, if the authorities have prescribed the eligible criteria for admission into the B.Ed. course, it cannot be termed ‘illegal’ or 'arbitrary' and the petitioner cannot claim as of right to be admitted to the course, even though she does not come within the eligibility criteria. Needless to say that the purpose of having training institutes for training courses is for imparting train¬ing to the students normally called the pupil teachers to make them eligible to teach the school students as trained Graduate teachers. 5. In that view of the matter, if the academic authori¬ties, keeping in view the teaching curriculum or programmes in the schools in view, have prescribed the eligibility qualification for admission into the B.Ed. 5. In that view of the matter, if the academic authori¬ties, keeping in view the teaching curriculum or programmes in the schools in view, have prescribed the eligibility qualification for admission into the B.Ed. course, conducted by the Training Colleges in the State, that cannot be ascribed as illegal or irrational, calling for interference by the Courts. Needless to emphasise that training courses, conducted in the Training Col¬leges, are with the avowed purpose of training the pupil teach¬ers, the method and manner of teaching and equiping such students with the knowledge and skill to teach small children at the school level. That being the purpose of having Training Colleges if a person after getting such training is not eligible or qualified to be a teacher in the school curriculum, providing train¬ing to such person, serves no purpose, particularly the purpose for which the training colleges are established and maintained. There cannot be any dispute that the admission sought for by the petitioner to the B.Ed. class is conducted by either Government Colleges or Colleges aided fully or partly by the Government and necessarily for maintaining and managing such Training Institu¬tions huge amount is required to be spent from the public excheq¬uer with the object of training such pupil teachers, the method and manner of teaching the small children in the schools. In the circumstances, denial of admission to the petitioner to the B.Ed. course on the aforesaid considerations cannot be held to be illegal or unreasonable. In the result, we find not merit in this writ petition calling for intervention of this Court and as such, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. P. RAY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.