Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1867 (RAJ)

Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2002-11-22

GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta challenging the action of the respondents denying him appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III in the District Alwar. The only ground due to which the appointment was denied to the petitioner was that his Bachelor of Education (for short 'B.Ed.') Degree from the University of Jammu & Kashmir was not recognised by the National Council for Teachers Education which was a body constituted under the National Council Teachers Education Act 1993 and had to be followed by the respondents. 2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III in the District of Alwar in pursuance of a notification dated 13.6.98 for which the essential qualification was B.Ed. Degree. The petitioner had undergone the B.Ed. Course conducted by the University of Jammu & Kashmir at Gandhi Memorial College, Srinagar and finally completed the Course in year 1997 as a consequence of which he was awarded the B.Ed. Degree from the University of Jammu & Kashmir in the year 1998. According to the petitioner's version this College is duly affiliated to the University of Jammu & Kashmir and hence he possesses a legal and valid B.Ed. Degree from that University. 3. A provisional merit list was published on 23.7.98 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.207 and the name of one Shri Raghuveer Singh of Thanagaji was below the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, a waiting list was published wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.51 which was the last name in the list. However, in the final merit list which was published on 9th December 1999, a list of 77 candidates only was published where the name of the petitioner was missing but the name of Shri Raghuveer Singh who was lower in merit than the petitioner in the provisional merit list was shown in the final merit list. The petitioner obviously felt alarmed and therefore made enquiries about exclusion of his name in the final merit list. The petitioner obviously felt alarmed and therefore made enquiries about exclusion of his name in the final merit list. It was then informed to him that since the B.Ed Degree obtained from the University of Jammu & Kashmir is not recognised by the National Council For Teachers Education which is a body constituted under the National Council Teachers Education Act 1993 and was to be followed by the Zila Parishad while preparing the merit list, the name of the petitioner was excluded. The petitioner therefore has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents who have deleted his name from the merit list. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahendra Goya] has first of all invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the University of Jammu & Kashmir finds place in the list of the Universities published by the University Grants Commission and therefore he has urged that since the petitioner's B.Ed Degree is from a legally and duly constituted University, his qualification could not have been ignored. He has further pointed out that the National Council For Teachers Education Act which had prepared a list of its own Universities was not applicable in the State of Jammu & Kashmir even as per the provisions of this Act. Besides this, the offending section 17 of this Act which envisaged that the students who have passed out from these Universities alone will be entitled for appointment on the post of school teachers was challenged before the Division Bench of this High Court and after full scrutiny and consideration of this provision, the learned judges of the Division Bench have struck down the validity of Section 17 of this Act holding it illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, this provision of the National Council for Teachers Education Act would not hold good for denying appointment to the petitioner. In addition to this, it was urged that the National Council For Teachers Education Act itself lays down that it was not applicable in the State of Jammu & Kashmir as a result of which the Degree obtained from the University of Jammu & Kashmir could not have been treated as decreased if the same found place in the list of the Universities published by the University Grants Commission. 5. 5. The counsel for the respondent-Zila Parishad was summoned by this Court by way of a show cause notice in response to which they filed their counter affidavit reiterating the same position-to the effect that their action was justified since the University of Jammu & Kashmir was not included in the list prepared by the National Council for Teachers Education. It was also stated therein that the process of appointment is already complete and there is no vacancy existing on which the petitioner can be granted appointment. 6. After considering the arguments and counter arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, the position which emerges is that the respondent-Zila Parishad had already included the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-HI and in the final list his name was suddenly dropped. In my opinion, before doing this, it should have verified the position itself whether name of the petitioner could be excluded from the final list by virtue of the provisions of Section 17 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act and whether the appointment to the petitioner could be denied on this count in view of the fact that the University of Jammu & Kashmir found its due place in the list published by the University Grants Commission and hence due weight should have been attached to the B.Ed Degree obtained by the petitioner from the University of Jammu & Kashmir. It is well acknowledged position that a Degree obtained from a legally and duly constituted University of any State in India has to be recognised by all other Universities which is reciprocal in nature and a particular University cannot be permitted to have its way by making a separate provision and taking its own decision as to which University has to be recognised by it and which has to be derecognised as this is dearly the function of a duly constituted authority. This function has been entrusted to the University Grants Commission which was sought to be superseded by the National Council for Teachers Education Act 1993 by granting it powers to prepare its own list of Universities which were to be treated recognised for appointment on the post of Teachers. This function has been entrusted to the University Grants Commission which was sought to be superseded by the National Council for Teachers Education Act 1993 by granting it powers to prepare its own list of Universities which were to be treated recognised for appointment on the post of Teachers. For good and valid reasons, this provision also have been struck down as illegal and unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this High Court in Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers College v. Union of India and ors. 2000(3) RLR 609 = 2000(1) WLC (Raj.) 176. Besides this position, the fact also remains that the validity of this Act was not extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir and hence the student possessing B.Ed. Degree from the University of Jammu & Kashmir which found place in the list published by the University Grants Commission, could not have been ignored by the respondent Zila Parishad for the purpose of appointment. The respondents were given sufficient time and opportunity to verify as to whether the College from which the petitioner has passed out is a duly constituted College or not but they have not come out with any information which could establish that this College is not duly constituted College except oral assertion that it is not a recognised College. However, this contention also is not worth accepting for once the legally and duly constituted University has awarded the Degree to the petitioner, the same will have to be treated as a valid Degree provided the respondents-authorities were able to establish by some documentary evidence that it is not a duly constituted or a recognised college in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. On the contrary when the respondent-Zila Parishad entered into correspondence with the University of Jammu & Kashmir it has responded that the Degree obtained from that University of Jammu & Kashmir is a duly and legally constituted University for the last several decades and no question can be raised against its validity although, they have not stated anything regarding the status of the Gandhi Memorial College, the marks sheet has been issued by the University of Jammu & Kashmir. Thus the controversy and cloud cast over the petitioner's educational qualification has been set at rest and hence denial of appointment to the petitioner do not appear to be justified. Thus the controversy and cloud cast over the petitioner's educational qualification has been set at rest and hence denial of appointment to the petitioner do not appear to be justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon an order passed in S.B. C. Writ Petition No.96/2000 dated 10.4.2002 wherein the learned Single Judge P.P. Naolekar, J. (as he then was) had allowed the petition where the petitioner had been denied the appointment for the same reason that he had obtained B.Ed. Degree from the University of Jammu Kashmir. It is obvious that the petitioner's case also stands on the same footing and no departure or distinction could be made in his case. 7. The counsel for the respondent however still thought it proper to submit that no vacancy is left at this stage where the petitioner can be appointed but it was explained by the petitioner's advocate that an interim order had already been passed in favour of the petitioner on 11th February 2000 wherein the respondents were directed to keep one post vacant in the category of Teacher Grade-III. It is therefore expected and presumed that this order must have been followed by the respondents and one post must be lying vacant where the petitioner can be accommodated in view of the interim order dated 11.2.2000 referred to hereinbefore. The respondents therefore are directed to verify all other essential qualifications of the petitioner for the post if there be any, and grant him appointment within a period of three months from the date of this order. He would be entitled to all consequential benefits of the post from the date he was entitled to such appointment when persons of lower merit had been appointed except arrears of salary. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******