Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1729 (RAJ)

Arunima Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-08

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-The petitioner has grievance that as per the norms and guidelines prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short “the NCTE”) the Commerce graduates are not eligible candidates for B.Ed. courses and, therefore, they cannot be allowed to appear in Pre-Teacher Education Test (for short “the PTET”) which is conducted for selection of students for B.Ed. Course in Rajasthan. Earlier petitioners stand was fully supported by the NCTE continuously for long period not only before petitioners filling of present writ petition but even thereafter, in this writ petition itself . The NCTE also supported petitioners prayer for interim relief and this Court directed the State Government to ensure that commerce graduates should not be allowed in PTET and should not be given admission to B.Ed. courses by any educational institute in Rajasthan. Thereafter, NCTE submitted that the NCTE was wrong. Therefore, matter is relating to fate of hundreds or even thousands of students and the matter is concerning with the functioning of National Level Statutory Autonomous Body (NCTE) which has been established to “achieve planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country and for overhauling the system of teacher education.”. 2. This third round of litigation is because of the fact that the Chairman of the National Council for Teacher Education convinced the petitioner that the petitioners grievance is just and proper and the norms and guidelines prescribed by the NCTE for teacher education are not being followed in the State of Rajasthan and particularly by the Jai Narain Vyas University (for short “the JNV University), Jodhpur despite the fact that the NCTE has been taking action from time to time for enforcement of the norms and standard laid down by it for various teachers education programmes. The Chairman of the NCTE submitted an affidavit before this Court in second round of litigation, in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 6/2004 and informed this Court that the Council issued letters to all the Universities on 11.2003 including the JNV University, Jodhpur for taking appropriate steps for compliance of various aspects of the norms specially for admission of students (for teachers training courses). The Chairman NCTE admitted that they knew it well that this Court in petitioners earlier Writ Petition No. 1085/2003 while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondent-NCTE to examine the representation of the petitioner in right perspective. The Chairman NCTE admitted that they knew it well that this Court in petitioners earlier Writ Petition No. 1085/2003 while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondent-NCTE to examine the representation of the petitioner in right perspective. The Chairman NCTE further admitted that the NCTE received copy of the representation of one Shri Jitendra Sharma of Shah Goverdhanlal Kabra College, Jodhpur, pointing out that norms and standards laid down by the NCTE are not being followed by the JNV University, Jodhpur and in turn, the NCTE requested the Government of Rajasthan to direct the JNV University, Jodhpur for holding Pre-Teacher Education Test (for short “the PTET”), 2004 strictly in accordance with the norms of the NCTE. The Chairman, NCTE further in his above affidavit specifically submitted that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 09.05.2003, the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE also, vide letter dated 19.05.2004, asked the Government of Rajasthan to take action in the light of NCTE norms and standards and regulation as the JNV University, Jodhpur is not following the guidelines issued by the NCTE while taking the Pre-Teacher Education Test and copy of this letter has been endorsed to the Co-ordinator, NCTE and to the Vice-Chancellor, JNV University, Jodhpur. Not only this but it has been stated on oath that the NCTE at the Head Quarters level also directed Vice-Chancellor, JNV University to take corrective measures with reference to PTET Test, 2004 within fortnight and also threatened, that failing which appropriate action will be taken by the NCTE, obviously against the JNV University, Jodhpur. 3. When petitioner found, despite High Courts above order, practice of allowing the Commerce Graduates to get admission to the PTET and consequential to B.Ed. Course is sought to be continued by the co-ordinator for the PTET and he is not being restrained either by the State Government or by the NCTE, petitioner submitted Contempt Petition (No. 56/2004) wherein affidavit was filed by Shri Shardindu, the Chairman, NCTE to convince this Court that action is being taken by the NCTE, therefore, grievance of petitioner will not survive. By this affidavit, which has been submitted before this Court on 26.05.2004 in contempt proceeding, the Chairman, NCTE Shri Shardindu could obtain the order of dropping the contempt proceeding against all including himself . 4. By this affidavit, which has been submitted before this Court on 26.05.2004 in contempt proceeding, the Chairman, NCTE Shri Shardindu could obtain the order of dropping the contempt proceeding against all including himself . 4. It will be worthwhile to quote the order of this Court passed in petitioners earlier writ petition; S.B. CivilWrit Petition No. 1805/2003-dated 9th May, 2003 and the order dated 27.07.2004 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 56/2004. “Order dt. 9th May, 2003 “Heard. The grievance as raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Jai Narayan Vyas University which is conducting examinations for the entrance test of teachers training is not following the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. It would be advisable, if the petitioner approaches NCTE itself , because NCTE is a statutory body having enough teeth to implement its policy. That being the position, no interference by this Court, is called for. Any representation made on behalf of the petitioner will be taken up by the NCTE and examine in right perspective. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of . (emphasis supplied) Order in Contempt Petition No. 56/2004 dt. 27th May, 2004:-“Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached the NCTE. As contemplated by the order dt. 09.05.2003 rather even according to the petitioner the NCTE is said to have issued necessary instructions to the University. The submission of the petitioner is that those instructions are not being followed by the University. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to initiate any contempt proceedings for the alleged non-compliance of the order of this Court dt. 09.05.2003, what other remedy the petitioner has, is not for me to say. The contempt proceedings are, therefore, dropped and the notices are discharged.” (Emphasis supplied)” 5. Even after such an assurance before the High Court, that too from not less than a person, Chairman of NCTE when petitioner again found the practice of allowing the Commerce Graduates to get admission to the PTET test and consequential to B.Ed. Course is sought to be continued by the co-ordinator for the PTET and he is not being restrained either by the State Government or by the NCTE, as stated above the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 6. Course is sought to be continued by the co-ordinator for the PTET and he is not being restrained either by the State Government or by the NCTE, as stated above the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 6. All the documents, namely, communication dated 111.2003, sent to 12 Universities (as per the list annexed alongwith the communication dated 24.01.2003 (Annx. R/1 in Contempt Petition No. 56/2004) directing to ensure the compliance of the norms and standards laid down by the NCTE for various teachers education programmes, the letter dated 27.02.2004 addressed to Shri B.N. Sharma, Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan and copy endorsed to Dr. Jitendra Sharma, the letter dated 19.05.2004 by the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE addressed as Urgent, to Shri B.N. Sharma, copy of which was endorsed to the petitioner and Dr. Jitendra Sharma and by letter of Member Secretary addressed to the Vice Chancellor, JNV University, Jodhpur from the apex body of the NCTE and endorsed to the Regional Director, NCTE were the documents by which it was projected that the petitioner is right in raising her objection against giving admission to the commerce graduates to the course of B.Ed. by permitting them to appear in the admission test known as Pre-Teacher Education Test (PTET). By the affidavit of the Chairman of NCTE and by these documents, this Court was made to believe that the NCTE has issued necessary instructions to not only the JNV University, Jodhpur but to several other Universities. It was projected that still the JNV University Jodhpur is not following the instructions of the NCTE but since NCTE is taking action, therefore, the contempt proceeding initiated against co-ordinator of the PTET Examination (Registrar, JNV University, Jodhpur) and the Chairman of the NCTE and against the Education Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, was dismissed and the proceedings were dropped by this Court by order dated 27.07.2004, quoted above, despite the fact that this Court on 25.03.2004 issued notice not only for initiation of the contempt proceedings but issued notice to the respondents to show-cause as to why they should not be punished for committing contempt of this Courts order. 7. 7. In the backdrop of these facts, the petitioner had no reason to believe that all what has been said by the NCTE at regional level and at their apex level, did not apply their mind to the point in controversy and they not only wrote letters to the Universities and the State Government and even went to the extent of declaring that the JNV University, Jodhpur has violated the norms and standards laid down by the NCTE and if the said University will not correct within fortnight, the action will be taken by the NCTE. In addition to above, the NCTE by letter dated 19.05.2004 requested the Secretary, Primary and Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to “inform about the Action Taken by your office so that the Honble High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur may also be informed accordingly” and by letter dated 21.05.2004, the Member Secretary of NCTE requested the Vice-Chancellor, JNV University, Jodhpur “to look into the matter and take corrective action within fortnight failing which appropriate action will be taken by the Council.” 8. This Court has no hesitation in observing that, what to say of NCTE having enough teeth to implement its policy, the NCTE neither has wisdom to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner or by Dr. Jitendra Sharma nor the NCTE had any teeth to implement its policy as believed by this Court in its order dated 09.05.2003, despite the fact that the NCTE has been constituted because of the reason that the body existing earlier prior to present NCTE, National Council for Teacher Education, was an advisory body for the Central and State Governments on all matters pertaining to teacher education, with its Secretariat in the Department of Teacher Education of the National Council of Education Research and Training (NCERT) could not perform essential regulatory functions, to ensure maintenance of standards in teacher education and preventing proliferation of substandard teacher education. Therefore, as per National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986, NCTE was constituted with statutory status and necessary resources as a first step for overhauling the system of teacher education, as given out in the website of NCTE which says:- “Introduction The National Council for Teacher Education, in its previous status since 1973, was an advisory body for the Central and State Government on all mattes pertaining to teacher education, with its Secretariat in the Department of Teacher Education of the National Council of Education Research and Training (NCERT). Despite its commendable work in the academic fields, it could not perform essential regulatory functions, to ensure maintenance of standards in teacher education and preventing proliferation of substandard teacher education (NPE), 1986 and the Programmes of Action hereunder, envisaged a National Council for Teacher Education with statutory status and necessary resources as a first step for overhauling the system of teacher education. The National Council for Teacher Education as a statutory body came into existence in pursuance of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (No. 73 of 1993) on the 17th August, 1995. And objective of NCTE is as under:-“The main objective of the NCTE is to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country. The regulation and proper maintenance of Norms and Standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. The mandate given to the NCTE is very broad and covers the whole gamut of teacher education programmes including research and training of persons for equipping them to teach at Pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools, and non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and distance (correspondence) education courses.” And whose functions are given in Section 12 of the NCTE Act, 1993 which contains (relevant portion quoted hereunder):-“Section 12. Functions of the Council.-It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated 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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(c) co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country. .(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions. .(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 the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; .(f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training: .(h) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(j) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(k) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .” .(l) Formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . .” .(l) Formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. And NCTE, which has been given power by Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 to grant recognition under the Act to all institutions offering the course or training in the teacher education with power to take action against the erring institution under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 which includes withdrawal of recognition of the institution which follows the consequences of discontinuation of the course for training in teacher education by such institution and of concerned University with further serious consequence of incurring disqualification for the students who obtained offered courses and training from de-recognised institution from getting any employment under the Central Government, State Government or University, or in any School, College or other educational body aided by the Central Government or a State. Despite all above powers with NCTE, the NCTE sought help of the State Government (by letter dated 19.05.2004) and asked the State Government to inform about the action taken by the State Government against the JNV University, Jodhpur. 10. In a matter of admission to the course concerned, the examinations are conducted every year. Thousands of students are appearing in the examination of PTET. The time is the essence for taking decision in such matters. A decision of the NCTE to allow or not to allow commerce graduates to take a course of B.Ed. affects the career of thousands of students. The effect is three folds, (i) if the commerce graduates are eligible to have the B.Ed. course, they cannot be denied and (ii) if they are not eligible and they are permitted to take course of B.Ed., they deprives eligible candidates from the admission and these commerce graduates may not be eligible for any employment. 11. As observed above, when the NCTE who laid down the norms and standards for teacher education course, took strong and positive view in favour of the petitioner and by same norms commerce graduates are not allowed to take B.Ed. 11. As observed above, when the NCTE who laid down the norms and standards for teacher education course, took strong and positive view in favour of the petitioner and by same norms commerce graduates are not allowed to take B.Ed. courses in other states but the Co-ordinator of the PTET Test in Rajasthan, interpreting the same norms and standards, allowed the commerce graduates to appear in the PTE Test again for the year, 2004, the petitioner left with no alternative except to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 12. NCTE after supporting petitioner on all earlier occasions claimed that NCTE itself took the petitioners case, has started action against the educational institution like JNV University. Further more, NCTE fully supported petitioners contentions in reply to the writ petition as late as on 06.07.2004 and relied upon all communications referred above and submitted copies of the above referred communications. The NCTE submitted in para 9 of the reply that:- “It is abundantly clear that the answering respondent is taking up the matter with regard to implementation of norms and standards prescribed with the Government of Rajasthan as well as JNV University, Jodhpur. The answering respondent has already taken appropriate action for implementation of the directions given by this Honble Court under order dated 09.05.2003. In view of it, the answering respondent submits that to satisfy the claims made by the petitioner, appropriate action is required to be taken by the State Government or by the Co-ordinator, PTET and the Registrar, JNV University, Jodhpur.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The NCTE, therefore, did not pray that the writ petition of the petitioner be dismissed but prayed that the writ petition may be disposed of . (It will be worthwhile to mention here that in place of “disposed of” earlier word was typed “allowed”). The NCTE, therefore, did not pray that the writ petition of the petitioner be dismissed but prayed that the writ petition may be disposed of . (It will be worthwhile to mention here that in place of “disposed of” earlier word was typed “allowed”). Not only in entire reply stand of the NCTE was clear and unambiguously in favour of the petitioner but plea of the NCTE was that “appropriate action is required to be taken by the State Government or by the Co-ordinator, PTET and the Registrar, JNV University, Jodhpur.” Meaning thereby NCTE has no knowledge about there own powers given by Section 17 of NCTE Act, 1993, therefore, persons appointed in NCTE for overhauling the system of teacher education were depending upon action of the State Government, University, and co-ordinator, the alleged erring parties despite the fact that by one violation in such matter affects the career of hundreds of students whereas in Rajasthan norms of NCTE were not followed for years (as per NCTEs own view upto that point of time). The State and co-ordinator, PTET submitted that they are not subscribing to the views of the NCTE. Even when the Co-ordinator PTET and the University failed to correct themselves, as directed by the NCTE, the NCTE neither took any action against them nor has explained any reason for not taking action. The action could have been taken before process of admission to PTET starts. But the NCTE was not concerned. He is the petitioner who came forward to fight for the stand of the NCTE, as after the stand as shown by the NCTE, the issue which was raised by the petitioner was accepted by the NCTE and in fact NCTE wanted to enforce its norms in a manner by which the commerce graduates could not have been admitted to PTET . The NCTE successfully took advantage of petitioners filling writ petition and persuaded this Court to pass order for ensuring denial of admission to the commerce graduates to the PTET and B.Ed. courses in Rajasthan. 14. It will be worthwhile to mention here that at present the Court is considering the position as it was till the date of filing of the reply by the NCTE before this Court in this writ petition because subsequently the NCTE changed its opinion. courses in Rajasthan. 14. It will be worthwhile to mention here that at present the Court is considering the position as it was till the date of filing of the reply by the NCTE before this Court in this writ petition because subsequently the NCTE changed its opinion. The Court will consider the manner and stage at which the NCTE changed its opinion about the fate of the commerce graduates because the manner in which the NCTE changed its opinion casts serious doubt over the persons dealing and are responsible with the functioning of such a high body having responsibility of improving the standard of education that too of teachers education and further more for entire India. 15. The Co-ordinator for the PTET had limited role and has nothing to do with the policy decision. He has to implement the decision taken by the NCTE or within the permissible limit as per the directions of the State Government and of the University without violating the standards/norms and directions of the NCTE. But since Co-ordinator, PTET, was necessary party and had right to take some decision with respect to allowing the candidates to take the PTET Test, therefore, the Coordinator was implemented as party in the writ petition. The Co-ordinator, PTET Examination (respondent No. 2) submitted reply to the writ petition on 06.05.2003, and submitted that he is rightly allowing the commerce graduates in Pre-Teacher Education Test. It will be worthwhile to mention here, the co-ordinator PTET in this reply submitted on dated 06.05.2004 did not disclose whether he ever brought to the notice of the NCTE or to the University that he is allowing the commerce graduates in PTET test in-spite of the contrary opinion of the NCTE. The co-ordinator did not dispute the receipt of the letter issued to him by the State Government dated 16.06.2003, representation submitted by the petitioner and Dr. Jitendra Sharma and letter dated 27.02.2004 from Northern Regional Committee. NCTE indicating the clear view of the NCTE that norms are not being followed in Pre-Teacher Education Test. From reply it appears that the co-ordinator had his own view for this controversy and that was not in consonance with the view of the NCTE, the view which was of the NCTE till that time. NCTE indicating the clear view of the NCTE that norms are not being followed in Pre-Teacher Education Test. From reply it appears that the co-ordinator had his own view for this controversy and that was not in consonance with the view of the NCTE, the view which was of the NCTE till that time. It is also not the case of the co-ordinator PTET that even after knowing the stand of the NCTE, he had right to follow his own view and to ignore the view of the NCTE. Strange is that Co-ordinator, PTET took a plea in para 2 of his reply:- “That the Apex Court by rendering various decisions, in such matters has held that the discretion and decision exercised by the higher educational bodies like NCTE Syndicate or Senate are not to be interfered with by the Courts as their decisions have been held by the Supreme Court is in accordance with the expertise adhered to them.” 16. It appears the Co-ordinator, PTET is under impression that Courts cannot interfere in decisions of NCTE but he, Co-ordinator, can take and implement his decision against the direction of the NCTE and, therefore, he rightly ignored the directions issued by the NCTE to Co-ordinator, PTET. (At the cost of repetition it is made clear that NCTEs stand till that relevant time was that Co-ordinator, PTET is not following the norms of NCTE.) 17. The Co-ordinator, PTET even did not submit in the reply that he ever consulted issue with any of the persons of the NCTE or took an opinion of the University or from the State. The reply is independent and not based upon any factual information received from the University or the State or the NCTE nor has been filed after taking approval of the NCTE that despite direction of the NCTE by various letters, copies of which were endorsed to the Co-ordinator, PTET he will proceed to give admission to the commerce graduates in the Pre-teacher Education Test. Not only this, Co-ordinator, PTETs own view was that issue could have been decided by the NCTE only, therefore, he directed the petitioner to contact NCTE, New Delhi vide his letter dated 02.06.2003 and he informed this fact to the State vide his letter dated 09.07.2003 (Annex. R/2). 18. Not only this, Co-ordinator, PTETs own view was that issue could have been decided by the NCTE only, therefore, he directed the petitioner to contact NCTE, New Delhi vide his letter dated 02.06.2003 and he informed this fact to the State vide his letter dated 09.07.2003 (Annex. R/2). 18. Be it as it may be, the Co-ordinator PTET may had his opinion and that opinion may ultimately found to be correct even then he had no power to disobey the instruction of the NCTE. He had no power to decide whether the NCTE was right or wrong. He at the most could have submitted his view to the NCTE or to the University or to the State in proper manner which could have been considered by the NCTE. Even an erroneous view of NCTE was binding upon the Co-ordinator PTET. So far as view of the Co-ordinator, PTET on issue whether the commerce graduates are eligible for B.Ed. Course and for admission to PTET are concerned, are absolutely irrelevant as he has no power or authority to decide the issue which is absolutely within domain of NCTE and that authority of the NCTE has not been challenged, and rightly has not been challenged by all the respondents, the State Government and the JNV University as well as by the Co-ordinator himself . 19. The petitioner, a student after filing Writ Petition No. 1805/2005 and Contempt Petition No. 56/2004 and finding support from the NCTE submitted one after another application for early hearing of the writ petition because time was going from the hands of the petitioner despite the fact of “no dispute” so far as claim of the petitioner is concerned. On 25.02.2005, the Court considered the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief and passed a detailed order. Some of the relevant portion of the order is as under:- “Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of NCTE, at this stage, sought time to get instructions from NCTE as this Court asked learned Counsel to explain, apart from making request and pleading the case of the petitioner before the State and JNV University, what has been done by NCTE in the matter when NCTE came to know that in State of Rajasthan, commerce graduates are being misled to opt for B.Ed. Course under assumption that they will be eligible for teaching the subjects upto the secondary level despite NCTE had full knowledge that even after obtaining B.Ed. Degrees by the Commerce graduates, as per NCTE guidelines, the students cannot have either Government employment nor can be appointed in any of the education institution in the entire country as no commerce subject is taught anywhere upto secondary education level. Whether NCTE is aware that they have been given such a vast power of recognition and de-recognition of the degrees and they failed to take appropriate action in time and by that, they might have ruined the career of large number of commerce graduates. Whether the NCTE is aware that because of their inaction, in place of eligible students, ineligible students are being given admission to B.Ed. courses. Time is granted to NCTE, State Government and administration of JNV University to explain their conduct in this entire matter so that this Court may find out who has control over the matter of imparting education in the State of Rajasthan and whether the authorities who have been given power to take decision, failed to take decision in time despite the fact that the matter was and is of great importance and could have been decided and should have been decided by the concerned authorities within a reasonable period normally before any course starts. This Court is constrained to observe that the Courts are flooded with litigation only because of incompetent persons sitting and holding the post having no capacity and ability to take decision what to say in time. It appe