JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—This bunch of writ petitions has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, U.P. Nishatganj, Lucknow as well as Principal of District Institute of Education and Training of various districts of State of Uttar Pradesh to not to reject the application made by the petitioners for admission to Special BTC Training Course, 2007 only on the ground that they had obtained a Degree of B.Ed. from an institution/University situate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. 2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition in short are as follows : On 14.11.2008 the State Government after obtaining permission from National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) decided to admit students to Special BTC Training Course of the year 2007. Accordingly an advertisement has been published. Besides other one of the essential conditions provided for being considered for admission to aforesaid Special BTC Course is that the candidate must have a Degree of B.Ed. From a Degree College established by the State Government/Central Government/a recognized affiliated Degree College, duly approved by the NCTE for the B.Ed. Course. Since the issue raised in the present writ petitions is confined to the aforesaid condition only, all other conditions mentioned in the Government Order are not being referred to. 3. The petitioners before this Court claim that they have obtained a Degree of B.Ed. from an educational institute/University situate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. According to the petitioners as per Section 1 (2) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the area of operation of the aforesaid Act is the entire country of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It is contended that the eligibility clause under the Government Order which requires a candidate to be possessed of a Degree of B.Ed. from institute/University duly approved by NCTE (for grant of such Degree/Certificate) cannot be applied qua the candidates like the petitioners who have obtained the B.Ed. Degree from an institution within the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Therefore, it is prayed that the applications made by the petitioner be directed to be entertained by the State respondents as petitioners have a Degree of B.Ed. from a University duly established. 4. On behalf of the writ petitioners a large number of interim orders which have been granted in similar matters have been referred to. 5. Therefore, it is prayed that the applications made by the petitioner be directed to be entertained by the State respondents as petitioners have a Degree of B.Ed. from a University duly established. 4. On behalf of the writ petitioners a large number of interim orders which have been granted in similar matters have been referred to. 5. The contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioners is opposed by the Standing Counsel and it is submitted that the State Government has the competence to lay down the norms and conditions for admission to Special BTC Training Course 2007 inasmuch as the purpose of such Special BTC Training Course is to train the candidates for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Parishadiya Vidyalayas, appointment whereof is regulated by the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981. He submits that the State Government in its wisdom had decided to permit admission to Special BTC Course to only those candidates who have a Degree of B.Ed. from duly established Degree Colleges which have been approved for B.Ed. Course by the NCTE. It is clarified that NCTE Act, 1993 has been promulgated by the Parliament for regulating the standards of teachers training for appointment from the stage of Nursery schools to the stage of Secondary Education throughout the country. If the State Government insists that a candidate for admission to BTC Special Course must have obtained his B.Ed. Degree from NCTE Recognized College, it cannot be said that such condition is arbitrary. It is clarified that the State is presumed to know that the NCTE Act is not applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir and, therefore, it has conscientiously decided to exclude the candidates like the petitioners who have a Degree from institutions which cannot be granted recognition by NCTE. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 7. The State legislature by means of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 has constituted U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad which in turn has established Parishadiya Vidyalayas throughout the State of U.P. for imparting education from classes Nursery to Class VIII. The institutions have been categorized as Nursery Schools, Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools (hereinafter referred to as Basic Schools). 7. The State legislature by means of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 has constituted U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad which in turn has established Parishadiya Vidyalayas throughout the State of U.P. for imparting education from classes Nursery to Class VIII. The institutions have been categorized as Nursery Schools, Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools (hereinafter referred to as Basic Schools). For appointment of teachers in these Basic Schools a set of statutory Rules have been framed namely U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1981) in exercise of power under Section 9 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1981 lays down the essential qualification for appointment of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Basic Schools. According to it a candidate has to be possessed of Bachelor’s Degree from a University established by law in India together with Teachers Training qualification namely a Basic Teacher’s Certificate, HTC etc. or any other training qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. Thousands of post of Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools are vacant due to non-availability of candidates having Basic Teacher’s Training Certificate (BTC), HTC etc. 8. The Basic Training Course is offered by District Institute of Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as the DIET) established by the State in different districts. However, the intake of the students for imparting training in respective DIET’s is limited. The number of candidates who have regular Basic Teachers Training is too meager to cope with the requirement of Assistant Teachers in Basic School. To meet the requirements of Assistant Teacher in basic schools, the State formulated a scheme for imparting Special Basic Training to the candidates, who are already B.Ed., knows as Special Basic Training Course. The case in hand relates to Special Basic Training Course 2007. 9. The Parliament has enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993) with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development for teacher’s education for the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher’s education and for matter connected therewith. 9. The Parliament has enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993) with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development for teacher’s education for the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher’s education and for matter connected therewith. Prior to enforcement of the Act of 1993, the National Council for Teacher Education was in existence since 1973 to guide the system of teacher education as an advisory body till it was declared as an statutory body with the functions and object entrusted to it under the Act of 1993. The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 has been enforced w.e.f. 1st July, 1995 by virtue of notification issued by the Central Government under Section 1 (3) of the 1993 Act. The Act of 1993 has been enacted by Parliament in exercise of power under Entry 66 of the Union List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. 10. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shiksha Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others, (2006) 9 SCC 1 had the occasion to consider the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 in context of power of the State regarding recognition of educational institution to start B.Ed. course. The Apex Court in paragraph 62 and 63 has held as follows : "62. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law appears to be very well settled. So far as coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical institutions are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament. It is only when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there is a concurrent power of Parliament as well as the State Legislatures and appropriate Act can be made by the State Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution. 63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. 63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated 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. With a view to achieving that object, the National Council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to the State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or no policy consideration." 11. The permission to run the Special Basic Training Course 2007 has been granted by the Regional Committee under Section 15 of the Act of 1993. It is useful to quote the relevant portion of order of the Regional Committee granting permission to run Special Basic Training Course vide its order dated 27th June, 2007, which reads as follows : "Whereas, NRC in its 118th (1st sitting) meeting held on 16th-18th June, 2007 after thorough discussion and observation related documents, noted the following : As per proposal submitted by the Government, it has been informed that admission will be granted in this special programme of six months duration only to those candidates who are already B.Ed. The NRC appreciated the proposal of U.P. Government decided to grant approval to conduct the special BTC programme bridge course as proposed by the State. It will be only one approval. Teachers are to be trained only in DIETs recognizes NRC-NCTE. The committee also observed that as this programme will be conducted only in recognised DIETs, so there is not for any inspection. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested Section 15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, the Regional Commissioner hereby grants one time approval for training 60,000 candidates primary teachers who are already B.Ed. The committee also observed that as this programme will be conducted only in recognised DIETs, so there is not for any inspection. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested Section 15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, the Regional Commissioner hereby grants one time approval for training 60,000 candidates primary teachers who are already B.Ed. subject to the fulfil of the following : (a) The teachers are to be trained only in the list of recognised by NRC-NCTE. (b) The SCERT to submit the date of commence of the course along with the list of the recognized where the proposal training is to be conducted. (c) The quarterly progress report of the programme to be submitted to NRC-NCTE. (d) The curriculum as finalized in the meeting between NCTE and the State Government of U.P. followed for the programme." 12. From the above quoted order of the NCTE, it is clear that NCTE granted permission to run the Special Basic Training Course for the candidates, who are already B.Ed. 13. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others v. State of U.P. and others, (Special Appeal No. 858 of 2008) had examined the following three issues : (I) Whether after the enforcement of 1993 Act the candidates who obtained B.Ed. degree from an institution or a University during the period when the application of the Institution or University for grant of recognition was pending are eligible for Special B.T.C. Course-2007 as held by Division Bench judgment in Ekta Shukla’s case? Whether the candidates who have obtained degree from an institution or University recognised by NCTE are only eligible for Special B.T.C. Course 2007 as held by Division Bench judgment in Sanjai Kumar and Sunita Upadhyay’s case? Or (II) Whether recognition, as referred to in the proviso to Section 14(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act 1993 can be treated to be deemed recognition under the 1993 Act of an institution or a University for the period application were pending? (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 ? 14. 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 ? 14. 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. 15. The aforesaid observation of the Full Bench in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi 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 : "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 Shuklas case (supra)." 16. 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." 17. 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." 18. The above two categories of candidates are also eligible to participate in Special Basic Training Course 2007." 18. 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 recognition to the NCTE after coming into force of NCTE Act but their recognition applications had not been finally decided. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 of NCTE Act of 1993. The only difference being that the institutions in the State of Jammu & Kashmir cannot make such applications as the Act of 1993 had no territorial application in that State. 22. 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. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 with the terms and conditions laid down in the Government Order issued under the permission granted by the NCTE. ————