Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 664 (MP)

Ramsewak Puri Goswami v. State of M. P.

2011-06-23

S.K.GANGELE, SHEEL NAGU

body2011
ORDER Nagu, J. -- 1. The petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs : "(1) That the respondents authorities may kindly be directed to consider application form of petitioners and to grant admission in Diploma in Education (D. Ed.) Correspondence Course (Two Years Course) First Year 2011. (2) That, any other suitable orders may kindly be passed in the interest of justice. Costs may kindly be awarded." 2. The aforesaid reliefs are being sought primarily on the ground that the petitioners have been wrongly denied admission to D.Ed. Correspondence Course (First Year 2011) at the District Education Training Institute (DIET) Morena, District Morena as the Schools, from which they have gained experience as teachers, have not forwarded a list of teachers who are receiving salary through Bank/by way of Cheque and, therefore, the experience gained by them in the respective non-Government Schools cannot be recognized in view of the letter of the Collector, Morena dated 11.11.2010/28.10.2010, by which the Collector had restrained the respondent No.3 from making admission in the D.Ed. Course to only those teachers who have gained experience in the non-Government Educational Institutions which release salary to their teachers by way of Cheque/through Bank. 3. The petitioners contend that no such embargo can be placed by the Collector upon the eligibility criteria prescribed by the instructions, which renders all those teachers eligible for admission to the said course who have gained experience in the Government/Non-Government Schools for a minimum period of two years and have submitted an experience certificate in this respect. The petitioner further contends that these rules/instructions do not further provide that the experience gained should be in such schools which make the payment by way of Cheque/through Bank. In this respect, the petitioners contend that the direction of the Collector dated 11.11.2010/28.10.2010 is arbitrary and unjustified for eligible candidature of the petitioners who have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 4. Respondent No.3 in its return dated 13.4.2011 has relied upon restrictions imposed by the Collector in his letter dated 28.10.2010 by assigning the reason that the said restriction is being applied to ensure elimination of frivolous individuals from getting admission in the said course at the cost of genuine and authentic individuals. 5. 4. Respondent No.3 in its return dated 13.4.2011 has relied upon restrictions imposed by the Collector in his letter dated 28.10.2010 by assigning the reason that the said restriction is being applied to ensure elimination of frivolous individuals from getting admission in the said course at the cost of genuine and authentic individuals. 5. Respondent No.2 Board of Secondary Education has merely tom line of the respondent No.3 and has not supported the claim of the petitioners. 6. During the course of the arguments the counsel for the State representing respondents No.1 and 3 has stated that the list of teachers indicating the names of the petitioners from their respective Schools, where they had gained teaching experience, was received but after the last date of admission i.e., 30.11.2010 prescribed for the said post. 7. The dispute in this case relates to admission to the two years' course in Diploma in Education, which has been commenced by the State in furtherance of the mandate provided in Article 21- A read with Article-41 of the Constitution of India, which make it incumbent upon the State to ensure compulsory education to all children from the age of 6-14 years. The need to commence the said two years Diploma Course in Education arose out of the deficiency of trained teachers, thereby impelling State to start the said course so as to impart better education to the children. In furtherance of the aforesaid pious and solemn intention backed by the mandate of the Constitution, the State has commenced the said two years course of Diploma in Education with its first year in 2010-11, for which the last date for submission of forms was prescribed as 30th October, 2010. 8. The instruction issued prescribing inter alia the conditions for admission into the said Course for the year 2010-11, was the submission of a certificate certifying that the candidate possesses teaching experience as a whole time teacher of two years from any Government/Non -Government Schools. 9. The petitioners contend that they possess all the requisite qualifications including the two years experience certificate. 10. 9. The petitioners contend that they possess all the requisite qualifications including the two years experience certificate. 10. The further contention of the petitioners is that the Collector Morena on 28th October, 2010 (a few days before the last date of closing of admission, i.e., 30.11.2010) issued a letter to the effect that for the purpose of admission to the said Course only such experience certificates would be accepted which relate to Government/Non-Government School which are paying their teacher salary by way of Cheque/through Bank and pursuant to the said letter of the Collector, the Principal, District Education Training Institute (DIET), Morena issued a letter dated 17.2.2011 responding to the legal notice dated 10.2.2011 sent by the counsel for the petitioners that the Audit Report of the District Education Officer, Sheopur has been received in the office of respondent No.3 on 10.12.2010, which is subsequent to 30.11.2010, which is the last date for depositing of fee by the candidates for the said course. 11. The respondents while controverting the contentions of the petitioners in their return have submitted that the object of issuance of the letter dated 28.10.2010 by the Collector was to ensure that only genuine and authentic individuals with actual teaching experience in private institutions, are admitted to the said course. 12. Respondents in their return have not explained as to why and in what circumstances, the Collector issued the letter dated 28.10.2010 a few days prior to the last date of admission to the said Course. It is an uncontroverted fact that the last date for admission was extended to 30.11.2010 possibly to ensure compliance of the letter of the Collector dated 28.10.2010. 13. The respondents neither in the return nor during their arguments submitted that the petitioner do not possess the teaching experience of two years which is one of the eligibility criteria for admission to the said Course. Thus, the factum of the petitioners possessing teaching experience is not denied by the respondents and, therefore, is impliedly admitted. 14. This Court is of the considered view that the precious right of the petitioners for obtaining admission into the said course, which has been commenced by the State in furtherance of the constitutional mandate of providing compulsory education to all children of the age of 6-14 years, cannot be denied by way of the executive order of the Collector dated 28.10.2010. 15. 15. The petitioners, though have not challenged the letter dated 28.10.2010 of the Collector or the letter dated 17.2.2011 of the respondent No.3 and have only sought a direction for grant of admission into the said course, this Court without going into the legality and valildity of the said direction of the Collector dated 28.10.2010, holds that the instructions contained in the letter of the Collector dated 28.10.2010, cannot be given effect to retrospectively for taking away the right of the petitioners which have accrued on account of having applied for admission to the said Course on the basis of their eligible candidature. 16. Resultantly the petitioners are directed to be admitted to the two years' Course of Diploma in Education under the respondent No.3 subject to being otherwise eligible. 17. Since the two years' Course of Diploma in Education must have commenced and the petitioners, if admitted, would face disadvantage of shortage of attendance, it is hereby directed that the petitioners be permitted to take extra classes under the respondent No.3 so as to make up for the lost time consumed in pursuing this litigation and should not be debarred from appearing in any examination conducted during the said course only due to shortage of attendance. 18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above, without any order as to costs.