Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1197 (GAU)

Asish Das v. State of Assam

2018-08-14

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Mr. K. Nayak, learned counsel for the State Selection Board, Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the respondent NCTE and Mr. S.C. Keyal, counsel for the Assam University. 2. The petitioner having the qualification of M.A and B.Ed with 17 years teaching experience as a graduate teacher was appointed as the Principal of Public High School on 02.05.2017 on a regular basis. The appointment of the petitioner has been assailed by the respondent No.7 in a separate writ petition being WP(C) No.2785/2017. 3. In the circumstance, the petitioner deemed it appropriate to prefer the present writ petition assailing the B.Ed degree of the respondent No.7 to the effect that in the event the B.Ed degree of the respondent No.7 can be declared to be invalid, the petitioner would gain some advantage in the other writ petition. The ground for assailing the B.Ed degree of the respondent No.7 is that respondent No.7 had obtained the degree by undergoing the course in an institute called Vivekananda College of Education, Karimganj. 4. According to the petitioner, in the year 2000 when the said degree was obtained, the institute Vivekananda College of Education, Karimganj was not recognized by the NCTE. According to the petitioner when the institute itself was not recognized by NCTE, any course undertaken in the institute which results in B.Ed degree, would not be valid. To that extent, the petitioner enclosed an order dated 13.03.2001 of the NCTE, Eastern Region Committee (ERC) which shows that the institute Vivekananda College of Education was granted permission for a period of one year from the academic session 2001-2002. Therefore, according to the petitioner in the year 2000, when the B.Ed degree was obtained by the respondent No.7, the said institute did not have the permission from the NCTE. 5. The respondent No.7 on the other hand has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein, an order dated 24.11.1998 is enclosed which shows that NCTE (ERC) had accorded one year provisional recognition to the institute Vivekananda College of Education with intake of 60 students for the session 1999-2000. 5. The respondent No.7 on the other hand has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein, an order dated 24.11.1998 is enclosed which shows that NCTE (ERC) had accorded one year provisional recognition to the institute Vivekananda College of Education with intake of 60 students for the session 1999-2000. Accordingly, it the stand of the respondent No.7 that the concerned institute was duly recognized and permission granted inasmuch as, there was a provisional permission for the relevant period of time. 6. Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the NCTE does not dispute the order dated 24.11.1998, by which provisional permission was granted to the institute. When a provisional recognition/permission is granted, this Court is of the view that the said permission/recognition is a valid permission for all purpose, unless it is withdrawn or cancelled by the authorities issuing it. In the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that the said permission was withdrawn or cancelled and on the other hand, subsequent materials indicate that the regular permission was granted after the removal of all deficiencies indicated in the provisional recognition. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the petitioner that the B.Ed degree of the respondent No.7 is not valid inasmuch as, at the relevant point of time, the institute from which the course was undertaken did not have the recognition/permission of the NCTE, is found to be unacceptable. Accordingly, the petition is found to be devoid of any merit the same stands dismissed.