Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 181 (GAU)

Pranita Sarma v. State Of Assam

2021-02-25

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2021
JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the NCTE, Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Science in the Gitanagar High School, Guwahati in the year 1995 and the school was provincialised in the year 1991. The petitioner passed out her M.A. examination in English in the year 2011 from Gauhati University and also obtained B.Ed degree from the Gauhati University in the year 1996. The petitioner had undertaken her B.Ed course from the institute namely Dakhin Guwahati B.Ed college. The petitioner is aggrieved by a communication dated 27.07.2020 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Secondary Education Department addressed to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by which it was provided that as per the view of the Judicial Department, the B.Ed degree of the petitioner has no validity. 3. The respondents in the Secondary Education Department seek to justify such view taken on the ground that the institute Dakhin Guwahati B.Ed college from which the petitioner had obtained her B.Ed degree did not have a due recognition by the NCTE as they had not made an application for recognition within the specified time period. 4. To assail such view, Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 14(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ( in short Act of 1993), wherein, it is provided that every institute offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed date may make a representation for recognition under the Act to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and such manner as may be determined by the regulations. The proviso to Section 14(1) provides that the institute offering a course or training of teacher education immediately before the appointed date shall be entitled to continue with such course or training for a period of six months if it had made an application for recognition within the period of six months. Proviso 14(1) of the Act of 1993 is extracted as under:- "14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education. Proviso 14(1) of the Act of 1993 is extracted as under:- "14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education. (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee." 5. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel refers to the definition of appointed date as appearing in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1993 which provides it to be the date of establishment of the National Council for Teacher Education. It is stated that the National Council for Teacher Education was established on 10.07.1995. Accordingly, the period of 6 months provided in the proviso to Section 14(1) would now have to be read that such applications for recognition are to be submitted on or before 10.01.1996. 6. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel further refers to the communication dated 29.07.1997 of the National Council for Teacher Education, wherein, it has been provided that the respective colleges imparting teacher education may submit their applications for recognition before 18.08.1997. Accordingly, the period of 6 months provided in the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act of 1993 stood extended up to 18.08.1997. 7. The respondents in the Secondary Education Department in paragraph-8 of their affidavit in opposition had taken a stand that Dakhin Guwahati B.Ed college had not applied for recognition of their institute within 18.08.1997 and was granted recognition only from the year 2005-06 and therefore, the B.Ed degree of the petitioner would not be considered to be a valid degree. To counter the said stand of the respondents in the Secondary Education Department, the petitioner refers to an affidavit of the NCTE wherein, in paragraph-4 it has been stated that the institute Dakhin Guwahati B.Ed college had submitted their application for recognition within the extended period of 18.08.1997. To counter the said stand of the respondents in the Secondary Education Department, the petitioner refers to an affidavit of the NCTE wherein, in paragraph-4 it has been stated that the institute Dakhin Guwahati B.Ed college had submitted their application for recognition within the extended period of 18.08.1997. Accordingly, it is an admitted position of the NCTE that the institute Dakhin Guwahati B.Ed College had submitted their application for recognition within the time stipulated in Section 14(1) of the Act of 1993 and pursuant to such application they have subsequently been offered the recognition also. As the Dakhin Guwahati B.Ed College had submitted their application within the time provided in Section 14(1) of the Act of 1993 and the proviso thereof provides that all such institutions who submit their application for recognition within the stipulated time period shall continue with the respective courses, we are of the view that the B.Ed degree obtained by the petitioner in the year 1995-96 have to be construed to be a valid degree. 8. In this respect reference is also made to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs- Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 203 wherein in paragraph-29 it has been held as under:- "29. Section 14(5) read with Section 14(1) enables the institution offering a course or training in teacher education on the appointed day to continue the course or training as the case may be during the pendency of the application seeking recognition and even in case of refusal of recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only at the end of academic session. The institution offering training or course is entitled to award degree or certificate as the case may be. 9. We have taken note of that even the Supreme Court had taken the same view in a similar situation and from such aspect, the view taken would have to be construed to be a prevailing law. 10. In view of such conclusion arrived at, the impugned communication dated 27.07.2020 in respect of the petitioner stands set aside. 11. The petitioner be given all the consequential benefits that she may be entitled for having a valid B.Ed degree. The requirement be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 12. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.