Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1027 (JHR)

MBNS Institute of Education v. State of Jharkhand

2022-08-17

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of direction upon the respondent-authorities to take admission of the students, who applied online on the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “JCECEB”) Portal in the B.Ed courses for the batch/session 2021-2023 and also those students who have passed their qualifying exams i.e., Bachelor’s Degree in the applicable subjects after 27.09.2021 till 17.05.2022 in terms with its sanctioned intake as mandated by National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), as also to enable the students who otherwise being eligible for getting admitted in the B.Ed courses could not upload their graduation result within the time stipulated in pursuance of advertisement notice dated 03.09.2020 issued by the respondent no. 5 – JCECEB. The petitioner-college has further prayed for allowing it to fill up the seats in B.Ed course which remained vacant after conclusion of the counseling conducted in pursuance of Combined Entrance Examination conducted by JCECEB. 2. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, while referring to order/judgment dated 04.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2392 of 2022 (Rajeev Gandhi Memorial Teachers’ Training College, Digwadih, Dhanbad & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), submits that the said writ petition involving similar issue has already been dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order/judgment dated 04.08.2022 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners seek direction of this Court to allow them to take admission of all those students who got registered with JCECEB in the B.Ed course for Session 2021-23 and have passed their qualifying examination after 27.09.2021 till 17.05.2022. 9. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sessions of many colleges were late owing to Covid-19 pandemic due to which the appearing batch students who got registered in B.Ed courses for Session 2021-23 could not pass their qualifying examination (Bachelor degree course) within time. Claim of the petitioners is that seats for Session 2021-23 are lying vacant and if the appearing batch students are allowed to be admitted in B.Ed course, they would arrange extra classes for them. 10. Claim of the petitioners is that seats for Session 2021-23 are lying vacant and if the appearing batch students are allowed to be admitted in B.Ed course, they would arrange extra classes for them. 10. Per contra, according to learned AAG-II and learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, it was explicitly stipulated in the advertisement itself that the appearing batch students would upload their final marks/result of qualifying examination (Bachelor degree course) till 27.09.2021, failing which their names would not be included in the final merit list. In view of the clear stipulation in the advertisement, the petitioners’ prayer made in the writ petition is not worth consideration. 11. Before coming to the merit of rival contentions of the parties, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “College of Professional Education” (supra), wherein the schedule for taking admission in the B.Ed course for the academic Session 2012-2013 and subsequent years has been fixed, which is reproduced as under: 1. Publication of advertisement 1-2-2011 2. Sale of application forms and their submission 10-2-2012 to 10-3-2012 3. Date of entrance examination 20-4-2012 to 25-4-2012 4. Declaration of result 25-05-2012 to 30-5-2012 5. Commencement and completion of counselling 1-6-2012 to 25-6-2012 6. Last date of admissions after counselling 28-6-2012 7. Commencement of academic session 1-7-2012 12. The schedule provided in “College of Professional Education” (supra) for taking admission in B.Ed courses was again considered and adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya” (supra) further observing as under: 81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in the light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the schedule. Once the relevant schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge-made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed schedule. Adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all authorities concerned act within the stipulated time. Adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all authorities concerned act within the stipulated time. Where, on the one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act according to the schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different quarters. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be held, when results would be declared and when they are expected to take admission to different colleges in order of merit obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and college preference. 82. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, university, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can breach the schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court. In Parshavanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education [ (2013) 3 SCC 385 ], decided on the same date, this Court held as under: (SCC para 26) “26. … Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Rajan Purohit v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences [ (2012) 10 SCC 770 ] at this stage, in addition to Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ].” 83. Undoubtedly, adherence to the schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects. Reference in this regard can be made to Rajan Purohit v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences [ (2012) 10 SCC 770 ] at this stage, in addition to Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ].” 83. Undoubtedly, adherence to the schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit. 84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the schedule stated by this Court in College of Professional Education [ (2013) 2 SCC 721 ] in relation to admission as well as recognition and affiliation. This obviously includes the commencement of the courses in time. However, in order to avoid the possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state the schedule for recognition and affiliation in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 and the judgment of this Court in College of Professional Education [ (2013) 2 SCC 721 ]. 87.4. We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/Committee shall be entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason whatsoever. Any non-compliance shall amount to violating the orders of the Court. 13. Thus, for taking admission in the B.Ed College/Teacher Training College, the time schedule fixed in the above cases was required to be strictly followed, any deviation from which was not permissible. 14. In the case in hand, the Common Admission Competitive Examination – 2021 for admission in the Session 2021-23 was not conducted within the time frame as laid down in “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya” (supra) due to Covid-19 pandemic and thereafter it was decided by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand that the admission for Session 2021-23 would be taken on the basis of marks obtained in Bachelor Degree Examination with qualifying marks in the applicable subject. It was further decided that the appearing students would also be entitled to fill up the form, however, they would have to upload their marksheet of Bachelor degree at the time of preparation of merit list. Thereafter, the advertisement for admission in Session 2021-23 was published and online applications were invited from the eligible candidates. It was further decided that the appearing students would also be entitled to fill up the form, however, they would have to upload their marksheet of Bachelor degree at the time of preparation of merit list. Thereafter, the advertisement for admission in Session 2021-23 was published and online applications were invited from the eligible candidates. It was specifically mentioned in the said advisement under column-4 that the appearing batch students of graduation course should upload their marksheet till 27.09.2021, failing which they would not be included in the merit list. The admission for Session 2021-23 was taken till 17.05.2022, however, I am not going into the justification of the said decision of the respondent-authorities in relaxing the time schedule since the same is not in question before this Court. 15. Contention of the petitioners is that since the seats are still vacant, they may be allowed to take admission of appearing batch students of final semester/year of Bachelor degree who had registered for Session 2021-23, but their results could not be published within the stipulated time i.e., 27.09.2021. I am of the view that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “College of Professional Education” (supra) has fixed the timeline for taking admission in B.Ed colleges and the same was subsequently adopted in “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya” (supra) with a further direction that the said timeline has to be strictly followed while taking admission in B.Ed colleges, the petitioners’ prayer made in the writ petition cannot be acceded to. Moreover, the advertisement itself was in an unambiguous language mentioning that the appearing batch students could also apply online, however, subject to uploading of their final marks/result of qualifying examination till 27.09.2021, failing which their names would not be included in the final merit list. Thus, the appearing batch candidates can have no legitimate expectation to claim for admission in B.Ed courses in Session 2021-23 as undisputedly, they have failed to upload their result within the said stipulated time. Curiously enough, none of the aggrieved students has come forward to claim their right of admission pursuant to registration in B.Ed courses for Session 2021-23, rather the petitioners who are B.Ed/Teacher Training colleges have approached this Court purportedly espousing the cause of students which cannot be entertained since the present writ petition has not been filed in the form of PIL. 16. 16. One of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the petitioners are compelled to run their colleges with vacant seats, they will suffer financial loss. I do not find any substance in the said argument since the timeline fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “College of Professional Education” (supra) subsequently adopted in the case of “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya” (supra) cannot be deviated from on mere ground of financial losses to be suffered by B.Ed/Teacher Training Colleges. In the case of “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya” (supra), Their Lordships have held that adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. Moreover, the State has already deviated once from the aforesaid schedule fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court owing to Covid-19 pandemic. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to entertain the petitioners’ prayer made in the writ petition and the same being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 4. Considering that similar writ petition has already been dismissed by this Court vide order/judgment dated 04.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2392 of 2022, the present writ petition being squarely covered by the said order/judgment is also dismissed accordingly. I.A. No. 4536 of 2022 also stands dismissed.