CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: December 17, 2008.
Parties Name
Saraswati Vidya Mandir College of Education and another
..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Vijay Sharma,
Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE (oral)
JUDGMENT
This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos.
16842, 20924, 20931 to 20942, 20947 and 21060, all of the year 2008,
which involve similar questions of fact and law and were heard together for
disposal by this common order.
A large number of seats in different Institutions offering
Diploma Course in Teacher Education appear to have remained vacant on
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2008 -2-
account of non-availability of students for admission against the same
through a Common Entrance Test, held by Board of School Education
Haryana. The petitioners- Institutions have filed these petitions seeking
permission to make admissions against the said vacant seats. The argument
forcefully advanced on their behalf by Mr. Vijay Sharma is that if no
candidates, who appeared in the Common Entrance Test, are available for
admission against the vacant seats, there is no reason why such seats should
not be allowed to be filled by admitting candidates, who have not appeared
in the said Test but are otherwise eligible for such admission as per the
norms , fixed by the National Council for Teacher Education. Reliance for
that submission is placed by Mr. Sharma upon a decision of this Court in
Civil Writ Petition No. 17284 of 2008 (Association of Education Colleges
v. State of Haryana and others) and connected matters, disposed of by our
order dated November 21, 2008. This Court was in that case examining
whether seats available in B.Ed. Colleges could be filled up by the
Institutions concerned from out of students, who had not appeared in the
Common Entrance Test. Taking note of the availability of the infrastructure
and the fact that all the Colleges, where such seats had remained vacant,
were duly recognised by the competent authority and affiliated to the
concerned Universities, this Court had permitted the Institutions to fill up
the said seats from out of candidates, who were otherwise eligible but who
had not appeared in the Common Entrance Test. On the analogy of that
order, one could say that the petitioners in this writ petition also have a
prima facie case in their favour permitting admission of candidates against
the available vacant seats. That is because available infrastructure in
recognised Colleges should not be allowed to be wasted by keeping the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2008 -3-
seats vacant especially when candidates, who fulfill the basic conditions of
eligibility were available. The difficulty, however, arises on account of the
fact that any admission granted by the Institutions at this belated point of
time is likely to seriously affect the academic standard, which the
Institutions have to maintain in terms of the Regulations framed by the
National Council for Teacher Education under the NCTE Act and the
statutory body, to which these Institutions are affiliated. It is common
ground that the Regulations framed by the NCTE require a minimum study
of 180 days as per Appendix 2 to National Council for Teacher Education
( Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007. Para 2.2 of the
Appendix 2 reads as under:
“2.2 Working Days
(a) There shall be at least 180 working days each year exclusive
of the period of examination and admission, out of which at
least 40 days shall be for practice teaching / skill development
in nearby elementary schools.
(b) A working day shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in a six
day week, during which physical presence in the institution of
all the teachers and student teachers is necessary to ensure their
availability for individual advice, guidance, dialogues and
consultation as and when needed.”
We may also refer to the Prospectus , issued by the Board of
School Education, Haryana, which inter alia prescribes the minimum
lectures to be attended by the candidates for appearing in the D.Ed.
Examination. Para 5 of the General Information, contained in the said
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2008 -4-
Prospectus reads thus:
“1 to 4 xxx xxx xxx
5. The candidate will be required to attend classes minimum for
220 days and 1000 working hours for appearing in the final
examinations of D.Ed. I/II.
6. To 13 xxx xxx xxx”
On a conjoint reading of the above two provisions, it would
appear that candidates admitted to undergo the Diploma Course have to
attend a minimum of 220 days and 1000 workings hours for appearing in
Part I or II of the D.Ed. Examinations. This requirement, we are afraid
cannot be fulfilled by those admitted to the Course at this belated stage. We
say so because while the Common Entrance Test was held on May 25, 2008,
the result whereof was declared on May 27, 2008, and the Ist Counseling
process started on June 30, 2008, and completed on July 31, 2008. The
Course had, according to the respondents, actually started on August 1,
2008. If that assertion be correct as we are inclined to hold the same to be
correct, a period of nearly 5 months has elapsed since the commencement of
the Course, which the students if admitted at this stage, will not be able to
make up without compromising on the academic standards to be maintained
in terms of the Regulations of the NCTE.
Mr. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners, however, made a two
fold submission before us in support of his case that admissions granted
even at this stage will not only help the Institutions to utilise the available
vacancies but also enable the candidates to satisfy the requirements of the
Rules and the academic standards. He submitted that the Course had not
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2008 -5-
actually started on August 1, 2008, but on October 1, 2008. This is,
according to the learned counsel, supported by the fact that the 2nd and 3rd
Counselling process was started on August 19, 2008, and September 5,
2008, respectively and completed on September 9, 2008. He also relied
upon Notification dated September 15, 2008, by which the Institutions were
permitted to fill up the vacancies themselves between September 18,2008,
to September 24, 2008. He urged that if the respondents had themselves
permitted admissions to be made upto September 24, 2008, it was not
possible for them to contend that the Course had actually started on August
1, 2008. The Course, according to the learned counsel, had commenced for
all intents and purposes on August 21, 2008.
It is true that the Ist Counselling process was followed by 2nd
and the 3rd process ending on September 9, 2008. It is also correct that the
respondents had permitted the Institutions to fill up the available vacancies
upto September 24, 2008. But the very fact that such concessions were
made does not conclusively establish that the academic studies for those
who had already been admitted in the first counselling process had not
started till October 1, 2008. On the contrary, we are inclined to accept the
contention of the respondents that once the Ist counselling process was
over, in which bulk of the students admitted to the course had secured
admission, it could and ought to have started w.e.f. August 1, 2008. Even if
one were to assume that the Course had in fact started on October 1, 2008,
we still feel that the Course has already progressed over a period of three
months by now. It will not , therefore, be feasible for the Colleges and the
University or the affiliating body to commence and conclude any admission
process afresh comprising students who had not appeared in the CET but
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2008 -6-
are now willing to get admitted to the Course. It is fairly well-settled that
Courts ought to be slow in interfering with academic matters, especially
those that are likely to dilute standards and interfere with academic
programmes like the ones at hand. The fact that all the candidates who were
keen to get admitted to the Course, had the opportunity to appear and
compete for admission as also the fact that no candidate, who had so
appeared in the Common Entrance Test, has approached the Court for any
relief regardless of his merit position shows that all those who are keen to
undergo the Course had the opportunity to do so. Those who did not even
care to appear in the CET and, therefore, did not become a part of the
process, which could possibly lead to their admission to the Course, cannot
now complain of having been left out. At any rate, none of such candidates,
as may be seeking admission against available vacancies in any one of the
petitioners – Institutions is before us in these proceedings. It is only the
Institutions that have come forward for permission to fill up such vacancies
claiming that a large number of candidates have approached them for such
admission. In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in
view the time that has elapsed since the conclusion of the admission
process and the requirement of undergoing minimum of 220 days’ training
before they become eligible to appear in the examination, we do not think
the present to be a fit case where we ought to reopen the process of making
admission. The analogy being drawn by learned counsel for the petitioners
between the cases disposed of by us by our order dated November 21, 2008,
in CWP No. 17284 of 2008 and connected matters does not lend any
assistance to the petitioners. There is no merit in these writ petitions, which
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2008 -7-
are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
( T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(JASBIR SINGH)
December 17, 2008. JUDGE
DKC