{"id":108017,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-24T05:55:52","modified_gmt":"2016-08-24T00:25:52","slug":"state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: B S Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar<\/div>\n
                                                                  1\n\n\n                                          REPORTABLE\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NOs.            2010\n                  ARISING OUT OF\n SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 4854-4856 OF 2009\n\nSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.                 ... APPELLANTS\n\nVERSUS\n\nBHUPENDRA NATH TRIPATHI & ORS.       ... RESOPNDENTS\n\n                         WITH\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NO.             2010\n                  ARISING OUT OF\n    SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11223 OF 2009\n\nSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.                 ... APPELLANTS\n\nVERSUS\n\nBHUPENDRA NATH TRIPATHI & ORS.       ... RESOPNDENTS\n\n\n\n                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities are in<\/p>\n
  appeal before us challenging the correctness of the
\n                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
  judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the High Court of<\/p>\n
  Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High<\/p>\n
  Court held that the restriction as contained in the<\/p>\n
  Government Order dated 10th July, 2007 limiting the<\/p>\n
  eligibility to apply for Special Basic Training Course 2007<\/p>\n
  only to such of those candidates who have passed B.Ed.<\/p>\n
  from the institutions recognized by the National Council<\/p>\n
  for   Teacher   Education     (NCTE)    as    arbitrary   and<\/p>\n
  unreasonable. The High Court held that the exclusion of<\/p>\n
  candidates from the field of eligibility for the said course<\/p>\n
  who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of<\/p>\n
  National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for<\/p>\n
  short `the Act’) or after the enforcement of the Act during<\/p>\n
  the period when the application of any institution or<\/p>\n
  University   was   pending    consideration    is   arbitrary,<\/p>\n
  unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the<\/p>\n
  Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
3. In order to appreciate as to whether the impugned<\/p>\n
  judgment rendered by the Full Bench suffers from any
\n                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
  infirmities requiring our interference, few relevant facts<\/p>\n
  may have to be noticed:\n<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND FACTS<\/p>\n
     Although appalling and almost unbelievable, but the<\/p>\n
fact remains that in State of Uttar Pradesh, more than<\/p>\n
60,000 posts of Assistant Teacher in primary institutions run<\/p>\n
by Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad are lying vacant<\/p>\n
and unfilled for a long time for whatever be the reasons<\/p>\n
thereof. The appointment of teachers in primary institutions<\/p>\n
is governed and regulated by the statutory rules known as<\/p>\n
U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 framed<\/p>\n
by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its power<\/p>\n
under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The rules provide that<\/p>\n
for appointment of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress in<\/p>\n
Junior Basic Schools, one is required to possess a bachelor’s<\/p>\n
degree from a University established by law in India<\/p>\n
together with Basic Teacher’s Training Certificate (BTC) or<\/p>\n
any other training course recognized by the Government as<\/p>\n
equivalent thereto. The BTC course in the State of U.P. is
\n                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
imparted by District Institute of Education and Training<\/p>\n
(DIET) run by the State in different Districts with limited<\/p>\n
intake capacity on account of which a large number of posts<\/p>\n
remain vacant as suitable candidates were not available for<\/p>\n
being appointed as Assistant Teachers.\n<\/p>\n
4. It is under those circumstances, the State had formulated<\/p>\n
  a scheme for the imparting of the Special BTC course to<\/p>\n
  such of those candidates who were already holding the<\/p>\n
  Degree of B.Ed. Such an exercise was undertaken in the<\/p>\n
  year 1998, 2004 and 2007. We are concerned in the<\/p>\n
  present case with the Special Basic Training Course 2007.<\/p>\n
  The State submitted proposals to the Regional Committee<\/p>\n
  of the National Council for Teacher Education seeking<\/p>\n
  appropriate permission to impart Special Basic Training<\/p>\n
  Course in recognized DIETs of U.P. to the candidates who<\/p>\n
  are already holders of B.Ed. qualification. Such permission<\/p>\n
  is required for starting any new course or training in<\/p>\n
  teacher education by any recognized institution under the<\/p>\n
  provisions of the Act. The NCTE vide its order dated 27 th
\n                                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
  June, 2007 granted permission for imparting Special BTC<\/p>\n
  Course as requested by the State. The State Government<\/p>\n
  issued an order specifying guidelines and conditions for<\/p>\n
  imparting Special BTC Course, 2007 which, inter alia,<\/p>\n
  provide minimum educational qualification for Special BTC<\/p>\n
  Course,    2007     as   Graduation        with   B.Ed.    from   any<\/p>\n
  recognized college run by State\/Central Government and<\/p>\n
  approved by the NCTE under the provisions of the said<\/p>\n
  Act. In pursuance of the Government Order dated 10th<\/p>\n
  July,    2007,    advertisement         was    issued     which   was<\/p>\n
  published in various newspapers on 18th July, 2007<\/p>\n
  inviting applications from the eligible candidates for<\/p>\n
  Special BTC Course, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
5. The    writ petitioners possess B.Ed. degrees (Shiksha<\/p>\n
  Shastri    Pariksha)     having        obtained    the    same    from<\/p>\n
  institutions      affiliated      to      Sampurnand         Sanskrit<\/p>\n
  Vishwavidyalaya,         Varanasi        and      from     Purvanchal<\/p>\n
  Vishwavidyalaya, Jaunpur. They have passed their B.Ed.<\/p>\n
  in different years between 1993 and 1998. Minor details,
\n                                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
  if any, with regard to other candidates are not really<\/p>\n
  material for our present purpose. Suffice it to note that all<\/p>\n
  the writ petitioners submitted their applications to DIETs<\/p>\n
  and were called for counselling in November, 2007. That a<\/p>\n
  list was prepared and published revealing that they have<\/p>\n
  been selected for counseling and after counselling, they<\/p>\n
  were called for training and their names were accordingly<\/p>\n
  included in the final selection list.\n<\/p>\n
6. It is at this juncture, the controversy begins. Before the<\/p>\n
  writ petitioners were actually sent for training, the<\/p>\n
  Director, State Council for Research and Training put the<\/p>\n
  DIETs on notice of a Division Bench judgment in Smt.<\/p>\n
  Sunita Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. requiring all the<\/p>\n
  Principals of DIETs to act in accordance with the said<\/p>\n
  Judgment. This was followed by the letters issued by<\/p>\n
  DIETs duly intimating the writ petitioners that in the year<\/p>\n
  when they have passed the B.Ed., the institutions from<\/p>\n
  which they have obtained the Degree were not duly<\/p>\n
  recognized by NCTE and therefore, they were not eligible
\n                                                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
      and cannot be sent for Special BTC Course. The same<\/p>\n
      were challenged by the writ petitioners on various<\/p>\n
      grounds. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned<\/p>\n
      Single Judge declaring that it was always open to the<\/p>\n
      State Government to provide a further higher qualification<\/p>\n
      for     admission    into    the   course   in    addition   to    the<\/p>\n
      qualifications which have been duly prescribed by the<\/p>\n
      NCTE.        The   learned   Single   Judge      while   relying   on<\/p>\n
      judgments of Division Bench in Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs.<\/p>\n
      State of U.P. & Ors. and Sunita Upadhyaya (supra)<\/p>\n
      distinguished the judgment rendered by another Division<\/p>\n
      Bench in Ekta Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.1.<\/p>\n
7. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners preferred<\/p>\n
      Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single<\/p>\n
      Judge. The Division Bench noticed the apparent conflict<\/p>\n
      between the decisions rendered by Division Benches in<\/p>\n
      Sunita UPadhyaya and Sanjai Kumar. The Division Bench,<\/p>\n
      after considering the issues raised in the appeal, referred<\/p>\n
      the matter for consideration by a larger Bench.              That is
\n1<\/span>
\n    2006 (1) ESC 531
\n                                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
  how the matter has been placed before the Full Bench of<\/p>\n
  the High Court resulting in the impugned judgment.<\/p>\n
8. The Full Bench, after an elaborate consideration of the<\/p>\n
  matter, held:\n<\/p>\n
(a) The candidates who have B.Ed. degree obtained from an<\/p>\n
institution   or   University   during   the   period   when   the<\/p>\n
application of the institution or the University for grant of<\/p>\n
recognition under Section 14 of the National Council for<\/p>\n
Teacher Education Act, 1993 was pending, are eligible for<\/p>\n
Special BTC Course 2007 as laid down by the Division Bench<\/p>\n
in Ekta Shukla’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
(b) The proviso to Section 14(1) recognizes continuance of<\/p>\n
the course, which was being run immediately before the<\/p>\n
appointed day provided application is submitted within the<\/p>\n
continuance of such course is deemed recognition of such<\/p>\n
course and degree awarded therein by express provisions of<\/p>\n
proviso to Section 14(1) of National Council for Teacher<\/p>\n
Education Act, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
(c) The exclusion of the candidates from the field of<\/p>\n
eligibility for Special BTC Course 2007 who have obtained<\/p>\n
B.Ed. degree prior to the enforcement of NCTE Act, 1993 or<\/p>\n
after the enforcement of the said Act during the period when<\/p>\n
the application of the institution or University was pending<\/p>\n
consideration is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of<\/p>\n
Article 14 of the Constitution. The above two categories of<\/p>\n
candidates are also eligible to participate in Special BTC<\/p>\n
Course 2007.\n<\/p>\n
9. The conclusions drawn by the Full Bench are seriously<\/p>\n
  challenged by the State in these appeals on various<\/p>\n
  grounds.\n<\/p>\n
10.We have heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate on<\/p>\n
  behalf of the State and M\/s A.M. Singhvi and P.S.<\/p>\n
  Narsimha, learned senior counsel for the respondents-writ<\/p>\n
  petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\nRIGHT TO EDUCATION<\/p>\n
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire<\/p>\n
  issue that arises in this matter for our consideration. The
\n                                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
directive principle contained in Article 45 has made a<\/p>\n
provision for free and compulsory education for all<\/p>\n
children upto the age of 14 years within 10 years of<\/p>\n
promulgation of the Constitution of India but the nation<\/p>\n
could not achieve this goal even after 50 years of<\/p>\n
adoption of the provision. The task of providing education<\/p>\n
to all children in this age group gained momentum after<\/p>\n
National Policy of Education (NPE) was announced in<\/p>\n
1986. It was felt that though the Government of India in<\/p>\n
partnership with State Governments had made strenuous<\/p>\n
efforts to fulfill the mandate and though significant<\/p>\n
improvements         were   seen    in      various    educational<\/p>\n
indicators, the ultimate goal of providing universal and<\/p>\n
quality education still remained unfulfilled. In order to<\/p>\n
fulfill that goal, it was felt that an explicit provision should<\/p>\n
be made in the Part of the Constitution relating to<\/p>\n
Fundamental     Rights.     Right   to   Education     is   now   a<\/p>\n
guaranteed    fundamental      right under Article          21A. It<\/p>\n
commands      that    the   State   shall    provide    free   and
\n                                                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14<\/p>\n
years in such manner as the State may, by law,<\/p>\n
determine.     The   State      as    at   present    is   under     the<\/p>\n
constitutional    obligation     to   provide      education    to   all<\/p>\n
children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The State by virtue of<\/p>\n
Article 21A is bound to provide free education, create<\/p>\n
necessary infrastructure and effective machinery for the<\/p>\n
proper implementation of the right and meet total<\/p>\n
expenditure of the schools to that extent. Right to<\/p>\n
Education guaranteed by Article 21A would remain illusory<\/p>\n
in the absence of State taking adequate steps to have<\/p>\n
required number of schools manned by efficient and<\/p>\n
qualified teachers. Before teachers are allowed to teach<\/p>\n
the children, they are required to receive appropriate and<\/p>\n
adequate      training   from     a    duly   recognized       training<\/p>\n
institute. It has been observed by this Court : “Allowing<\/p>\n
ill-trained   teachers   coming        out    of   derecognized       or<\/p>\n
unrecognized institutes or licensing them to teach the<\/p>\n
children of impressionable age, contrary to the norms
\n                                                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
      prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the<\/p>\n
      nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a<\/p>\n
      great nation, teachers and educational institutions also<\/p>\n
      play vital role. In cases like these, interest of individuals<\/p>\n
      cannot be placed above or preferred to larger public<\/p>\n
      interest” [See L. Muthukumar Vs. State of Tamil<\/p>\n
      Nadu2]. Such is the importance of proper training to the<\/p>\n
      teachers before they are allowed to teach the children of<\/p>\n
      impressionable age. Part of the mantra of development<\/p>\n
      economics           today    is   a   stress   on   universal   primary<\/p>\n
      education, including specific emphasis on educating girls.<\/p>\n
      Several          countries   have shown with experience            that<\/p>\n
      investing in primary education has been a fundamental<\/p>\n
      factor resulting in economic and social development. But<\/p>\n
      in some countries including ours, it has been very difficult<\/p>\n
      to achieve high enrollment rates, it is precisely for that<\/p>\n
      reason and with a view to create a culture in which the<\/p>\n
      expectation was that everyone went to school and that<\/p>\n
      the entitlement to free primary education was universal, a
\n2<\/span>
\n    (2000) 7 SCC 618
\n                                                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
   provision is made in Part III of the Constitution imposing<\/p>\n
   an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory<\/p>\n
   education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The<\/p>\n
   provision intends a systemic change to empower the<\/p>\n
   marginal and deprived sections of the society.<\/p>\n
EFFORTS MADE BY THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH<\/p>\n
12. As   pointed   out   in    the        instant   case,      the    problem<\/p>\n
   confronting the State of Uttar Pradesh with respect to<\/p>\n
   imparting free and compulsory education appears to be a<\/p>\n
   gigantic one. A scheme known as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan<\/p>\n
   was launched by the Government of India and for<\/p>\n
   universalization of education, time bound goals have been<\/p>\n
   ascertained. In order to achieve those goals, the State of<\/p>\n
   Uttar Pradesh appointed 33,000 B.Ed. graduates in the<\/p>\n
   primary schools controlled by U.P. Basic Education after<\/p>\n
   the selection and successful completion of six months<\/p>\n
   Special BTC Course. The State, thereafter, addressed<\/p>\n
   NCTE       requesting           it       to      accord           necessary<\/p>\n
   recognition\/consent        to        conduct     and   to     select    the
\n                                                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
candidates for Special BTC Training 2006 as proposed by<\/p>\n
the State Government to fill the vacancies in Parshadiya<\/p>\n
School of Basic Education all over U.P. and to admit the<\/p>\n
B.Ed.\/L.T.B.P.Ed.\/C.P.Ed.\/D.P.Ed. trained candidates in<\/p>\n
the training. The NCTE, having considered the proposal<\/p>\n
submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for Special<\/p>\n
BTC Course of six months duration granted one time<\/p>\n
approval for training candidates for being appointed as<\/p>\n
primary teachers who were already B.Ed. subject to the<\/p>\n
fulfillment of the following:\n<\/p>\n
 (a)   The teachers are to be trained only in the DIETs<\/p>\n
       recognized by NRC-NCTE.\n<\/p>\n
 (b)   The SGERT to submit the date of commencement of<\/p>\n
       the course along with the list of the recognized<\/p>\n
       DIETs   where    the     proposed   training   is   to   be<\/p>\n
       conducted.\n<\/p>\n
 (c)   The quarterly progress report of the programme is<\/p>\n
       to be submitted to NRC-NCTE.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
   (d)   The curriculum as finalized in the meeting between<\/p>\n
         the NCTE and the State Government of U.P. is to be<\/p>\n
         followed for the programme.\n<\/p>\n
This was followed by the guidelines, terms and conditions<\/p>\n
issued by the Government for the selection process and<\/p>\n
training of the selected candidates for Special BTC Training,<\/p>\n
2007 which, inter alia, provide Graduation as the minimum<\/p>\n
academic eligibility and they must have passed the B.Ed.<\/p>\n
degree recognized by NCTE from the institutions\/University<\/p>\n
established under law and recognized as regular candidate<\/p>\n
fulfilling all other conditions. After completion of the six<\/p>\n
months training of all the candidates of the concerned<\/p>\n
District, a formal written examination would be held and<\/p>\n
successful candidates would be eligible for appointment as<\/p>\n
Assistant Teacher in Parshadiya Primary Schools. That is the<\/p>\n
scheme in vogue.\n<\/p>\n
13. The candidates in the present case were finally selected to<\/p>\n
  undergo Special Basic Training course, 2007. Before they<\/p>\n
  could be actually sent for training, the Director, State
\n                                                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
  Council of Research and Training addressed DIETs in the<\/p>\n
  State to follow the judgment in Sunita Upadhyay which<\/p>\n
  declared that so far as the BCT course is concerned, there<\/p>\n
  is a specific stipulation in the advertisement that the<\/p>\n
  candidates concerned to have the degree or diploma from<\/p>\n
  the NCTE recognized institutions and since the candidates<\/p>\n
  therein did not have the recognition of NCTE as on the<\/p>\n
  date when they have obtained their B.Ed. and therefore,<\/p>\n
  were not eligible to join the BTC course.\n<\/p>\n
14. Before we proceed further, one important factor that is<\/p>\n
  required to be borne in mind in the present case is that on<\/p>\n
  the date of notification all the colleges from which the writ<\/p>\n
  petitioners obtained their degrees were recognized by<\/p>\n
  NCTE. We make it clear that the candidates securing the<\/p>\n
  degrees from those institutions whose applications were<\/p>\n
  ultimately rejected by NCTE stands entirely on different<\/p>\n
  footing.\n<\/p>\n
15. The   real question that falls for our consideration is<\/p>\n
  whether only B.Ed. candidates who have obtained this
\n                                                                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
      degree after grant of recognition by NCTE or those<\/p>\n
      candidates who have obtained their degree when the<\/p>\n
      application of the institution for recognition was pending<\/p>\n
      or such of those candidates who have obtained B.Ed.<\/p>\n
      degree prior to commencement of the Act on 1st July,<\/p>\n
      1995 are also eligible to join the BTC course. On an<\/p>\n
      analysis of the material available on record and the<\/p>\n
      submissions,    the   following    are    the   various    possible<\/p>\n
      distinctions identified during the course of several levels<\/p>\n
      of litigation concerning the issue :\n<\/p>\n
(I)         Degrees obtained from              recognised institutions<\/p>\n
            which    have    initiated   such     courses     after   the<\/p>\n
            commencement of NCTE Act;\n<\/p>\n
(II)        Degrees    obtained     from       institutions   after   the<\/p>\n
            commencement of the Act during the pendency of<\/p>\n
            applications seeking recognition which              ultimately<\/p>\n
            did not receive the recognition;\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
(III)     Degrees    obtained   from    institutions   during   the<\/p>\n
          pendency of applications after which they have been<\/p>\n
          recognized;\n<\/p>\n
(IV)      Degrees obtained from Universities and affiliated<\/p>\n
          colleges thereof before the commencement of NCTE<\/p>\n
          Act which have been granted recognition after the<\/p>\n
          Act coming into force; and<\/p>\n
(V)       Degrees obtained from Universities and affiliated<\/p>\n
          colleges before the commencement of the Act which<\/p>\n
          have not been granted recognition.\n<\/p>\n
SCHEME OF THE ACT<\/p>\n
16. The   NCTE Act, 1993 is an Act to provide for the<\/p>\n
   establishment of National Council for Teacher Education<\/p>\n
   with   a   view   to   achieving   planned   and    coordinated<\/p>\n
   development of the teacher education system throughout<\/p>\n
   the country, for regularization and proper maintenance of<\/p>\n
   norms and standards in the teacher education system and<\/p>\n
   for matters connected therewith. The Act came into force<\/p>\n
   with effect from July 1, 1995 the appointed date under
\n                                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 1 (3) of the Act. Section 2(i) defines “recognized<\/p>\n
institution” which means an institution recognized by the<\/p>\n
Council under Section 14. The said Section 14 which is<\/p>\n
relevant for our present purposes reads as under :<\/p>\n
  Section 14 : Recognition of institutions offering
\n  course or training in teacher education :<\/p>\n
  (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer
\n  a course or training in teacher education on or
\n  after the appointed day, may, for grant of
\n  recognition under this Act, make an application to
\n  the Regional Committee concerned in such form
\n  and in such manner as may be determined by
\n  regulations:\n<\/p>\n
  Provided that an institution offering a course or
\n  training in teacher education immediately before
\n  the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue
\n  such course or training for a period of six months,
\n  if it has made an application for recognition within
\n  the said period and until the disposal of the
\n  application by the Regional Committee.\n<\/p>\n
  (2) The fee to be paid along with the application
\n  under subsection (1) shall be such as may be
\n  prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
  (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional
\n  Committee from any institution under sub-section
\n  (1), and after obtaining from the institution
\n  concerned such other particulars as it may
\n  consider necessary, it shall,-\n<\/p>\n
                                                           20<\/span><\/p>\n
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has
\nadequate financial resources, accommodation,
\nlibrary, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils
\nsuch other conditions required for proper
\nfunctioning of the institution for a course or
\ntraining in teacher education, as may be
\ndetermined by regulations, pass an order granting
\nrecognition to such institution, subject to such
\nconditions as may be determined by regulations;
\nor<\/p>\n
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does
\nnot fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
(a), pass an order refusing recognition to such
\ninstitution for reasons to, be recorded in writing:<\/p>\n
Provided that before passing an order under sub-
\nclause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a
\nreasonable      opportunity   to   the   concerned
\ninstitution for making a written representation.<\/p>\n
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to
\nan Institution for a course or training in teacher
\neducation under sub-section (3) shall be published
\nin the Official Gazette and communicated In
\nwriting for appropriate action to such institution
\nand to the concerned examining body, the local
\nauthority or the State Government and the Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
(5) Every institution, in respect of which
\nrecognition has been refused shall discontinue the
\ncourse or training in teacher education from the
\nend of the academic session next following the
\ndate of receipt of the order refusing recognition
\npassed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).<\/p>\n
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the
\norder under subsection (4),-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    21<\/span><\/p>\n
     (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where
\n     recognition has been granted; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where
\n     recognition has been refused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17. Section 16 of the Act mandates that the affiliating body to<\/p>\n
  grant affiliation only after the institution concerned has<\/p>\n
  obtained     recognition    from       the   Regional   Committee<\/p>\n
  concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or<\/p>\n
  training under Section 15.         Section 17 (3) declares that<\/p>\n
  once   the    recognition   of     a   recognized   institution   is<\/p>\n
  withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall<\/p>\n
  discontinue the course or training in teacher education,<\/p>\n
  and the concerned University or the examining body shall<\/p>\n
  cancel affiliation of the institution with effect from the end<\/p>\n
  of the academic session next following the date of<\/p>\n
  communication of the said order.\n<\/p>\n
18. A fair reading and analysis of the scheme of the Act with<\/p>\n
  respect to recognition of the institution imparting course<\/p>\n
  or training in teacher education is an essential prelude to
\n                                                                 22<\/span><\/p>\n
the core questions involved. On a plain reading of the<\/p>\n
provisions it is evident that on and from the date of<\/p>\n
enforcement of the Act, every institution offering or<\/p>\n
intending to offer the course or training in teacher<\/p>\n
education, was required to make application to the<\/p>\n
Regional Committee in such form and manner as may be<\/p>\n
determined by the regulations as provided in Section 14<\/p>\n
of the Act.    The proviso to Section 14(1) states that an<\/p>\n
institution   offering   a   course    or   training   in   teacher<\/p>\n
education immediately before the appointed day, shall be<\/p>\n
entitled to continue such course or training for a period of<\/p>\n
six months if it has made an application for recognition<\/p>\n
within the said period and until disposal of the application<\/p>\n
by the Regional Committee.            What happens in case of<\/p>\n
existing institution makes application seeking recognition<\/p>\n
within the prescribed time but no decision is taken by the<\/p>\n
Council within the period of six months? Does it mean<\/p>\n
that the institution can impart training only for a period of<\/p>\n
six months and thereafter close the institution? Section
\n                                                            23<\/span><\/p>\n
  14(5) states that every institution, in respect of which<\/p>\n
  recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course<\/p>\n
  or training in teacher education from the end of the<\/p>\n
  academic session next following the date of receipt of the<\/p>\n
  order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-<\/p>\n
  section (3).\n<\/p>\n
19. A plain reading of provisions suggests that all such<\/p>\n
  institutions offering a course or training in teacher<\/p>\n
  education prior to the Act coming into force, are entitled<\/p>\n
  to continue such course or training until the application is<\/p>\n
  disposed of provided such an application has been made<\/p>\n
  within   six   months   from   the   appointed   day.   The<\/p>\n
  consequence of not being able to gain recognition is the<\/p>\n
  discontinuance of the course. Once an application seeking<\/p>\n
  recognition has been filed by the institution within the<\/p>\n
  prescribed period of six months the institution is entitled<\/p>\n
  to continue offering a course or training in teacher<\/p>\n
  education until the disposal of the application by the<\/p>\n
  Regional Committee. Once the recognition is granted by
\n                                                           24<\/span><\/p>\n
  the Regional Committee to the institution offering a<\/p>\n
  course or training in teacher education, the same shall<\/p>\n
  relate back to the date of filing of application.   Section<\/p>\n
  14(5) read with Section 14(1) enables the institution<\/p>\n
  offering a course or training in teacher education on the<\/p>\n
  appointed day to continue the course or training as the<\/p>\n
  case may be during the pendency of the application<\/p>\n
  seeking recognition and even in case of refusal of<\/p>\n
  recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only<\/p>\n
  at the end of academic session. The institution offering<\/p>\n
  training or      course is entitled to award degree or<\/p>\n
  certificate as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
VIEW OF THE NCTE<\/p>\n
20. The NCTE made its stand clear, as is evident from the<\/p>\n
  impugned order that after the enforcement of NCTE Act,<\/p>\n
  the existing institutions on the appointed day offering a<\/p>\n
  course or training in teacher education are entitled to<\/p>\n
  continue such course or training provided such institutions<\/p>\n
  apply for the grant of recognition under Section 14(1) of
\n                                                             25<\/span><\/p>\n
  the Act within a period of six months and until the<\/p>\n
  disposal of their application by the Regional Committee.<\/p>\n
  The   degrees   obtained   during   the   pendency   of   the<\/p>\n
  application are valid and recognition of such institutions<\/p>\n
  shall relate back to the date of application and all such<\/p>\n
  institutions shall be deemed to have been recognized for<\/p>\n
  all purposes in view of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act. The<\/p>\n
  NCTE reiterated its stand before us.\n<\/p>\n
21. Prior to the enactment of NCTE Act, the degrees such as<\/p>\n
  B.Ed. course for teacher education were being awarded by<\/p>\n
  the Universities or by the recognized institutions by the<\/p>\n
  University Grants Commission or by such bodies as<\/p>\n
  authorized by the University Grants Commission. It is<\/p>\n
  unreasonable to hold that all those degrees granted by<\/p>\n
  the Universities or the bodies authorized by the University<\/p>\n
  Grants Commission as the case may be were of sub-<\/p>\n
  standard in nature in comparison to those degrees<\/p>\n
  granted by the recognized institutions after the NCTE Act<\/p>\n
  came into force. Such a view may amount to undermining
\n                                                           26<\/span><\/p>\n
the importance of the university education and the role<\/p>\n
played by the Universities in promoting the education and<\/p>\n
educational standards. Each of the Universities have their<\/p>\n
own systems and mechanism to grant affiliation to the<\/p>\n
institutions offering courses at the college\/University level<\/p>\n
and grant of affiliation is never considered to be a matter<\/p>\n
of course. Universities always ensure maintenance of<\/p>\n
standards and degrees awarded only after successfully<\/p>\n
completing the prescribed syllabi and the examinations<\/p>\n
conducted by the Universities.       The NCTE Act in no<\/p>\n
manner makes any distinction between the degrees<\/p>\n
granted   by   the   Universities   or   authorized   bodies<\/p>\n
recognized by the University Grants Commission prior to<\/p>\n
the enactment of the Act and the degrees granted by the<\/p>\n
recognized institutions after the Act has come into force.<\/p>\n
NCTE Act provides for the recognition of the institution<\/p>\n
offering course or training in teacher education and does<\/p>\n
not speak about recognition of the degrees granted by the<\/p>\n
institution prior to the Act coming into force. Thus,
\n                                                              27<\/span><\/p>\n
  degrees granted by the institutions already in existence<\/p>\n
  offering a course or training in teacher education shall be<\/p>\n
  deemed to be at par with the degrees or certificates<\/p>\n
  granted   by     the   recognized   institutions   after   the<\/p>\n
  commencement of the Act provided those institutions in<\/p>\n
  existence offering the course also received recognition<\/p>\n
  under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
22. In our considered view the State Government cannot<\/p>\n
  make any distinction between the degrees obtained from<\/p>\n
  the existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force<\/p>\n
  but received recognition after the commencement of the<\/p>\n
  Act and the degrees obtained from the recognized<\/p>\n
  institutions after the Act coming into force. It is not shown<\/p>\n
  how such a classification is based on an intelligible<\/p>\n
  differentia and on a rational consideration and further how<\/p>\n
  it bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof. The<\/p>\n
  impugned action of the State results in the classification<\/p>\n
  or division of members of a homogeneous group and
\n                                                                     28<\/span><\/p>\n
    subjecting them to differential treatment without any<\/p>\n
    rhyme or reason.\n<\/p>\n
23. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State however<\/p>\n
    submitted that the State which runs a training course with<\/p>\n
    the    approval   of   NCTE   is    entitled   to   prescribe   the<\/p>\n
    qualifications for candidates seeking admission to the<\/p>\n
    course so long as the qualifications prescribed are not<\/p>\n
    lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act.<\/p>\n
    The submission was that after the NCTE Act has come into<\/p>\n
    force the State is justified in insisting and prescribing<\/p>\n
    B.Ed. qualification from only such of those institutions<\/p>\n
    recognized by NCTE. Reliance has been placed upon the<\/p>\n
    decisions of this court in        State of A.P. and Ors. Vs.<\/p>\n
    Lavu       Narendranath       &    ors.    etc.3,    Dr.   Preeti<\/p>\n
    Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.4 and State<\/p>\n
    of T.N. & Anr. Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) & Ors.5<\/p>\n
24. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the State in<\/p>\n
    its discretion is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as
\n3<\/span>
\n  (1971) 3 SCR 699
\n4<\/span>
\n  (1999) 7 SCC 120
\n5<\/span>
\n  (2004) 4 SCC 513
\n                                                                29<\/span><\/p>\n
it   may   consider    appropriate    for     candidates   seeking<\/p>\n
admission into BTC course so long as the qualifications so<\/p>\n
prescribed are not lower than those prescribed by or<\/p>\n
under the NCTE Act.           The State can always prescribe<\/p>\n
higher qualification, but the argument proceeds on the<\/p>\n
assumption that B.Ed. qualification obtained from only<\/p>\n
such of those institutions established and recognized by<\/p>\n
NCTE after the Act coming into force is higher or superior<\/p>\n
than the B.Ed. qualification obtained from the Universities<\/p>\n
or affiliated colleges duly recognized by the University<\/p>\n
Grants Commission prior to the Act coming into force.<\/p>\n
What is the rational basis for such a presumption? None.<\/p>\n
This fact assumes significance particularly in the light of<\/p>\n
the fact that all the institutions from where the candidates<\/p>\n
obtained    their     B.Ed.   qualification    have   themselves<\/p>\n
received recognition from the Regional Council after the<\/p>\n
NCTE Act came into force.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                              30<\/span><\/p>\n
25. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
   the   impugned       judgments       do      not    suffer    from      any<\/p>\n
   infirmities requiring our interference.<\/p>\n
26. As   a   result,   the   appeals     fail    and     are    accordingly<\/p>\n
   dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                              …………………………………………J.
\n                              (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)<\/p>\n
                              …………………………………………J.
\n                              (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI,
\nOCTOBER 29, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010 Author: B S Reddy Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2010 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 4854-4856 OF 2009 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-24T00:25:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T00:25:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4654,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T00:25:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-24T00:25:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T00:25:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":4654,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010","name":"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T00:25:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-bhupendra-nath-tripathi-ors-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P.& Ors vs Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors on 29 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}