JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla, J.
1. Petitioners in these writ petitions have approached this Court for the relief that their certificate known as 'Shiksha Viigyan Bhushan' obtained from Maharshi Bharadwaj Shiksha Samiti, Shahjahanpur, be considered equivalent to B.T.C. Course in the matter of appointment in Basic Schools run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad
2. Brief background of the case, as contained in these petitions, is that in the district of Shahjahanpur there is a registered society known as Maharshi Bharadwaj Shiksha Samiti, Shahjahanpur, which conducts various courses of training including 'Shiksha Viigyan Bhushan', which as per petitioners is equivalent to B.T.C. Petitioners contend that each one of them had completed the aforementioned course through correspondence. Petitioners have contended that the said certificate issued by the aforementioned society, in all eventuality, be accepted as equivalent to B.T.C, and consequently, benefits of the same be extended qua the petitioners. Supplementary affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that pursuant to Notification dated 11.03.1997, published in daily Dainik Jagaran by National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE), the aforementioned society had applied for recognition of the aforementioned course. Petitioners have contended that written query was made in this respect on 18.04.1997 and the same was adequately replied to. It has been contended that 'No Objection Certificate', was demanded, which was to be issued by the State Government. It has been contended that NCTE vide its communication dated 28.10.1997 refused to accord approval. It has been contended that thereafter matter had been represented and till date no decision has been taken. It has been contended that society in question preferred writ petition No. 4283 of 2003 stating therein that upon the facts and circumstances of the case deemed 'no objection certificate' be presumed and recognition be awarded. In the said writ petition directives had been issued to decide the representation so moved.
3. Second supplementary affidavit has been filed, and therein reference has been given of various orders. On presentation of writ petition No. 51521 of 2005, specific query was made from the counsel for the petitioner as to whether course in question has been recognised by the NCTE. In this regard supplementary affidavit was directed to be filed. On the matter being taken up on the next day, no supplementary affidavit has been filed, and it has been mentioned that till date course in question has not been accorded recognition by the NCTE, and insistence was made that the. matter be heard and decided.
4. Sri Sidheshwari Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of petitioners and learned Standing Counsel argued the case on behalf of State respondents.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners contended with vehemence that the students who have approached this Court, are not at fault, and as such, in all eventuality, certificate acquired by them be treated as equivalent to BTC course and as such candidature of petitioners be considered at the time of making appointments in the institutions run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad. Collaterally, he has also challenged the refusal made by NCTE and contended that no reason has been assigned for the same.
6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that each one of petitioners has obtained his certificate by way of correspondence after enforcement of NCTE Act, 1993 and the said course being not recognised, such certificate acquired by them is of no consequence. Said arguments are being tested on the touch stone of 1993 Act.
7. After enforcement of the aforementioned Act, it is NCTE alone who Is competent to lay down norms and guidelines and standard to be maintained by the institutions involved in awarding such certificates. The said Act came into force on 01.07.1995 and NCTE was established on 17.08.1995, which is the appointed date as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for recognition of the institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teachers education. Under Section 16 of the Act, it has been provided that no examining body after appointed date shall be allowed to hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for course of training conducted by recognised institutions unless the institution has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee under Section 14 of the Act or permission for courses or training under Section 15 of the Act. Under Section 17(4) of the Act, it has been provided that where an institution offering course or training in teachers education immediately before the appointed date, fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teachers education obtained pursuant to such course or training from such an institution, shall not be treated as valid qualification for purposes of employment under Central Government or any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by Central Government or any State Government.
8. In the light of the these statutory provisions, the status of the institution from where petitioners have acquired the certificate of Shiksha Viigyan Bhushan is to be seen. Each one of the petitioners has acquired said certificate after enforcement of NCTE Act, 1993. The Regional Committee constituted under NCTE Act, 1993 on 28.10.1997 has rejected the claim of the society from where petitioners have obtained the certificate, and till today the said order has neither been varied, revoked nor modified. The effect of the order dated 28.10.1997 is that as on date institution in question is not a recognised institution under the NCTE Act and same has no authority to undertake any examination for course or training. Entire exercise which has been undertaken by the aforementioned institution is clearly in breach of the provisions as contained in the NCTE Act and for the purpose of the said Act, it is totally unrecognised institution, to which no credibility can be attached. Petitioners are contending that their certificates be treated as equivalent to BTC. The said certificates have been obtained from unrecognised institution and in terms of Section 17(4) of the said Act, petitioners cannot be offered appointment in an institution which is run, managed and aided by State Government. There is a clear cut statutory prohibition in this regard.
9. Apart from this, appointment in institutions run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad, are governed by statutory Rules, known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Relevant Rule 8 of 1981 rules is being quoted below:
"8. Academic qualifications- (1) The essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in Clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be as shown below against each:
(2) The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in Sub-clause (iii) and (iv) of Clause (b) of Rule 5 for teaching Science, Mathematic, Craft or any language other than Hindi and Urdu shall be as follows:
(i) A Bachelor's degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto with Science, Mathematics, draft or particular language, as the case may be, as one of the subjects, and
(ii) Training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(3) The minimum experience of candidates for promotion to 9 post referred to In Clause (b) of Rule 5 shall be shown below against each:
(4)The essential qualification of candidates for appointment to the post referred to in Clause (a).and Sub-clause (Hi) and (iv) of Clause (b) of Rule 5 for teaching Urdu Language shall be as follows:
(i) A Bachelor's Degree from a University established by Law in India or a Degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto with Urdu as one of the subjects.
Note- A candidate who does not posses the aforesaid qualification in Urdu, shall be eligible for appointment, If he possesses a Master's Degree in Urdu.
(iii) Basic Teacher's Certificate from any of the training centres in Lucknow, Agra, Mawana in district Meerut and Sakaldiha in district Chandauli established by the Government for Importing training for teacher Urdu or any other training qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto]"
10. A bare perusal of Rule 8 would go to show that for being appointed as Assistant Teacher recognised training qualifications, which have been accepted, are HTC, BTC, JTC, CT or any other training course recognised as equivalent by the State Government. Till date, State Government, at no point of time, has accorded status of equivalence to the certificate of 'Shiksha Vigyan Bhushan' issued by Maharshui Bharadwaj Shiksha Samiti, as such by no stretch of imagination, the said certificate can be considered to be equivalent to BTC. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. Ranga Swami v. Govt. of Andhra, has taken the view that it is not for the Court to consider the relevancy of qualification prescribed for various posts. In the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC page 1884, it has been held that equivalence is in the domain of the University and it is not matter of objective assessment and valuation by court. Thus, as far as this Court is concerned, it cannot determine and decide that certificate obtained by the petitioners, in any way or manner, is equivalent to B.T.C. Certificate, as that would tantamount to usurping the power of State Government.
11. Reliance has been placed by petitioners on the judgment in the case of St. Johns Training Institute v. Regional Director and Anr., , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Regulations which require submission of 'no objection certificate' were valid, but a caution was added that the applications for 'no objection certificate' shall be decided within reasonable limit, and further it was directed that in case applications were, not decided within four months, then it would be deemed that 'no objection certificate' has been granted. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch, here objective consideration has been made by the Regional Committee on 28.10.1997, and till date the aforementioned order has neither been rescinded, varied nor modified. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Pal and Ors., for the proposition that reasons ought to have been recorded while refusing to accord recognition. Validity of order dated 28.10.1997 is not at all subject matter of challenge before this Court. Collaterally, submission has been mad(c) that no reasons are there. A perusal of order dated 28.10.1997 indicates that it does contain reasons, as such the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no application in the facts of the present case. Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh, has been cited for the proposition that interest of students be protected and in this connection reliance has been placed on the statements made in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. In the said case University and Colleges were created under statutory provisions, and as on account of State action students were going to suffer, as such it was directed that the State Government may take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State universities in Chhattisgarh. Here, in the present case, petitioners at their own have acquired certificate from totally unrecognised institution and as such petitioners are themselves to be blamed for such a situation. In this context paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment rendered in writ petition No. 29522 of 2004, Sampumanand Sanskrit University v. State of U.P. is complete answer. Relevant paragraphs are being quoted below:.
"20. The plea of equity in favour of students is wholly misconceived. The National Council of Teachers Education Act 1993 was notified in the Gazette of India on 30.12.1993. It was enforced w.e.f. 1.7.1995 and the Council was constituted on 17.8.1995. The universities, institutions and students were fully aware and informed of the provisions of the Act.
21. This Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act contrary to the provisions of the Act. The violation of law as it stands must be objected by all concerned. The Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall not encourage violation of the Statutes on account of equities and in any case these equities have not been properly pleaded and applied. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the courts shall not on account of such pleadings dilute the provisions of the Act and the standards of education. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahid Rao Ram Dal followed in State of Punjab v. Renuka Singhal the Supreme court held as follows;
"10. In Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalaya v. State of Maharashtra this Court held thus:
"We are coming across cases of this type very often where allegations are made that innocent students are admitted into unrecognised schools and are made to suffer. Some courts out of compassion occasionally interfere to relieve the hardships. We find that the result of this situation is total indiscipline in the field of regulation."
12... The teacher is adorned as Gurudevabhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc. 22, The Courts cannot issue directions to the authorities to violate their own statutory Rules or Regulations in respect of admissions of students. The compassions should not be a ground to disobey the law. In Maharishi Dayanand University v. M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education (supra) the Supreme Court professed that it is time that the courts evolve a mechanism in awarding damages to the students whose careers are seriously jeopardised by unscrupulous management of colleges/schools which indulge in violations of all Rules. I find that in these petitions the petitioners have not claimed any such reliefs and thus there is no occasion to go into it."
12. For reasons stated above, all the writ petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed.