The appellants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants') possess a teaching certificate, namely, Buniyadi Praman Patra Pariksha conducted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1994-95, which they claim to be an equivalent certificate in terms of such recognition conferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the directives dated 16.3.1973, a copy whereof is Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. They submit that such a certificate was issued under a valid authority and therefore, they are fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as Assistant Teachers under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. They rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 2027.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the said equivalence was not a valid recognition and the same has also been withdrawn in the year 1997 through Government Order dated 11/13th August, 1997 and hence the appellants who are now seeking appointment under the 1981 Rules, would not be entitled to any such benefit. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition has been rightly dismissed and the order does not call for any interference.
The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the certificate of training possessed by the appellants does not conform to the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, which prohibits the issuance of any such certificate for teachers training under the provisions of the said Act. It has been further held by the learned Single Judge that the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Suresh Pal (supra) does not come to their rescue and therefore, the mandamus as prayed for, cannot be granted.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the writ petition was filed with a prayer for a mandamus to consider the claim of appointment of the appellants on the strength of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 20th May, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 20991 of 1999, which relief ought to have been granted in view of the submissions raised hereinabove.
Having considered the submissions, it appears that the appellants are claiming their equivalence on the strength of a circular issued by the Director of Education dated 16.3.1973. The same was filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. At Item No. 21, the equivalence with regard to the certificate issued from the State of Madhya Pradesh known as Buniyadi Praman Patra Pariksha has been mentioned and the appellants claim to be in possession of such a certificate. The same was being treated as equivalent to B.T.C. course till the issuance of the Government Order dated 11/13th August, 1997 whereby all such equivalence was withdrawn by the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. with an intimation to the Director of Education stating therein that it is only such certificates issued from an institution recognised under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, that will be admissible.
The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal (supra) has held that the subsequent de-recognition would not take away the rights that have accrued in favour of such candidates who have obtained the certificates when the valid equivalence was in existence.
In the facts of the case, the appellants have claimed that they have obtained the certificates in the year 1994-95. The National Council for Teachers Education Act has been enforced w.e.f. 1st July, 1995 and the Council itself was constituted in December, 1997. In such a situation, the question of granting recognition by the National Council for Teachers Education does not arise in the present case as the appellants had obtained the certificates in the year 1994-95. The certificates were granted prior to the enforcement of the NCTE Act, 1993 and hence the reason given by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition to that extent cannot be sustained.
The withdrawal of the equivalence has been enforced in August, 1997. The same would, therefore, not apply retrospectively and prior to that the certificates issued would not stand annulled automatically.
The question is in relation to the claim of grant of equivalence, which aspect has to be examined by the authority in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The relief for appointment as a teacher, therefore, does not arise at this stage and would be relevant as and when the competent authority takes a decision with regard to the claim of the appellants on the issue of equivalence as indicated hereinabove.
For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgement with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to examine the claim of the appellants afresh and to issue necessary directions in this regard in case they are entitled for the consideration on their claim, to the respondent no. 4.
The respondent no. 3 shall undertake this exercise in the light of the observations made hereinabove keeping in view the law laid down in this regard as well as the relevant circulars, Government Orders and judicial pronouncements, if any.
The appeal is allowed in the terms aforesaid.
It is expected that the respondent no. 3 shall take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.