JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. The Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi (in short the University) and the students who have been awarded 'Shiksha Shastri' degree by the University, which is the examining body, from the Faculty of Education of the University at Varanasi, and five affiliated Colleges namely (1) Sri Adarsh Bharati Mahavidyalaya Ketasarai, Jaunpur, (2) Shrimat Paramhans Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Teekar Mafi, Sultanpur, (3) Shri Sachcha Adhyatma Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jhunsi, Allahabad and (5) Sri Mahaveer Vidyapith Pachhami Vihar, New Delhi, have filed these writ petitions with prayers to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat their certificates or 'Shiksha Shastri' as equivalent to B.Ed, for the purpose of admission to the Special B.T.C. Course, 2004 designed by the State Government with the approval of the National Council of Teachers' Education for the purpose of employment as Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The University has also challenged the vires of Section 14 of the National Council of Teachers Education Act 1993.
2. I have heard Sri Anil Tiwari for the University; Sri Manish Goel in writ petition No. 47765/2004 and Sri Jagdish Pathak in writ petitions No. 29217/2004, 29236/04, 30444/04 and 30449/04 and other counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Joshi for NCTE and Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
3. The facts briefly stated giving rise to this batch of writ petitions are that the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi is a recognized State University under the U.P. State University Act, 1973. The Statutes of the University are framed under the provisions of the Act. The University is conducting 'Shiksha Shashtri' course as teachers' training course since prior to 1973, after getting sanction and permission from the State and the Association of India Universities, New Delhi. This course is of one year's duration and is recognized by the State Government vide its order dated 12.1.1973 as equivalent to B.Ed, and also by the Association of the Indian Universities, New Delhi vide its order dated 15.3.1974.
4. The National Council of Teachers' Education Act 1993 (in short the NCTE Act 1993) was enacted with reference to Entry-66 of the list-1 of the VIIth Schedule appended to Constitution of India to achieve the planned and coordinated development of teachers' education and for regulating and maintaining proper norms and standards in the teachers' education. The National Council of Teachers Education established under the Act alone is now competent to lay down the norms, guidelines and standard to be maintained by the institutions involved in teachers education and Training. The validity of the Act was upheld by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kalra Teachers College (2002) 8 SCC 228. The Act received assent of the President on December 19, 1993 and came into force on 01.7.1995. The National Council of Teachers Education was established on 17.8.1995, which is the 'appointed day' 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. Sub-section 1 of Section 14, relevant for the purse of this Act is quoted as below;
"14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.- (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations.
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee."
5. The Regional Committees under Section 20(1)(iii) of the Act were constituted on 6.1.1996. The regulations prescribing the standard for granting recognition were made on 29.12.1995 and published on 24.2.1996, and the institutions offering teachers training course were required to apply for recognition upto 1.4.1997. This date was extended by the Council upto 18.8.1997, by a notification issued by National Council of Teachers Education and published in National Dailies informing that more than 90% of the existing institutions have submitted their applications to NCTC Regional Committees during the last three years and only a small number of institutions have still not submitted their applications. The council notified all such institutions that they may submit their applications in prescribed proforma along with the necessary documents under the NCTE Regulations to the concerned Regional committees up to 31.3.1999. Any institutions approaching the Regional Committees after 31.3.1999 will be treated as an institution "not existing" on the appointed day and will be required to fulfil the requirement as new institutions under the NCE Regulations including the applications of a no objection certificate from the concerned State or Union Territory Government.
6. The University sent an application for recognition of its faculty and all the six affiliated colleges on 24.5.1997. The Affiliated Colleges on their own did not submit any application. On 14.10.1997 the University/Institutions were informed vide letters issued by the Council, not to admit any students for the session 1997-98 without recognition/permission of NRC, NCTE. On 25.8.1998 once again an information was sent not to admit any students for academic session 1998-99 as the institution (Faculty of Education) did not have the required number of teachers. On 30.6.1999 the permission for 90 seats of B.Ed. Course was granted for academic session 1999-2000 to the faculty of education. The NRC granted recognition vide its letter dated 31.7.2000 for annual intake of 90 students in B.Ed. (Shiksha Shashtri) course for academic session in 2000-2001. With regard to the Faculty of Education and the five affiliated colleges the relevant dates as set out in the counter affidavit on behalf of NRC, NCTE Jaipur are detailed as below;
7. It is agreed between the parties that there is no dispute with regard to the recognition of the course both for the Faculty of Education and the five Affiliated Colleges for the academic session 1995-96 as the session had started before 17.8.1995 when NCTC was established and for the academic year 1999-2000 when NCTC granted permission for the number of students detailed in the counter affidavit and set out above. For the year 2000-2001 the recognition was granted by NRC, NCTE, Jaipur to the Faculty of Education of the University as well as all the six Affiliated Colleges. The dispute as such is confined only to the academic sessions 1996-1997, 1997-98, 1998-99 when it is admitted that the NRC, NCTE, Jaipur neither gave permission nor recognition for the course. The counsels for the petitioners have also raised a dispute with regard to dates of application for recognition given to the Faculty of Education, Varanasi and the affiliated Colleges and the consequences thereof under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993.
8. Sri Anil Tiwari appearing for the University submits that the expression 'Institution' and the 'University' have been defined under Section (e) and (m) of Section 2 of the NCTE Act. An institution under Section 2(e) means an institution which offers course or training in teachers' education. The 'examining body' under Section 2(d) means a university agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examinations in teachers' education qualification and the 'University' under Section 2(m) means university defines in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 (in short, the UGC Act 1956) and includes an institution deemed to be university under Section 3 of the Act. The University under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956 means a university established and incorporated under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any such institution as may in consultation with the University concerned be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under the Act. Whereas the University Grants Commission Act 1956 has been enacted to make provisions for coordination and determination of standards for the universities and for that purpose to establish the University Grants Commission, the National Teachers' Education Act 1993 has been enacted to provide for establishment of National Council Teachers Education with a view to achieve, plan and coordinate development for the teacher education system through out the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. He submits that Section 14 of the Act providing for recognition of the institution offering course and training in teachers education provide for recognition of institutions and not university. Where the university is running teachers education course by its department and unit which is adjunct to the university itself. Both these acts operate in the same field and have been enacted with reference to same entries in the union list and on the concurrent list. The language adopted in the enactment makes it absolutely clear that the University which is an examining body and maintains its own standard is not required to seek recognition for offering a course and training in teachers' education. He has relied upon Bharthidasan University and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 676, in which the Supreme Court was considering AICTE Act which is pari materia with NCTE Act. Section 10 of the AICTE Act makes it clear that whenever the Act refer a University the same has been specifically provided in the provision of the Act. The definition of technical institution cannot include a University. There is a clear intention of the legislature that an institution whether university or otherwise is to be treated as technical institutions by the Act and thus the power to grant approval for starting new technical institution and for introduction of new course or programme does not cover university but only technical institution.
9. Sri Anil Tiwari further submits that so far as five affiliated Colleges are concerned the university had initially made an application for granting recognition to these colleges on 15.5.1997. This application according to him should be treated under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act and thus the University and the institutions were entitled to continue with the courses of teachers' education. The 'Shiksha Shashtri' course was recognised by University Grants Commission Act 1956 and was included at Serial No. 38 of the Schedule under Section 22(3) of the Act. The Council made an advertisement providing a last date for making application for recognition upto 31.3.1999. The University as well as all affiliated colleges had made their applications for their recognition upto November, 1997 and thus they could pursue the courses. Each of the colleges was affiliated to the university and was maintaining standards for running the teachers training classes fixed by the university which is an old and established institution. The permission granted for the academic session 1999-2000 and the recognition granted to all the colleges for the year 2000-2001 cured any defect in making applications and also established that the colleges had infrastructure and other standard for teaching and these students in these colleges who were not at a fault should not be deprived of public employment and opportunity to take the special B.T.C. course 2004 for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior High Schools run by the Basic Education Board in U.P. He has also relied upon judgment in J.N. Gantara v. Morvi Municipality 1996 9 SCC 495 in submitting that where statute prescribing the manner in which powers has to be exercised the power must be exercised in that manner alone for the proposition that until Regional Committees were constituted and the guidelines were framed, the application for recognition had no meaning whatsoever and that the proviso to Section 14(1) to that extent should be read down to extend the dates until regulations were framed by the Council or granting recognition. He has also relied upon judgment in P. Kashi Lingan v. P.S.G. College of Technology 1995 Supp. 2 SCC 348; Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.V. Charitable Trust and Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 477 and Ambika Shikshan Sansthan v. Vice Chancellor 2002 (2) ALL. M.R. 752 (Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court) holding that the provisions of NCTE Act 1993, will become applicable to institution only after regulations were framed in 1998 and that the earlier general regulations of 1995 will not apply to educational programme and technical education.
10. Sri Manish Goel appearing for Hemlata Gaur with degree in Shiksha Shashtri (B.Ed.) in the year 1998-99 from the Faculty of Education of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi submits that it is not necessary in the University to obtain recognition under the NCTE Act 1993, which has same purpose to achieve. The scheme of NCTE Act 1993 discloses that the University is a separate entity from the institutions. It has a role of the examining body. The Institutions are affiliated to a University. Where the university is itself imparting teachers' education, it could not be treated to be an affiliated institutions. The scheme of the Act does not provide any University running teachers' training courses to obtain recognition. So far B.Ed. is concerned the conditions of recognition were extended under the regulations for distance education. There are different norms and standard of institutions offering B.Ed. course and institution offering correspondence education and open and distance learning education, the Shiksha Shashtri (B.Ed.) by the Faculty of the University is duly recognised by the U.G.C. Act 1956. The petitioner as such cannot be denied public employment and that the provisions of Section 17(4) of NCTE Act 1993 do not come into play in the matter where the degree has been awarded from the University. He has relied Upon judgments in Dr. Arun Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar 1991 Supp 1 SCC 287 where the Supreme Court held that recognition of the course started by the University with the consent of Medical Council of India and the degree recognised by the State has to be considered for appointment to the post under the State Government and Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982 SC 933, Bhartiya Homoeopathic College Bharatpur v. Students Council of Homoeopathic Medical College Jaipur (1998) 2 SCC 449. He has also pleaded the case of students who were taking education in a University in a course which was recognised both the UGC Act 1956 and the State Government and has invoked equity in that favour of petitioners for public employment.
11. Sri Jagdish Pathak appearing for students of the Affiliated Colleges submits that NCTE Act 1993 does not have power to de recognise the degree of B.Ed. (Shisha Shashtri) awarded by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University and its Affiliated Colleges. Any order/conditions regarding withdrawal refusal to grant recognition has to be passed by Regional Committee and is to be published in the official gazette under Rule 17 (2)(b) of the NCTE Act 1993 and should be published in official gazette for general information. Since no such information was published, the students cannot be faulted in taking admission in these colleges and pursuing the course. It is the NCTE which is responsible for not warning the students by publishing the refusal of recognition in official gazette. The innocent students, who has passed the entrance test deposited fees and have obtained the degrees after the examination from old and reputed university recognised by the UGC, and the State Government, should not be allowed to suffer. He has relied upon judgments in Kr. Rohini Singh v. Visitor B.H.U. Presidents of India and Ors. 1991 (1) AWC 3989; Mahrishi Dayanand University v. M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education 2002 (7) SCC 746; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ring Singhal 2000 (9) SCC 391.
12. The validity of the Act has been upheld in Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kalra 2002 (8) SCC 228. The questions arising for consideration in this writ petition are whether the University under the scheme of the NCTE Act 1993, is a separate entity from the Institutions as defined under the Act, and is not required to obtain recognition from the Regional Committee in pursuing the teachers training courses in the department or unit of the university and further whether the colleges affiliated to the university defaulted in applying for recognition and therefore the degrees awarded by them in the year 1996-1997, 1997-98, 1998-99 are valid qualifications in teachers' training course for public employment. Lastly the court has been called upon to adjust equities for the students who had pursued the course recognised by the UGC Act 1956 as these colleges had defaulted in making applications for recognition before the prescribed dates.
13. Sri Rajeev Joshi appearing for National Council of Teachers' Education submits that the University is not a separate entity than the Institutions as defined under the NCTE Act of 1993. He submits that the NCTE Act 1993 even if covers the same field has been enacted subsequent to UGC Act 1956 and operates in a well defined area namely the teachers training and thus even if the course is recognised by the UGC and the State Government after enforcement of NCTE Act 1993, the university was also required to apply and to obtain recognition in accordance with Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act 1993. He further submits that the University and the clause Affiliated Colleges to university where restrained from admitting students in 1997-98, 1998-99. They were not given permission to run the courses. The period of six months under the proviso to Section 14(1) is applicable to a course for training in teachers education offered immediately before the appointed day, i.e. 17.8.1995. The Regional Committees were established by notification dated 3.11.1995 with immediate effect. It was published in Official Gazette on 6.1.1996. The regulations for recognition were notified on 29.12.1995. In the present case the University or the colleges did not apply within six months, from the appointed day and thus the degrees awarded to the students contrary to the provisions of the Statute are not valid. The permission was granted for the year 1999-2000 and thereafter recognition was given after satisfaction that the faculty and the colleges were offering courses in accordance with the regulations. The NCTC Act 1993 was enacted with an object to establish National Council of Teachers Education with a view to achieve, plan and coordinate development of the teachers education system throughout the country. The regulations and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected thereof. The NCTE Act 1993 defines the 'examining body', the 'institution' and the 'university' under Section 2(d)(e) and (n) respectively. These definitions, however, are for the purposes of understanding the expressions used in various provisions of the Act. The word 'institutions' in Section 14 is not restricted to the institutions other than University. Section 16 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being force no examining body shall on or after the appointed day (a) grant the affiliation whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution or (b) hold examination whether provisional or otherwise for a course or training conducted by a recognised institutions, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. This restriction of holding examination on the affiliating body in a course of training conducted by the institution other than recognised institutions makes clear that the University which is affiliating body is not to allow students to admit in any examination unless the course is recognised.
14. Section 14(3) of NCTE 1993 requires the Regional Committee after receiving an application from the institution concerned to be satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that if fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institutions for a course of training in teacher education as may be determined by regulations. These regulations have to be applied to all the institutions. If the University running such a course in its own faculty, department or unit does not have the requisites as provided in sub Section (3) (a) of Section 14, it can also be de-recognised by the Regional Committee.
15. In Bharthidasan University and Ors. (supra) the issue involved was with regard to commencement of the course in technology such an information technology and management, engineering and bio-technology etc. The Supreme Court after examining the provisions of AICTE Act found that Section 10(k) does not cover a University but only technical institutions and that regulations cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply to Universities and the Act maintained a complete dichotomy between a University and a technical institution. In Section 2(h) of AICTE Act the technical institution is defined to mean an institution not being a University, which offers course of programmes of technical education and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may in consultation with the Council by notification in the official gazette declare as technical institution. There is no such exclusion of the University in the definition of the word 'institution' in NCTE Act, 1993, and no such dichotomy is maintained between a University as an examining and affiliating body and the institutions affiliated to the university. There is no such provision in NCTE Act 1993 as in the AICTE Act, to make inspections of any department and departments and to advise UGC for declaring an institution imparting technology education as a Deemed University.
16. As discussed above the UGC Act 1956 in a general Act and that NCTE Act 1993 was enacted as special Act to operate in the field of teachers' education. The NCTE Act 1993 does not envisage separate standards for financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and curriculum for the Universities and institutions. The power to make regulations under Section 31 of the Council do not provide separate standards in Universities and institutions in order to achieve the objects of the Act. The norms, guidelines and standards under the Guidelines under Section 32 to be framed by the Council have to be common to operate in the entire country. There is no exemptions or concessions granted to any regional ethos or objects to be achieved by Universities in different parts of the country. The norms, guidelines and standards made by the Council will supersede any standards which may have been made by University Grants Commission or State Government for teachers education in the University and the institutions. Any other interpretation will defeat the object and purpose of NCTE Act 1993.
17. The NCTE Act 1993 clearly visualised that it will take some times in establishment of Council and Regional Committees and to prepare guidelines under Section 32 of the Act. At the same time it was found necessary to enforce the provisions of the Act expeditiously, and thus the institutions offering a course or training in teachers education were provided an opportunity to make applications for recognition, to apply for recognition within six months to the establishment of the regional committees and to continue with the course until the disposal of the application. The word before the appointed day under the proviso to Section 14(1) refers to courses for training in teachers education offered by institutions before that date. It is defined under Section 2(a) to mean the date of establishment of National Council of Teachers Education i.e. 17.8.1995. These institutions were required to make applications to Regional Committees, which were constituted on 3.11.1995, and notified on 6.1.1996. The constitution and notification of regional committee was within six months of the establishment of the Council. It is relevant to note here that the academic session ordinarily begins in July and continues upto April/May in the next year. The Council was established on 17.8.1995 and Regional Committees were established w.e.f. 3.11.1995. Sri Rajeev Joshi appearing for the Council as such rightly states that those institutions which were offering : teachers training courses were entitled to continue with the courses for the academic session 1995-96. They however could only continue with the courses in the next academic session if they had applied for recognition to the Regional Committees, which were fully constituted and were functional from 6.1.1996, unless the application for recognition was rejected. The university as well as affiliated Colleges were fully aware of the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the University had made an application for recognition on 15.5.997 i.e. within six months of the date of establishment pf the Regional Committees. The affiliated Colleges could, therefore, have pursued their courses only after application and thereafter until disposal of their applications.
18. There is no such provision in the Act or any Regulations permitting a single application to be made by the University for recognition of the teachers training course of the Faculty of the university and all the affiliated Colleges. The application by the University did not give details of the infrastructure and number of seats and teachers in each of its affiliated Colleges. This application, therefore, was not valid for the affiliated Colleges. At best it could be treated as valid for the Faculty of Education in the university.
19. I find that these affiliated Colleges did not make any application within the period prescribed in the proviso to Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act 1993, and further these affiliated Colleges, which have their own managements have not approached this court for seeking relief either for themselves or for its students. These institutions were clearly informed by the NRC, NCTE Jaipur not to admit any students in the year 1997-98. 1998-99. The institutions did not care to respond and thus the degrees offered by them for academic sessions 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 cannot be treated to be recognised. The students having these degrees are not entitled to any public employment in consequence of Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the act. So far the Faculty of Education of the University is concerned. I find that it had applied for recognition for the academic session 1996-97, on 15.5.1997. The Council admits the receipt of the application on 24.5.1997. The NRC, NCTE Jaipur in its several communications to the university on 14.10.1997 informed not to admit the students for the session of 1997-98 without recognition/permission of NRC, NCTE Jaipur, and thereafter similar instructions were sent on 25.8.1998 for academic session 1998-99. The University which had applied for recognition of the course for its Faculty of Education, however, was not restrained or informed not to admit students for 1996-97. The students, who had applied for 'Shiksha Shashtri' course from Faculty of Education Varanasi for the academic year 1996-97, therefore were entitled to continue with the course and their degrees were not de-recognised as the Regional Committee had not rejected and notified the rejection of its application for the year 1996-97. I find that the students of the academic session 1996-97, so far of the Faculty of Education of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University who have successfully completed the course and are were awarded with Shiksha Shastri Degrees are entitled to the benefit of proviso to Section 14(1) and that their degrees are valid for the purpose of public employment.
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 pleading dilute the provisions of the Act and the standards of education. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahid Rao Ram Dal 1992 4 SCC 435 followed in State of Punjab v. Renuka Singhal 1994 1 SCC 175 the Supreme court held as follows:
"10. In Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalaya v. Site 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 unrecognized 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 awaking 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 endowed and energized 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 no 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 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 of 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 damage to the students whose careers are seriously jeopardized 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.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the course of 'Shiksha Shastri' as equivalent to B.Ed. officered by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, from the Faculty of Education of the University and its affiliated Colleges is valid qualification up to year 1995-96, before the provisions of NCTE Act of 19993 became applicable and then after for academic session 1999-2000 when permission was granted by Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur for running the course in the Faculty as well as affiliated Colleges. The course of study offered by the Faculty of Education of the University is also valid as it had applied under proviso to Section 14(1) and NCTE Act 1993 and no restrain order or refusal was communicated to the University. The degrees, however, for the academic year 1996-97, pursued in the affiliated Colleges of the University and for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, both for the Faculty of Education by the University and the affiliated Colleges is not valid, as the University and Colleges were not recognised for these academic-sessions. These qualifications shall not be treated to be valid for the purposes of pursuing Special B.T.C. Course 2004 and public employment.
24. The students, who have obtained 'Shiksha Shastri' degree from the University and Colleges upto 1995-96; from the Faculty of Education of the University for the year 1996-97 and from the University and affiliated Colleges for 1999-2000 and thereafter are valid. These students shall be at liberty to make appropriate representations to the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, U.P. Lucknow along with copy of this judgment and their particulars which shall be decided in accordance with directions issued in these judgments within four weeks of such communication.
25. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.