ISHWARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application.

(2.) SINCE counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties this Court proceeds to, hear this matter and dispose of finally under the Rules of the Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per advertisement, the only requirement was B. Ed. to be undergone from a recognized University or College as institutional candidate and the petitioner could not have been non -suited only on the ground that the said course was integrated (Akikrit ). He further submitted that National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "wife 1995 Act") itself came into existence in 1995 and, therefore, the course of B. Ed. passed by the petitioner prior to enforcement of the said Act was a valid course which was passed from a University duly established under Madhya Pradesh Act No. 9 of 1991 and, therefore, his degree was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as '1956 Act') and, as such, the impugned order is patently illegal. He submits that there is no distinction between the B. Ed. course run by various-Universities and once a course has been duly conducted by the University and the incumbent has undergone the same as an institutional candidate, number of subjects or duration or any other difference in B. Ed. course run by the University would not make any difference so long the course is duly conducted by the University and has the standard of graduation in education training course.