SANJAI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, in support of this appeal. Mr. Kushwaha, learned standing Counsel, appears for the respondents.

(2.) THE appellants are students, who claim to have done one year's course in Diploma in Physical Education from an institution in district Balia. What is relevant to note, is that this institution applied for recognition of its course to ncte on 22. 11. 1997, but that recognition application has been rejected on 8. 10. 1999. The appellants claim to have done that course during the year 1998-99. Reliance is placed on the proviso to section 14 of the NCTE Act, which permits any such institution to continue such course for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition, or till the disposal of the application. Mr. Khare, submits that on the strength of it, the diploma obtained for that course should be treated as valid diploma.

(3.) IN our view, such an interpretation cannot be given. The moment recognition application is rejected, it will relate retrospectively. That apart, the other submission of Mr. Khare is that in the case of Ekta Shukla v. State of U. P. and others, 2006 1 ESC 531, the Division Bench has taken a view relying upon section 14 of the NCTE Act, that during such period the certificate given will have to be considered as valid, for the Special B. T. C. Course. It is another matter that in that judgment, the situation was different in the sense the recognition application of the institution was not rejected. We would like to refer to the fact that this judgment of the Division Bench has not considered the judgment of the apex Court in Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi, 2003 97 FLR (SC) 146, wherein the Apex Court in para 8, observed that it is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made.