SUNEEL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims that he has passed his B.P.Ed. examination from Sri Narhaji Mahavidyalaya Narhi, Rasra, District Ballia in academic session1999-2000. PETITIONER has stated that said institution was given temporary recognition for academic session 1999-2000 for period of one years by the National Council for Teacher Education vide letter dated 6.9.1999. Thereafter, again said recognition was extended for period of two years vide letter dated 25.9.2000. PETITIONER claims that he has applied for special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 and was selected. PETITIONER submits that he was called for counselling and after due verification of the document, was sent for training on 1.9.2008. PETITIONER has contended that due certificate was given to him after completion of the training. Partitioner submits that thereafter, he was prevented from appearing in examination. At the said juncture he has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.450 of 2009 and this court passed following order, which is being extracted below:- " on a mention being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition has been taken up out of turn. The petitioner applied for Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 in which he was selected and has also completed his training. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 9th and 10th of January, 2009 has been fixed for examination of those applicants who had been selected and had underwent the requisite training but now by an order dated 24.12.20098(Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the petitioner has been restrained from appearing in the written examination. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition. Perusal of Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition indicates that his B.P.Ed. Certificate was found to be correct by an order of the Principal dated 3rd June, 2008(Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition). Consequently, prima facie it appears that the petitioner has wrongly been restrained from appearing in the examination. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.s 1 and 2 will file counter affidavit within three weeks. List for admission thereafter. As an interim measure, the petitioner is permitted to appear in the written examination which is going to be held on 9th and 10th of January, 2009 but his result will not be declared till further orders of this court. Certified copy of this order shall be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. Counter affidavit has been filed in the present case and therein it has been stated as follows:- "As per information made available by the N.C.T.E. On its own website, the institution from which the petitioner has completed his B.P.Ed. Was recognised by order dated 25.7.2000. It is clear that the institution for the first time recognised on 27.7.2000. So far as the temporary recognition, there is no provision under the N.C.T.E. Act for temporary recognition. Provision under section 14(1) of N.C.T.E. Act clearly proves that there is a provision for recognition in case the institution fulfil the requisite criteria. There is no whisper in the said act with respect to temporary recognition. Assuming without admitting that there is no provision of temporary recognition, yet the said information is not available on the website on the N.C.T.E. A copy of the extract of information made available on the website of N.C.T.E. Is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 to this affidavit. It is clear from the mark sheet annexed by the petitioner that the petitioner had completed his B.P.Ed in academic session 1999-2000, undoubtedly prior to grant of recognition by the N.C.T.E. To the said institution, therefore, as per terms and condition mention in the advertisement the petitioner is not eligible for participating in the process of selection in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 That the contents of paras no. 7, to 9 of the writ petition need no comments being matter of records, however, it is submitted that on the basis of quality point marks, the petitioner was selected for said training and was send for training but after verification of record this fact was come to the notice of answering respondent that the petitioner had not completed his B.P.Ed from and institution recognised by N.C.T.E. Therefore, the petitioner was not permitted for appearing in the examination. That the contents of para no. 10 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. Since the initial selection of the petitioner was bad as he was not at all eligible for training in question, therefore, after verification the petitioner was not permitted for appearing in the said examination. As stated above the institution from which the petitioner had obtained his B.P.Ed. Was recognised for the first time by order dated 25.7.2000 by the N.C.T.E. And the petitioner had completed his B.P.Ed in academic section 1999- 2000 therefore, the B.P.Ed certificate of the petitioner was not from an institution recognised by the N.C.T.E. And accordingly the petitioner was not permitted for appearing in the examination. That the contents of paras nos. 11 and 12 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. The claim of the petitioner of considered on the basis of document adduced by the petitioner. As stated above as per information made available by the N.C.T.E. On its own website the institution known as Sri Narheji Mahavidyalaya Rasra Ballia was recognised for the first time on 25.7.2000 and petitioner had completed his B.P.Ed in academic session 1999-2000, therefore, the petitioner was not found eligible for training in question. That the contents of para nos. 13 and 15 of the writ petition are completely incorrect and are denied. The detail reply has already been submitted in earlier paragraph hence repetition is not required. The present petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed. Based on the same it has been contended then no relief can be accorded to the petitioner. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and reiterating that of writ petition. After pleadings mentioned above, have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, petitioner has been meted with arbitrary and discretionary treatment in the hand of the Principal D.I.E.T. By treating the institution in question as unrecognised, ignoring the documentary evidence and as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submission, Sri K.K. Chand, learned Standing on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and no interference be made. After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position which is emerging in the present case is that in Special B.T.C. Course, 2007, petitioner applied for consideration of his claim and on merit, petitioner was selected and was called for counselling and after due verification was done he was sent for training on the strength of the order dated 1.9.2008 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia. PETITIONER thereafter, completed his training for the period w.e.f. 1.9.2008 to 14.12.2008 and due certificate was also issued. Thereafter, on 24.12.2008 order was passed mentioning therein that on the website which is available as per the same, petitioner certificate has not been certified and verified, as such it is not possible to permit the petitioner to undertake examination. Against the said action petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition, and on the strength of the interim order, petitioner claims to have undertaken examination, but his result has not been declared. In the present case in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition categorical statement of fact has been mentioned that institution namely Sri Narheji Mahavidyalaya Narhi, Rasra, District Ballia was given recognition temporarily in the year 1999-2000 only for a period of one year by National council for Teacher Education. In support of the same, documentary evidence has been filed in the shape of Annexure-RA-2 wherein for academic session 1999-2000 with annual intake of 120 students, permission has been accorded. Most surprising feature is that said statement of fact has not at all been disputed in the counter affidavit and same has not at all been specifically dealt with and only it has been mentioned that from website of the institution from which petitioner has completed his B.P.Ed same was recognised by order dated 25.7.2000 and as such it is clear that institution for the first time was recognised on 25.7.2000. It has been mentioned that as far as temporary recognition is concerned, there is no provision in N.C.T.E. Act for temporary recognition. Fact of the matter is that qua these documents, and qua statement of fact, except for mentioning that there is no provision for temporary recognition, no attempt or endeavour has been made by the State-respondents to assert before this court that at no point of time any such recognition was ever accorded for session 1999-2000 and document which has been filed as Annexure-2 are in any way forged and fabricated or manipulated document. Consequently, in the fact of the present case, once specific statement of fact mentioned in paragraph-5 to the writ petition has not been specifically disputed and only statement of fact has been mentioned that there is no provision of temporary recognition, then in this background said statement of fact being un-rebutted and the document filed as Annexure-RA-2 not being disputed, then there appears to be no legal impediment in treating said B.P.Ed certificate from recognised institution. Consequently, in the fact of the present case, as petitioner already appeared in the examination, as such respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner, preferably within period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. However, it is made clear that in the event there is any doubt in respect of genunity of the document, which has been filed as Annexure-2 dated 6.9.1999, then it will be always open to Director Rajya Shaichshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan Parishad U.P. Lucknow to make inquiry and take appropriate action against the institution in question as well as erring incumbent, but after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as the institution in question. With these observations, writ petition is allowed.