STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. JABRA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.9.2004 rendered by the

(2.) Cross-objection has been filed in this appeal, which has been tagged with the appeal. Vide order dated 15.7.2004, the cross-objection was ordered to be treated as an application in the appeal and ordered to be heard alongwith the appeal.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner - a graduate in Arts did his graduation in Education from Barkatullah Khan University, Bhopal by correspondence course. The Chief Executive Officer-cum- Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jalore vide notification dated 15.6.1998 invited applications for the post of teacher Grade III. The qualifications of the candidates have been advertised in Annexure 1. The respondent-petitioner applied for the said post and also appeared in the interview. In the merit list, placed on the notice board showing the names of the candidates interviewed and percentage of marks secured by them, the name of respondent- petitioner has been shown to have secured about 73.84% marks. However, the final list could not be published on account of stay granted by this Court. A final select/merit list containing names of 306 candidates was declared wherein 156 candidates were found suitable for giving appointment in general category and rest in the reserved category. In pursuance thereof, appointment orders were issued with a direction that the successful candidates shall join their post on 1.7.1999 on the new academic session. The last candidate, who has been shown in the final merit list, has secured 72.398 marks. The appointment has been denied to the respondent-petitioner on the ground that the qualification of B.Ed. correspondence course secured by him from Bhopal University is not recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (for short "NCTE"). This information has been conveyed to the respondent-petitioner by the office of Zila Parishad, Jalore. The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (for short "the Act of 1993") has come into force in the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 1.7.1995. As per the communication of the NCTE dated 10.7.1997, the regulations framed by the Government of India were published in the Government of India Gazette dated 24.2.1996. Thus, the process of recognizing degrees could not be commenced before 24.2.1996. The NCTE itself issued the communication dated 10.7.1997 and also issued another public notice in regard to the institutions concerning the Teachers Education informing the institutions that the applications for recognition are required to be submitted by 17.8.1997 instead of 15.5.1997. The Assistant Registrar, Kurkushetra University wrote a letter dated 6.8.1958 to Rammurti Beniwal mentioning therein that NCTE vide letter dated 26.2.1996 has informed the University of Kurukshetra that for the present academic year 1995-96 the status quo was allowed to be maintained. The regional Director, NCTE wrote a letter to Shri Tirth Raj Rankawat being in the subject matter of the recognition of the degree granted by the Barkatualla Khan University, Bhopal for the year 1995-96, wherein it has been stated that the prescribed norms are applicable from Session, 1996-97. The respondent-petitioner had submitted that he cannot be denied appointment to the post of teacher grade III on the ground that the degree is not recognized by NCTE. The respondent-petitioner in the writ petition has taken the stand that he sought admission in the B.Ed. Correspondence course from the Barkatulla Khan University before the Act of 1993 came into force. The academic year started on 3.7.1995 and he completed the course in the year 1996 although the formal degree was granted in March, 1997. In this regard, it is apparent from letter of the Assistant Registrar from the Kurukshetra University dated 6.8.1998 that the NCTE allowed the status quo to be maintained in regard to the present academic year 1995-96. The respondent-petitioner pursued his studies in the academic year 1995-96. If NCTE allows the course to be continued, to undo the degree will more or less in a way amount to in effect its de-recognition from retrospective effect. This cannot be allowed to be done. In these circumstances, the respondent- petitioner pleaded that the degree granted to him cannot be allowed to stand annulled as the Act of 1993 cannot have retrospective operation to take away the rights which accrued to him on account of admission to the academic year 1995-96 and more so when the NCTE allowed the University to continue the course. The respondent-petitioner has been denied appointment while the persons less meritorious than the respondent-petitioner have been given appointment. In these circumstances, the respondent-petitioner preferred the writ petition with the following reliefs :-