Mahendra Nath Mudoi v. The S tate of Assam) has declared the Assam Secondary Education
Case Details
WP(C) 6330/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S. Choudhury, Ms. D. Borgohain, Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, Ms. H. Das, Mr. J. Payeng, Dr. B. Ahmed and Mr. N. Baruah, who are representing the petitioners in these cases. The authorities of the Education Department are represented by M r. A. Deka, Standing Counsel. The UGC is represented by Mr. A. Chamuah, Standin g Counsel. Mr. A.R. Bhuiyan appears for the C.M.J University, Meghalaya. Some of the private respondents whose entitlement to function as Headmaster/Assistant H eadmaster on the basis of B.Ed Degrees obtained by them from non-recognized univ ersities/institutions, are being represented by advocates Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, Mr . M. Das and Mr. J. Saikia. 2. The issue that is required to be answered is whether B.Ed Degree obtaine d from universities/institutions like Bharatiya Siksha Parishad, U.P., C.M.J. U niversity, Meghalaya, Naba Bharat Shiksha Parishad, Orissa etc. have any legal v alidity for considering promotion to the post of Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster . The concerned universities/institutions which awarded the B.Ed Degree throu gh Distance Mode were not accorded any approval by the National Council for Teac hers Education (NCTE) and accordingly it is argued that the B.Ed Degrees obtain ed from such Institutions/Universities can’t have any legal validity. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director of Secondary Education, A 3. ssam, it is averred that the Bharatiya Siksha Parishad, U.P. is an unauthorized institute which is neither recognized by the UGC or by the NCTE and therefore th e B.Ed Degree awarded by the said Institute is not valid for any purpose. The St ate Counsel argues that in order to confer a valid B.Ed Degree, the universities /institutions must be recognised and prior approval from the UGC, NCTE etc. is n ecessary and since the Institutes which awarded the B.Ed Degrees are not recogni zed, the State should be permitted to take appropriate action against those who are claiming higher position, on the basis of unrecognised B.Ed Degree.
Legal Reasoning
4. The Standing Counsel for the UGC, Mr. A. Chamuah, submits that none of t he universities/institutions from where the B.Ed Degree have been secured were recognized by the UGC. Moreover, the NCTE had not accorded any approval to these universities/institutions which awarded the B.Ed Degree in these cases. 5. Some of the Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster have argued that since this Court in a recent judgment in the WP(C) 1526/2012 (Mahendra Nath Mudoi vs. The S tate of Assam) has declared the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized) Servi ce Rules, 2003 to be ultra vires and unconstitutional, their continuance in the higher post on the basis of B.Ed Degree secured by them from unrecognized instit utions, should not be disturbed as B.Ed Degree is not a pre-requisite now for th e post of Headmaster. However the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized) Ser vice Rules, 1982 envisages preference for B.Ed Degree holders for appointment to the post of Headmaster. Mr. A. Deka, Standing Counsel, Education in response su bmits that the State has filed Review Petition 21/2013 to challenge the decision in Mahendra Nath Mudoi (supra) and that the Review Court after hearing the Rev iew Petition has passed status quo order on 5.3.2013. Accordingly the department al lawyer submits that the requirement of the B.Ed Degree for the purpose of bei ng posted as Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster will abide by the Court’s decision in the Review petition No.21/2013. 6. The Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 has recognized the primacy of the NCTE in mai ntenance of Standard of education of teachers, ahead of the States and Universit ies. Furthermore since NCTE was formed under the NCTE Act, 1993, a special law m ade by the parliament, the Court declared that NCTE’s authority will prevail in professional education of teachers including teachers training programme. 7. In an earlier decision in Prof. Yashpal vs. State of Chhattisharh report ed in (2005) 5 SCC 420, the Supreme Court had held that interest of society requ ires that the holder of an academic degree possesses the requisite proficiency a nd expertise in the subject the degree certifies. The role of the UGC in maintai ning uniformity of high standard was acknowledged by the Apex Court in this deci sion. 8. The concerned University shall ensure that no Off Campus centre/study ce In the context of Off Campus Centres operated by the Universities beyond their territorial jurisdiction the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department had issued the O.M. dated 9.7.2012 on the functi oning of Off Campus Centres outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the conce rned University. The relevant portion of the O.M. is extracted : (cid:28)(1) ntre and the centres operating through franchises are opened by the University o utside their specific territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’bl e Supreme Court of India Prof. Yashpal-vs-Govt. of Chhattishgarh. (2) In case a University has already started an Off-campus study centre viol ating the Supreme Court’s order and the centres are operating through franchise in the State the same is to be closed immediately. (3) No distance Education programme shall be started without the prior appro val of the distance Education Council, the Regulatory Body for Distance Educatio n Programmes. (cid:29) 9. In another recent decision in National Council For Teacher Education vs. Venus Public Education Society reported in (2013) 1 SCC 223, the Supreme Court inter alia, has held that : (cid:28) & &.. Without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the University/examining body , the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institut ion is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the insti tution has recognition and affiliation. The institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the a nxious enthusiasm to commercialised education and earn money forgetting the fact um that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expec ted to be Argus-eyed. The basis motto should have been (cid:28)transparency (cid:29). Unfortuna tely, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited character istics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountab le to law. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent on ground of sympathy is not acceptable and, according ly the same is repelled. (cid:29) & & &. (cid:29) 10. In the context of the issue raised in these cases, one must bear in mind that quality of education is largely determined by the skill and commitment of the teachers. The B.Ed curriculum is designed to empower a person with practical knowledge of teaching. When a person obtains a B.Ed degree, he gets exposed all the basics of teaching methodology without which, the education of the teacher is incomplete. Practice teaching is a compulsory paper of the B.Ed curriculum an d naturally practice teaching will hardly be effective in distance mode teaching imparted by the institutions with which we are concerned in these cases. Submis sion is made that some of the teachers who obtained the B.Ed degree hadn’t avail ed leave to pursue their lessons and yet they were awarded the degree by these i nstitutions. 11. While we are discussing the issues from the perspective of the teachers, we must not forget the interest of the students who are the future of our count ry. If they are taught by unqualified teachers, the quality of their education w ill suffer and the net result will be a generation of students exposed to teachi ng by underqualified teachers. Subjecting the students to untrained teachers wil l not only victimize the students but would also undermine the future human reso urces of the State. State’s interest requires that teaching is imparted only by well trained teachers who have secured their B.Ed degree from institutions recog nized by statutory bodies like NCTE, UGC etc. 12. Moreover the nature of the B.Ed curriculum is such that the degree can’t be earned by pursuing the course in the distance mode as practical teaching is an important subject to be taught to the aspiring teachers. Therefore in order t o protect the interest of our future generation from the vagaries of untrained t eachers and to ensure the purity and quality of teaching in the schools is maint ained, it is necessary that only properly trained teachers are allowed to impart teaching to the students. As the role of the NCTE has been recognized as the no dal body to ensure quality of education of teachers and approval and recognition for the institutions imparting training to teachers is mandatory, it is difficu lt to accord legitimacy to B.Ed degree, which are acquired from unapproved insti tutions. In my considered opinion, such B.Ed degree should not be permitted to b e used to confer legitimacy for an aspiring teacher whether in the context of ap pointment, promotion or pay upgradation. 13. On consideration of all the above and particularly the decision of the A pex Court in National Council For Teacher Education (supra) and the O.M. dated 9.7.2012 of the Government of Assam and having noted that for imparting B.Ed deg ree by the Bharatiya Siksha Parishad, U.P., C.M.J. University, Meghalaya, Naba B harat Shiksha Parishad, Orissa, prior approval was not accorded by the NCTE to i mpart teachers education, I am of the view that the B.Ed Degree awarded by thes e institutions are not legally valid. Therefore the B.Ed Degree holders from su ch unapproved institutions can’t claim appointment, promotion or higher pay. It is declared accordingly. But in so far as the relevance of a legally valid B.Ed Degree for the purpose of appointment/advance increment/promotion etc., since th e issue is being examined by the Division Bench in the Review Petition 21/2013, this Court doesn’t make any order on that aspect of the matter. 14. Consequently having declared that the B.Ed Degree obtained from Bharati ya Siksha Parishad, U.P., C.M.J. University, Meghalaya, Naba Bharat Shiksha Pari shad, Orissa etc. which are unapproved by NCTE to be invalid in the eye of law, the State is directed to take appropriate steps for ensuring that no benefit is enjoyed by anyone on the strength of the invalid B.Ed Degree secured from Intui tions which are not approved by the NCTE. Interim orders in these cases will abi de by the declaration made in this order. 15. cost.
Decision
Cases are disposed of with the aforesaid direction without any order on